The Right To Bear Arms

[The Derp]

And you haven't raped a little boy YET

Why does your mind automatically go there when it's not even remotely what we're talking about? Something you want to tell us? We know most Conservatives have strange feelings when it comes to children, and you're the ones who support child molesters like Moore in Alabama.

So I'm just going to call you Diddler from now onAnd I told you how I secure my guns. No one is going to steal them because it is physically impossible for anyone to break into my house without setting off an alarm which prompts a call to the police find my gun safe in the basement and crack it and then get away with my firearms. There is no fucking way that safe is going to be jack hammered out of the concrete it is anchored into and carried up the stairs either.

I don't care how secure you think your guns are. As many as 600,000 of you every year think your guns are secure and they're not. You assume the risk when you get a gun. Taking that risk is irresponsible given the chances that your gun will get stolen, be given to someone bad, get lost, or accidentally harm you or someone close to you.

 

[Ame®icano]

Since we're bringing up Kim Jong Un, your approach to gun control would translate into "The United States, Israel, and Great Britain shouldn't be allowed to have nukes, because North Korea can't be trusted with them."

We shouldn't have nukes. No one should. You know who said that? RONALD FUCKING REAGAN.

Nope, he hasn't.

He said he wanted elimination of nukes because nuclear war cannot be won.

 

[Ame®icano]

Since we're bringing up Kim Jong Un, your approach to gun control would translate into "The United States, Israel, and Great Britain shouldn't be allowed to have nukes, because North Korea can't be trusted with them."

We shouldn't have nukes. No one should. You know who said that? RONALD FUCKING REAGAN.

According to you stupid Moon Bats I should have to fill in my swimming pool because there is a chance some child could drown in it one day.

According to their logic, women are responsible for being raped because they have a vagina.

 

[Skull Pilot]

o you are saying that I am negligent even though in 30 years not one of my guns has ever been stolen.

Merely owning a firearm adds risk to you and society. Adding risk is not responsible. You can only call yourself a "responsible gun owner" in the past tense.

See the difference? Now if you said people who don't secure their guns are negligent I would agree with you but you're not saying that are you?

All gun owners are negligent because they all added unnecessary risk to themselves and society. Adding unnecessary risk is an act of selfish irresponsibility. The mere fact you own a gun means you're irresponsible. You can be less negligent, but you are always negligent so long as that firearm is in your possession.

No you're not. You are saying that ALL gun owners are negligent even the millions of them who never had a gun stolen or reported it when it was stolen.You want to live in an all or nothing world but when it's applied to you you call it fallacy

So what if millions haven't had their guns stolen? And millions have had their guns stolen. Since 234,000 guns are stolen on average every year, it takes less than five years for 1 million gun owners to be robbed of their gun(s).

You are still wrong, Diddler.

Tell me how in the 30+ years I have owned guns I have put "society" at risk.

The fact that I won firearms and that any time I am not carrying one or using one they are ALL locked up in a safe that no one is going to get into. MOre cars are stolen that guns so the fact that you own a car is negligent because of the higher risk of that car being stolen.

Your argument is shallow at best because there is not one thing that any person does that does not involve some risk.

 

[Skull Pilot]

o you are saying that I am negligent even though in 30 years not one of my guns has ever been stolen.

Merely owning a firearm adds risk to you and society. Adding risk is not responsible. You can only call yourself a "responsible gun owner" in the past tense.

See the difference? Now if you said people who don't secure their guns are negligent I would agree with you but you're not saying that are you?

All gun owners are negligent because they all added unnecessary risk to themselves and society. Adding unnecessary risk is an act of selfish irresponsibility. The mere fact you own a gun means you're irresponsible. You can be less negligent, but you are always negligent so long as that firearm is in your possession.

No you're not. You are saying that ALL gun owners are negligent even the millions of them who never had a gun stolen or reported it when it was stolen.You want to live in an all or nothing world but when it's applied to you you call it fallacy

So what if millions haven't had their guns stolen? And millions have had their guns stolen. Since 234,000 guns are stolen on average every year, it takes less than five years for 1 million gun owners to be robbed of their gun(s).

Do you think all these guns are stolen one at a time?

