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

[Daryl Hunt]

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

Saturation means Too Many. Simple as that. You have some that will use them responsible. But you will also have those that won't. The ones that won't are not criminals, just stupid. So we remove the Gun regs. Here is what that looks like.

You are sitting in a Bar drinking your drink quietly. A couple of Drunks gets into it. It starts out as a fist fight but turns into a gun fight. Now, Drunks are poor shots at best. Remember the old song Cow Patty for that gunfight?

 

[M14 Shooter]

"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

Saturation means Too Many. Simple as that.

Objectively define " too many". Show your definition to be sound.

Then show how being at your "saturation level" necessitates further restrictions on the law abiding and their right to keep and bear arms

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

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?

 

[Jitss617]

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.

You will never disarm us. You will lose bad if you tried

 

[Daryl Hunt]

"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

Saturation means Too Many. Simple as that.

Objectively define " too many". Show your definition to be sound.

Then show how being at your "saturation level" necessitates further restrictions on the law abiding and their right to keep and bear arms

Already did using history. We are neither smarter nor more civilized than anyone from the last half of the 19th century. If you think we are then you just lowered the IQ level of all the rest of us by a bit.

 

[Edgetho]

Then show how being at your "saturation level" necessitates further restrictions on the law abiding and their right to keep and bear arms

I believe there are far too many people running around with weapons that shouldn't have them. Most are criminals in illegal possession of firearms but a significant number are regular people who have had no training and have no clue.

Before 1994, before Bill The Rapist Clinton turned this whole thing into a political donnybrook, people just weren't all that interested in owning a hi-powered weapon. Of any kind.

Then dimocrap scum make a political football out of it and banned something called 'Assault Weapons'. Whatever they are.

So now, everybody that didn't have one, had to run out and get one. ASAP. I'm not talking a few hundred, I'm talking millions of people and millions of weapons.

Today, we have way too many people with AK's and AR's who shouldn't even be allowed to own a BB gun.

Why? Because they're afraid dimocrap scum will try to ban them again.

But then, we're talking dimocrap scum. The dumbest dumbfucks to ever live. They created the problem. 100%

dimocraps are the scum of the Earth

Period

 

[M14 Shooter]

Objectively define " too many". Show your definition to be sound.
Then show how being at your "saturation level" necessitates further restrictions on the law abiding and their right to keep and bear arms

Already did using history.

Nowhere have you done any such thing, and you know it.
I accept your concession.

When you can objectively define "too many" and show your definition to be sound, let me know.
When you can show how being at your "saturation level" necessitates further restrictions on the law abiding and their right to keep and bear arms, let me know.

 

[Rustic]

Blame the individuals not the firearm

Exactly. Gun nuts are scary. Most of them that I know, and I know a lot, would benefit from the Barney rule. Allow them one bullet, but they have to keep it in their shirt pocket.

Lol
It’s best if you stay in your safe space...

I'm not afraid to step off of my porch without being armed. You are not. It's obvious who the coward is.

I live in rural America… We don’t have the violence that urban America encourages

You also don't have the numbers of people per square mile either. The more people per square mile, the more gun regulation is needed. You can be as stupid as you want to be if you are the only one around. But be stupid around a large group and there has to be some protections against stupidity built in.

One size doesn't fit all.

Yep, That is why frivolous gun control laws that the progressives are pushing will solve nothing

 

[Rustic]

The thing is the paranoia. They live in the suburbs and think it's downtown Beirut.

Or they know that if they ever need help the cops are too far away to respond in time that is if they respond at all.

That's a dumb excuse. What are the chances of getting into deadly trouble a gun can save you from in suburban America? Especially if you are untrained in it's use? I'd be willing to bet you are more likely to be struck by lighting or hit by a bus.

It only takes one time.

Better to be prepared than not.

There is little or no chance my house will burn down but that doesn't mean I let my insurance lapse.

