“There have been nearly 70 mass shootings so far this year”

[archives]

Few are as regulated as that one. Let's put every restriction you want on purchasing a gun put on getting an abortion, which I don't think just a fight but some people do. Deal?

Wait a minute, you now saying abortion is a constitutional right

All Constitutional rights are regulated, it is not a question of what degree they are regulated, but that they are Constitutionally regulated

And no one is prohibiting owning guns, nor confiscating guns, just making access to guns much more regulated

 

[Lionfish]

So it sounds to me like the only form of gun control that would actually work to save lives would be a total ban on guns.

Go for it.

 

[cawacko]

That “constitutional right” is debatable, but even with forgetting that argument, no Constitutional right is absolute, all them are, and pretty much have always been, regulated

And to resign oneself to viewing it “as baked in the cake” would be admitting the genocide is unpreventable, that the next Sandy Hook will be just another school shooting

Reading your thoughts here made me think of something. Stating the obvious, political parties/politicians LOVE to try and scare voters about what the other 'side' is going to try and do. It goes back to the founding of the county. In today's world we see it with Democrats saying Republicans want to take away your S.S. and Medicare (because one person said something that could be interpreted as such) and Republicans say Democrats want to take away your guns.

Now I don't know if you've outright said you want all guns banned here but there seem to be hints of it. We can put in tighter regulations on guns but that's not going to stop (mass) shootings. There are still large number of guns in this country and no regulation is going to stop people who want one from getting one. So the next thing is basically trying to make purchasing one so punitive that no one does it anymore. But even then large numbers of guns will still exist. To stop shootings guns have to be eliminated to the largest extent possible. Doesn't seem to be a lot of will in this country to go to that extreme.

 

[LV426]

To stop shootings guns have to be eliminated to the largest extent possible. Doesn't seem to be a lot of will in this country to go to that extreme.

Often times, what people need is in direct conflict with what they think they want.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

The Republic wasn't founded on guns, it was founded on democracy.




What Constitutional Right? Prior to 2003, there was no constitutional right of individual gun ownership.




Well, since guns have nothing to do with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it's hard to see how banning them would destroy the Republic when they were used as tools in multiple attempts to destroy the Republic.

It has been determined by the courts that the right to privately own firearms in an inheraet part of being an American citizen in good standing.
There is NO possibility of amending the 2nd amendment given the number of citizens who will not surrender this unique right.

Thus, to abolish the private ownership of firearms on the land that presently is America, it would be necessary to disband the republic.

Insisting on abolishing guns is, in every practical way, calling for the dissolution of the republic.

One has the right to call for that by legal means; just face what you're doing and stop living in Fantasyland.

Reality can be tough, but there's nothing to be done about it.

 

[archives]

The reinstated parts had NOTHING to do with the actual operation of the firearm. Everything required was cosmetic and easily removed by the manufacturer. Perfect example, you have a wart on your nose. The government made you remove that wart. Can you still smell and breathe?
This a perfect example of the incompetence of the Federal government.
Lefties have got to stay out of gun conversations as 99% of them are totally ignorant of guns, laws, and statistics.

That one is pretty funny, “totally ignorant of guns, laws, and statistics,” like someone has to design guns to know the results of Stephan Paddock successfully firing upon hundreds of innocent concert goers. Anyone can fire a gun, it doesn’t take knowledge of “guns, laws, and statistics,” just as anyone can see the consequences of firing a gun, that is what is important

 

[LV426]

It has been determined by the courts that the right to privately own firearms in an inheraet part of being an American citizen in good standing.

Except that is only an idea that is less than 20 years old...for the prior 250+ years, that wasn't the case.

 

[Lionfish]

That one is pretty funny, “totally ignorant of guns, laws, and statistics,” like someone has to design guns to know the results of Stephan Paddock successfully firing upon hundreds of innocent concert goers. Anyone can fire a gun, it doesn’t take knowledge of “guns, laws, and statistics,” just as anyone can see the consequences of firing a gun, that is what is important

Poor anchovies, nobody said anything about firing a gun, I said, speaking to the operation of the gun and the laws regarding them. Pay attention.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

That “constitutional right” is debatable, but even with forgetting that argument, no Constitutional right is absolute, all them are, and pretty much have always been, regulated

And to resign oneself to viewing it “as baked in the cake” would be admitting the genocide is unpreventable, that the next Sandy Hook will be just another school shooting

LV doesn't want to ban assault rifles. He/she wants to abolish private ownership of firearms, period.
That right, possibly with limitations, is indeed absolute as it appears now,
LV isn't merely interested in limitations.

 

[LV426]

There is NO possibility of amending the 2nd amendment given the number of citizens who will not surrender this unique right.

