What kind of horrible, dangerous places do these people live that hey have to go out armed?

[Daryl Hunt]

Sorry, but if you think you need to be armed at a little girl's soft ball game, you're nuts.

You never know...

Two Dads Get In a Bloody Brawl Over Daughter's Softball Game

Yep. A gun would have come in real handy there.

It's a shame nobody got shot and sent to the morgue that day.

A simple brawl doesn't necessitate a shooting. That's why I carry pepper spray and a boot knife. If those don't get the point across, then out comes the pistol.

What a scary world, eh?

Not really all that scary if you're prepared for whatever might happen.

I might be attacked by a charging Elephant so I need to have my towed 20mm auto cannon behind my truck just in case. Thank you for giving me a reason for that.

 

[hadit]

I carry because the laws of my country and state say I have the right to.

Sorry, but if you think you need to be armed at a little girl's soft ball game, you're nuts.

Not at the game, but to prevent a lunatic who wants to harm little girls, absolutely. Whenever my daughter is at a sporting event i am carrying. It ain't because of the little girls, it's because of the assholes who want to hurt those little girls.

Relax. Your daughter will be fine, Rambo. Nobody is going to harm her at her game.

Until someone does. No one thought someone would shoot at politicians playing softball, until someone did. No one thought someone would shoot at concert attenders, until someone did. The more firsts we see, the more likely that first will happen to you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

or do you think every gun owner is going to break the laws now?

All women can turn tricks; we should restrict their rights, just in case.

some men rape women, we need to now remove the penis from all men "just in case".

Clearly.
All priests can molest children. Disband the churches.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Now as for guns they are cool but you must know there are people like me who want to take out cc people as they are the problem.

How so?

.

 

[BULLDOG]

or do you think every gun owner is going to break the laws now?

All women can turn tricks; we should restrict their rights, just in case.

some men rape women, we need to now remove the penis from all men "just in case".

Nope. Just the ones who like to prance around in public with it exposed.

 

[Edgetho]

I'm sorry -- you actually believe we should restrict the rights of the law abiding because they might commit a crime?
All people? All rights? Or just the people/rights you don't like?

How does your belief support the position that gun violence is at the level where we need to restrict the rights of the law abiding, but not to the level where the law abiding need a gun for self-defense?

While I agree with you 100%, the 2nd Amendment wasn't really adopted so we could fight crime, per se. Shoot Indians? A little bit.

Mostly, it was written and adopted so that, We The People, could never be trampled by an abusive government. Ever again.

Which is 100% why dimocrap scum hate it so much. Elected dimocrap FILTH will even tell you in private that they have no hope of establishing socialism in this Country as long as we have a 2nd Amendment.

THAT is why they're against it.

You need to understand something, people. dimocraps are TOTALITARIAN SCUM. Their goal is the absolute rule over everything you do.

The amount of energy you consume, the amount of pollutants you diffuse from said energy usage, how many children you have, where and if you decide to worship, what you can and can't eat, your freedom of movement..... Everything.

dimocrap scum are totalitarian scum. All you gotta do is open your eyes and look. ALL of their policies are aimed at one thing -- Domination.

Believe it

 

[Wry Catcher]

[
People still die for your supposed right to carry a gun. Possession of a firearm isn't an absolute right.

Since you avoided the issue at hand...
If gun violence doesn't rise to a level where the average person needs a firearm for self-defense, why do we need to further restrict the law abiding in their exercise of the right to keep and bear arms?

Q. If gun violence doesn't rise to a level where the average person needs a firearm for self-defense, why do we need to further restrict the law abiding in their exercise of the right to keep and bear arms?

A. Because no one can predict when the law abiding becomes a law breaker. Regulations, such as requiring a license to own, possess or have in one's custody and control is a minor restriction, as can be seen by the numbers of people licensed to drive, to perform surgery, represent others in court, etc.

Registration of all firearms, focus on the word arms, seems reasonable. Gravity knives, push button knives,
nunchucks are illegal in many states; thus, why can't each state decide on licensing to own or possess them and for them to be registered?

As for arms, do you support the right to your own fragmentation grenade?

i think you mean *IF* the law abiding citizen becomes a law breaker.

or do you think every gun owner is going to break the laws now?

P1 I meant what I wrote: "no one can predict when the law abiding becomes a law breaker"

P2 No, I do not think every gun owner is going to break the law (now or in the future). Yet everyday a gun is used by someone to harm another, and many times people who know the shooter are surprised it was not like him or her.