The fact that I own guns in no way increases crime because I do not commit crimes.

SOME people steal guns Some people beat their kids. I suppose just the act of having a child is negligent because over 3 million children are abused annually.

 

[Flash]

This anti gun mentality these uneducated low information Moon Bats are showing nowadays is an indication of a mental illness.

Of course these are the same morons that dress up with pink pussy hats and howl at the sky so go figure.

 

[Ame®icano]

And ZERO of my guns have ever been stolen

YET.

None of your guns have been stolen YET.

You're carrying the risk that they will be stolen simply because you have them.

So you can't call yourself "responsible" if you're knowingly taking on risk you can't manage.

Lay off the drugs, s0n.

 

[Flash]

[QU


Do you think all these guns are stolen one at a time?

The fact that I own guns in no way increases crime because I do not commit crimes.

SOME people steal guns Some people beat their kids. I suppose just the act of having a child is negligent because over 3 million children are abused annually.

The Derp (appropriate moniker) wants to have your Constitutional rights taken away because somebody else may do something illegal.

Then these Moon Bats wonder why we ridicule them so much.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And you haven't raped a little boy YET

Why does your mind automatically go there when it's not even remotely what we're talking about? Something you want to tell us? We know most Conservatives have strange feelings when it comes to children, and you're the ones who support child molesters like Moore in Alabama.

So I'm just going to call you Diddler from now onAnd I told you how I secure my guns. No one is going to steal them because it is physically impossible for anyone to break into my house without setting off an alarm which prompts a call to the police find my gun safe in the basement and crack it and then get away with my firearms. There is no fucking way that safe is going to be jack hammered out of the concrete it is anchored into and carried up the stairs either.

I don't care how secure you think your guns are. As many as 600,000 of you every year think your guns are secure and they're not. You assume the risk when you get a gun. Taking that risk is irresponsible given the chances that your gun will get stolen, be given to someone bad, get lost, or accidentally harm you or someone close to you.

OK then why don't you try to find my guns an take them? Tell me how easy it will be for anyone else to do the same

 

[The Derp]

Let's just cut to the chase. Derpderp thinks gun owners are negligent because they DARE to own items he doesn't think should exist, and to hold opinions he doesn't agree with.End of story.

You're all completely going nutty and hysterical.

My point of contention isn't that I don't think these guns should exist; it's not even that I don't think you should be allowed to own one. My contention is that you can't call yourself a "responsible gun owner" because there is no such thing, so let's stop pretending like you are and that somehow justifies the added risk to yourself, your family, and society that you take on by owning a gun.

 

[The Derp]

I don't have any NRA bumper stickers. Or anything that would give away the fact that there are guns in my home.

Great! So your level of negligence is lower in that regard. But the negligence is still there simply by virtue of owning a gun. The negligence only disappears when you give the gun up.

Shit my friends don't even know what guns I own and some don't even know I own guns at all.

That's great. Again, that doesn't eliminate your negligence, it just lowers it.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

o you are saying that I am negligent even though in 30 years not one of my guns has ever been stolen.

Merely owning a firearm adds risk to you and society. Adding risk is not responsible. You can only call yourself a "responsible gun owner" in the past tense.

You suggest that merely owning a gun is adding risk and that if there were no gun owners, the chances of a firearm falling into the wrong hands go to 0%.

By the same principle, driving is adding risk. Every time you get behind the wheel you increase the chances of an accident. In addition, you put the lives of any of your passengers at risk. Every vehicle added to the roads increases those chances. The more vehicles, the greater the chance. If there were no drivers and no vehicles on the road at all, those chances drop to 0%. Ergo, the +/- 40,000 people that died in car accidents in 2015 would still be alive today.

Do you dispute this?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I don't have any NRA bumper stickers. Or anything that would give away the fact that there are guns in my home.

Great! So your level of negligence is lower in that regard. But the negligence is still there simply by virtue of owning a gun. The negligence only disappears when you give the gun up.

Shit my friends don't even know what guns I own and some don't even know I own guns at all.

That's great. Again, that doesn't eliminate your negligence, it just lowers it.

OK Diddler.

Do you have kids?