...and The country is getting more and more socialist. That brings out desperate fucked up people

You have never lived or even visited a real socialist country, kid. I have. The US is not now, will never and never has been a socialist country. It's just a word to you to use to try and belittle others. I know something about the culture you keep tossing around. That culture exists like it does out of choice, not by purpose.

Yes I’ve been to Europe many times, it sucks.
In my whole adolescence life I lived in a purely socialist environment it’s called an Indian reservation.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Objectively define " too many". Show your definition to be sound.
Then show how being at your "saturation level" necessitates further restrictions on the law abiding and their right to keep and bear arms

Already did using history.

Nowhere have you done any such thing, and you know it.
I accept your concession.

When you can objectively define "too many" and show your definition to be sound, let me know.
When you can show how being at your "saturation level" necessitates further restrictions on the law abiding and their right to keep and bear arms, let me know.

You just won an award. The Coveted

idjit award. Enjoy it. Print it out. Wear it with pride. And, and have a nice day.

 

[miketx]

So very often I see conversations such as these:

Astonishing that you cant go for a walk without taking your gun.Its like living in a prison.

You have to wonder what kind of horrible, dangerous places do these people live that hey have to go out armed.

The obvious response:
The same places where we're told gun-violence is -so- bad that we need to further restrict the law abiding in their exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.
If gun violence is indeed that bad, how is it unreasonable to carry a gun for self-defense?

Why is the people who ask this question never want to discuss the answer?
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?

What kind of places? The kind overrun with criminals liberals have released from prison or failed to prosecute.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Objectively define " too many". Show your definition to be sound.
Then show how being at your "saturation level" necessitates further restrictions on the law abiding and their right to keep and bear arms

Already did using history.

Nowhere have you done any such thing, and you know it.
I accept your concession.

When you can objectively define "too many" and show your definition to be sound, let me know.
When you can show how being at your "saturation level" necessitates further restrictions on the law abiding and their right to keep and bear arms, let me know.

You just won an award. The Coveted
idjit award. Enjoy it. Print it out. Wear it with pride. And, and have a nice day.

Yes, if I were you, I'd tuck my tail and run away from your argument as well.

-When you can objectively define "too many" and show your definition to be sound, let me know.
-When you can show how being at your "saturation level" necessitates further restrictions on the law abiding and their right to keep and bear arms, let me know
Until then, I accept your concession.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Or they know that if they ever need help the cops are too far away to respond in time that is if they respond at all.

That's a dumb excuse. What are the chances of getting into deadly trouble a gun can save you from in suburban America? Especially if you are untrained in it's use? I'd be willing to bet you are more likely to be struck by lighting or hit by a bus.

It only takes one time.

Better to be prepared than not.

There is little or no chance my house will burn down but that doesn't mean I let my insurance lapse.

...and The country is getting more and more socialist. That brings out desperate fucked up people

You have never lived or even visited a real socialist country, kid. I have. The US is not now, will never and never has been a socialist country. It's just a word to you to use to try and belittle others. I know something about the culture you keep tossing around. That culture exists like it does out of choice, not by purpose.

Yes I’ve been to Europe many times, it sucks.
In my whole adolescence life I lived in a purely socialist environment it’s called an Indian reservation.

Europe is NOT Socialist by Governance. Not one single Socialist Government exists in Europe. You are too young to have been in Spain under Fascism so you don't know anything about Fascism. You have never visited Poland before it broke away. I have been in both. Socialism cannot exist as a Government for very long anymore than Fascism (Capitalism) can exist as a Government. Franco is the only one that ever made Fascism last only by modifying it. Much like China has done with theirs. What you see in Europe are closer to Socio-Democratic Countries. But this is not the time nor the place to educate you. You wouldn't accept the education anyway.

 

[Edgetho]

Guys, I'm as Pro-Second Amendment as it gets and there ARE too many guns in America in the wrong hands.

The average Joe shouldn't be able to go out and buy a semi-auto Long Gun without some education on how to use it, IMHO. You just never know when dimocraps might make themselves a serious nuisance.