And, BTW, I don't believe licensing and registration is a panacea, it is nothing more than an effort to reduce all gun violence from mass murders to suicides, and every purpose outside the law.

Thus, the manner in which the gun is obtained by the bad actor becomes necessary. And can be seen as aiding and abetting a murder, or careless disregard for securing the gun, allowing it to be stolen, or selling a gun so it is in the wind.

And if purchased legally, mandatory waiting times and other vetting of the purchaser may be necessary.

Let the people in every state decide on gun control laws by their vote.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No. A sneeze guard won’t help a freak kill a dozen innocent people in seconds nor be used to accidentally blow a hole in the chest of a toddler who finds it in daddy's closet.

Idiot.

You have an unreasonable prejudice toward gun owners. You think we all leave our guns laying around and get drunk, howl at the moon, and shoot up the town.

That is you main problem.

This is how my gun local range operates, and this is how I treat gun safety:
Men banned from gun range after taking selfie with gun

.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'm sorry -- you actually believe we should restrict the rights of the law abiding because they might commit a crime?
All people? All rights? Or just the people/rights you don't like?

How does your belief support the position that gun violence is at the level where we need to restrict the rights of the law abiding, but not to the level where the law abiding need a gun for self-defense?

While I agree with you 100%, the 2nd Amendment wasn't really adopted so we could fight crime, per se. Shoot Indians? A little bit.

Mostly, it was written and adopted so that, We The People, could never be trampled by an abusive government. Ever again.

Which is 100% why dimocrap scum hate it so much. Elected dimocrap FILTH will even tell you in private that they have no hope of establishing socialism in this Country as long as we have a 2nd Amendment.

THAT is why they're against it.

You need to understand something, people. dimocraps are TOTALITARIAN SCUM. Their goal is the absolute rule over everything you do.

The amount of energy you consume, the amount of pollutants you diffuse from said energy usage, how many children you have, where and if you decide to worship, what you can and can't eat, your freedom of movement..... Everything.

dimocrap scum are totalitarian scum. All you gotta do is open your eyes and look. ALL of their policies are aimed at one thing -- Domination.

Believe it

It's people like you who have proved gun control is not only sufficient but necessary.

 

[LoneLaugher]

How many kids at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida would be alive right now if just one or two of the teachers who were near the shooter had been carrying a gun?

Nowadays you never know where you might encounter an armed criminal.

I'm so sick of this argument.
Teachers sign up to get a degree to teach.
Not be the fastest gun in classroom shoot out.
GFY
.

.
.

And those teachers should not carry. Teachers who, however, want to be the last defense their students have when a shooter comes through the door, should be allowed to carry after proper training.

I'll agree to this if you agree to rubberize every surface that children walk on and to install lightning poles wherever children go on campus so as to prevent death or injury from lightning strikes.

They are more likely to die that way.

 

[Edgetho]

It's people like you who have proved gun control is not only sufficient but necessary.

 

[LoneLaugher]

No. A sneeze guard won’t help a freak kill a dozen innocent people in seconds nor be used to accidentally blow a hole in the chest of a toddler who finds it in daddy's closet.

Idiot.

You have an unreasonable prejudice toward gun owners. You think we all leave our guns laying around and get drunk, howl at the moon, and shoot up the town.

That is you main problem.

This is how my gun local range operates, and this is how I treat gun safety:
Men banned from gun range after taking selfie with gun

.

I am a gun owner, moron. And lots of gun owners are idiots who don't properly store them so that kids cannot get them. Moron.

 

[M14 Shooter]

While I agree with you 100%, the 2nd Amendment wasn't really adopted so we could fight crime, per se. Shoot Indians? A little bit.
Mostly, it was written and adopted so that, We The People, could never be trampled by an abusive government. Ever again.

The right to keep and bear arms includes a great many things - including the right to use a firearm in self-defense, exercised individually and/or collectively.
This is the core of the right, and the reason the anti-gun loons oppose it.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

How is it gun violence can be so bad that we need more gun control laws, but people who want to carry a gun to protect themselves are nuts?

Guns may be a good thing. Up to a point. But when it reaches the saturation point like it did sometime after 1866 then the communities need to do some serious regulations and enforcement to bring it back to check. And yes, the cure is extreme. But so is the disease. When the saturation level is dealt with, you can lessen the regulations to a level to deal with things a bit better. "More Guns" is not the answer since we were headed for the Saturation Level for awhile.