If you do you are negligent because 3 million kids are abused every year and you just haven't abused your kids YET

 

[The Derp]

You have never caused an accident that killed someone YET.

Right. But that's inherent to everyone. What's specifically inherent to you is that you took on added risk by owning a firearm. So that risk is only specific to you and is added on top of the general risk that society already has. Adding risk isn't responsible. Insurance companies know this. It's their friggin' business model. The more risk you take on, the higher your premiums go. And you're taking on a ton of risk by owning a firearm.

You're carrying the risk that you will make an error in judgment on the road simply because you are driving.

WHICH IS WHY WE MUST HAVE CAR INSURANCE. You seem to be unwittingly arguing for mandatory gun insurance. Which is something I would actually support.

So you can't call yourself a "responsible" driver if you're knowingly taking on risk that you might make a mistake someday and cause an accident that kills someone.You're innocent of vehicular manslaughter until you are not. Because of this, you were never a responsible driver and were always guilty of vehicular manslaughter.See how stupid that sounds?

It doesn't sound stupid at all since everyone is required to have car insurance. So you seem to be arguing that gun owners must get gun insurance. Which is something I could support.

 

[The Derp]

You have just outlined the characteristics of a responsible pool owner. And yet, when a gun owner takes responsible actions such as purchasing the weapon legally, keeping it unloaded and in a gun safe when not in use, and reports it if stolen, he's irresponsible anyway.

The problem is that pools can't be stolen. But guns are; 234,000 on average a year. So guns are inherently much more risky than pools.

You pose a dichotomy of responsible/irresponsible gun owners and cite examples of irresponsible behavior and then when someone counters it with logic, you yank the dichotomy off the table altogether and simply say that all gun owners are irresponsible. As I said before, you can't have it both ways.This is a cheap, childish, petty and intellectually dishonest way of debating.

Of course they're all irresponsible. It's irresponsible to take on unnecessary risk. Any insurer will tell you that.

 

[The Derp]

No pretense involved. You're the one trying to claim that some reported number of household burglaries involving the theft of guns somehow shows irresponsibility. The burden of proof is on you and you fail miserably. 800K-1M cars are stolen ea. year. Does that prove that all car owners are irresponsible?

1. Nearly 100% of car thefts are reported to the police; only 86% of gun thefts are.
2. Cars are insured, guns are not.
3. It doesn't matter if the number of guns stolen a year is *1*, the fact is that simply having the gun opens you up to the risk of having it stolen.
4. Not sure you understand what "burden of proof" means.

You are the one who hasn't got a clue what responsible ownership is. Come back when you at least have enough knowledge to debate the issue.

Responsible gun ownership isn't something that can be determined until after your period of gun ownership ends. Because at any time your gun could get stolen, you could lose it, you could give it to someone bad, or it could go off accidentally and hurt someone. So you've added all that risk to yourself and to society for what? For the unlikely chance that you might be able to use it to defend yourself? It's more likely your gun will get stolen than you will ever use it to kill "a bad guy".

 

[The Derp]

Nothing could be further from the truth. In some cases, a private sale will yield more money. In other cases, someone wants to easily unload a firearm to a friend or relative. There are quite a few legitimate reasons - which is why a criminal purchasing a firearm in a private sale is so rare.

So it's about money then, not safety. It's about money then, not gun rights. Why would a private sale fetch more money without a background check than with one?

And "easily unload"...a curious choice of words there. What makes it easy? That you think you know the person you're selling it to? Tell me, do families and friends not keep secrets from one another?

 

[The Derp]

You continue to take ignorance to unprecedented levels. The NRA isn’t founded, backed, or comprised of corporations. Hell, show me a corporation that doesn’t outlaw firearms in their buildings or on their campuses.

Their political arm sure as shit is. And it's the political arm that does all the advocacy work. You're trying to pretend that political arm doesn't exist. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[The Derp]

The founding fathers gave it to us as our second amendment for a reason.

Yeah, because back in the 1770's, there was no standing army, no FBI, no police, no first responders...and threats of bears and native American attacks were real.

 

[The Derp]

Yeah...it only happens 2.5 million times per year in the U.S.

Which is complete and total bullshit.