But here's the thing. If dimocrap scum want to blame somebody, they need to blame themselves --

From Pravda West:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...llion-guns-since-1986/?utm_term=.bbdd283e778c

U.S. companies have manufactured more than 70 million firearms since 2008, rapidly escalating the production of pistols and the types of rifles used in recent mass shootings, government and industry data show.

In 2016, the latest year for which data is available, production spiked as firearms companies built roughly 11 million guns, in part because of a belief that Democrats (aka; dimocrap scum) would win elections that year and curb access to semiautomatic weapons such as the AR-15 rifle.

More than 4 million rifles were produced in 2016, up from 1.8 million in 2010. The National Rifle Association has estimated that 25 percent of all rifles produced in the United States are AR-15s or other semiautomatic styles, while other gun groups have said the ratio is closer to 50 percent.

All told, U.S. companies have manufactured more than 150 million firearms since 1986, according to the “Annual Firearms Manufacturing and Export Report,” published each year by the Justice Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

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?

P1 Regulate, yes; restrict when there is cause. by Regulate I mean what I wrote:

We need to allow every state by a vote of the people to require a license to own, possess or have in their custody without licensed supervision a firearm within the confines of the states' borders.

To restrict I mean a license can be suspended or revoked for cause, suspension immediately by local LE, sustained within 48 hours by the court of jurisdiction; and permanently by due process of the Superior Court.

Cause for suspension: charged with or convicted for any crime of violence, and any criminal court finding the licensee is addicted to alcohol or other drugs. A second or subsequent DUI, domestic violence or stalking.

Suspension for a minimum of one year, or the term of probation (court or supervised), up to 10 years.

Cause for revocation: A violent felony (murder, voluntary manslaughter, rape, armed robbery, kidnapping and gun running (i.e. sale to, or providing to an unlicensed person).

Revocation: For life.

P2: Asked and answered, above.

 

[bendog]

I'm just not seeing a lot of places where people can't defend themselves. It's sort of a gunnut fantasy issue. Like porn.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

P1 Regulate, yes; restrict when there is cause. by Regulate I mean what I wrote:

I'm sorry -- you actually believe we should regulate 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?

P2: Asked and answered, above.

Nothing in your post addresses this question.
Try again.

 

[Blues Man]

The state cannot have a monopoly on force, so long as the citizenry remains armed.

I'm so tired of hearing that line of bullshit. You and your AR are not a match for a single squad of semi-retired national gaurdsmen. If the big evil government decides to come for you you are done, and it doesn't matter haw many semiautomatic rifles you have.

So you think people in the military wouldn't rebel against the government for any reason?

You've watched too many movies.

No not really

It's a serious question

Could the government overstep its authority to such a degree that the people will rebel and if that happens will the military support the people or the government?

There is more of a chance where the Government does so little that it threatens the livelihoods of the citizens (Depressions and Recessions) that could cause something like that. There are just too many safeguards built in to prevent the Government from doing too much to cause an armed revolt. If that were the case, we are closer to that today than ever before. If you are depending on the US Military to back your hands, don't. Even a President has his hands tied trying to use the Federal Military for his own ends. The most that can happen is that Military will do exactly nothing unless you attack a federal agency, on federal lands, the US Military can and will defend it. The US Military (and me) swears to uphold and protect the United States Constitution above all things. The Armed Ressurection you keep bringing up is something out of a B movie scifi flix that the US Military would never allow to happen.

You have more faith in government than I do. I for one will never say it's impossible for any government to become the enemy of the people

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm just not seeing a lot of places where people can't defend themselves.

Look at a list of mass shootings over the last 10 years.
There you go.

 

[Blues Man]

[
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 other arms (guns) for them to be registered (see the 10th Amendment)?

As for arms, do you support the right to own your personal stash of fragmentation grenades?

We do not punish people by curbing their rights because they might do something.

Do you want to apply that to all areas of the law or are you selective and only want to apply that ridiculous standard to things you don't like?

For example, no one is a drunk driver until they are so we should suspend all drivers licences or maybe make alcohol illegal so no one can drive drunk.

I could go on but I think you get my drift.