You avoided the question. That's OK -- I knew you would.

"Saturation level?
Meaningfully define this and then show how are there.
Then show how being there necessitates further restrictions on the law abiding and their right to keep and bear arms.

I see, If I don't do exactly as you say I am avoiding? You really need to do some reading up on the firearm situation of Dallas Tx in 1888 versus 1871. You can't skirt the fact that we hit the gun saturation level once and it was gun regulations and enforcement that got many communities out of it. Those that didn't ceased to exist. The Wild Wild West only existed from about 1866 to 1971. Part of that was the introduction of some pretty severe gun regulations in the towns and cities starting in 1871. The question should be asked, at what point do we reach the Saturation Point again if we have no Gun regulations? I would say we already reached it long ago but the gun regulations keeps it from becoming the old Wild Wild West all over again for the same reasons that many of the same laws were passed in 1871.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's people like you who have proved gun control is not only sufficient but necessary.

Unsupportable nonsense.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I see, If I don't do exactly as you say I am avoiding?

If you do not address the question, you have avoided the question.
Thus, you avoided the question.

You can't skirt the fact that we hit the gun saturation level....

"Saturation level?
Meaningfully define this and then show how we are there.
Then show how being there necessitates further restrictions on the law abiding and their right to keep and bear arms

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

P1 I meant what I wrote: "no one can predict when the law abiding becomes a law breaker"

We could lock everyone up, so they can't commit crimes, because no one can predict when the law abiding will become a law breaker.

You want a prophylactic approach to law enforcement. That is inherently unacceptable and unworkable.

Thus, the manner in which the gun is obtained by the bad actor becomes necessary. And can be seen as aiding and abetting a murder, or careless disregard for securing the gun, allowing it to be stolen, or selling a gun so it is in the wind.

And if purchased legally, mandatory waiting times and other vetting of the purchaser may be necessary.

There's a more effective method, but that requires personal responsibility. I believe in natural selection. Why do we try to stop it from happening?

Let the people in every state decide on gun control laws by their vote.

On this I agree.

The 2nd Amendment was intended to be a ban on federal power. All federal gun laws should be immediately declared unconstitutional, and let the states decide.



.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I much prefer open carry

Not me. The guy openly carrying the gun is the first target in a shooting.

I always carry concealed.

Now, if more people were carrying in the open, I would feel a little less like a target.



.

The problem is, the gunnutters are the most likely to open carry for intimidation reasons. The last thing I want to be involved in is the cross fire from a few of these real winners. Maybe hiding under the counter waiting for all the bodies to fall ain't such a bad idea afterall.

 

[hadit]

How many kids at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida would be alive right now if just one or two of the teachers who were near the shooter had been carrying a gun?

Nowadays you never know where you might encounter an armed criminal.

I'm so sick of this argument.
Teachers sign up to get a degree to teach.
Not be the fastest gun in classroom shoot out.
GFY
.

.
.

And those teachers should not carry. Teachers who, however, want to be the last defense their students have when a shooter comes through the door, should be allowed to carry after proper training.

I'll agree to this if you agree to rubberize every surface that children walk on and to install lightning poles wherever children go on campus so as to prevent death or injury from lightning strikes.

They are more likely to die that way.

You first have to establish that lightening is striking children while at school. We absolutely know, however, that children do get shot at school. Thankfully, not very often, but they do.

I would prefer that teachers who are so inclined and go through the appropriate training be able to do more than throw pencils and erasers at a shooter, then watch helplessly as the children die, but maybe that's just me.

 

[Edgetho]

The right to keep and bear arms includes a great many things - including the right to use a firearm in self-defense, exercised individually and/or collectively.
This is the core of the right, and the reason the anti-gun loons oppose it.

Crime really didn't exist much in the late 1700's. Hardly at all. And certainly very little in the way of Highwaymen or robbers.

In fact, we didn't have the first Policemen until the 1830's and only then in the biggest cities.

Our Founding Fathers were VERY much anti-government and anti-police. Communities handled law-breakers. Harshly.

Militias were formed for the common defense. Mostly to protect themselves from Indians.

But the real impetus behind the 2nd Amendment was to make the government afraid of The People. Very afraid. As they should be