What unique right? It's not unique, it's not even real. It's a figment of Conservative imagination that dates all the way back to...2003.

You're gonna need to do more convincing because I'm not buying it when there's more of a tradition of Spider-Man swinging through NYC, than there is this idea of unfettered gun access for any dipshit.

Thus, to abolish the private ownership of firearms on the land that presently is America, it would be necessary to disband the republic.

Why?

Are you saying the Republic cannot exist without guns?

To what end and for what purpose?

Do you think the King of England is going to come across the Atlantic on a sailboat and make you board his troops in your home?

Every Conservative position on the 2A is so childish and immature, and not to mention a pretty big display of consciousness of guilt.

 

[LV426]

Insisting on abolishing guns is, in every practical way, calling for the dissolution of the republic.

No it isn't because last time I checked, you don't cast a bullet on Election Day, you cast a ballot.

 

[LV426]

One has the right to call for that by legal means; just face what you're doing and stop living in Fantasyland.

The fantasy is the myth that the country cannot exist without guns.

White culture might not be able to exist without guns, but the rest of us can get along just fine without them.

 

[LV426]

That one is pretty funny, “totally ignorant of guns, laws, and statistics,” like someone has to design guns to know the results of Stephan Paddock successfully firing upon hundreds of innocent concert goers. Anyone can fire a gun, it doesn’t take knowledge of “guns, laws, and statistics,” just as anyone can see the consequences of firing a gun, that is what is important

They all say people are the problem, not guns, but then they also say that the problem should have unrestricted access to guns.

It's such a stupid position to have, and they know it.

That's why they patronize and antagonize, they know they have no defense for it other than insisting really, really hard because their position is incredibly stupid, redundant, and dangerous...but they get their kicks off by flaunting their guns every chance they get.

The problem with unfettered access to guns and armed police that demand subservience is that you have to comply with any idiot or whackjob that is waving a gun around because you don't know if that person is a mass shooter or a cop.

That's why White People are more pro-gun than anyone else...they know the historical power that firearms hold over minorities, since slave patrols are how most of those assholes justified gun ownership back before the Civil War (and after it with the KKK and other fascist militias).

 

[archives]

Reading your thoughts here made me think of something. Stating the obvious, political parties/politicians LOVE to try and scare voters about what the other 'side' is going to try and do. It goes back to the founding of the county. In today's world we see it with Democrats saying Republicans want to take away your S.S. and Medicare (because one person said something that could be interpreted as such) and Republicans say Democrats want to take away your guns.

Now I don't know if you've outright said you want all guns banned here but there seem to be hints of it. We can put in tighter regulations on guns but that's not going to stop (mass) shootings. There are still large number of guns in this country and no regulation is going to stop people who want one from getting one. So the next thing is basically trying to make purchasing one so punitive that no one does it anymore. But even then large numbers of guns will still exist. To stop shootings guns have to be eliminated to the largest extent possible. Doesn't seem to be a lot of will in this country to go to that extreme.

For beginners, you are correct about both sides demagoguing issues, but I don’t think pointing out the idiocy and results of America’s love of guns is demagoguing the tragedy we see nearly everyday now

Tougher regulations on access to guns is not going to stop mass shootings, but it most likely will reduce the number of mass shootings in addition to the overall number of gun violence incidences. It should reduce the flow of guns into the marketplace, which is why the NRA/gun manufacturers oppose any effort vehemently.

And nothing is going to happen legislatively, if four or five year old kids getting massacred by a semi automatic weapon didn’t produced any measure nothing will. As I said in the offset, only thing that will bring change is when the right see the their own idiocy as a threat. Reagan banned semiautomatic weapons in California when he saw the Black Panthers openly carrying them in public so something similar will have to occur

 

[LV426]

LV doesn't want to ban assault rifles. He/she wants to abolish private ownership of firearms, period.

That's right.

100%.

I don't think anyone should be allowed to own a gun, and the only people I think should be allowed access to guns are counterterrorism FBI agents, and the military during wartime.

All other gun uses are not acceptable to me.

 

[LV426]

That right, possibly with limitations, is indeed absolute as it appears now, LV isn't merely interested in limitations.

I don't negotiate with myself.

The thing is that I used to think that we could impose limitations, but then I read that over 300,000 guns are stolen every year, and for about 15% of the time, they're never reported as stolen.

So that convinced me to say "fuck you and fuck your guns, you fucking wimps".

Since you can't responsibly own them, NO ONE SHOULD.

 

[archives]

Poor anchovies, nobody said anything about firing a gun, I said speaking to the operation of the gun and the laws regarding them. Pay attention.

O.K., I’ll rephrase it just for you, “the operation of a gun” means nothing to the issue, anyone can quickly learn how to fire a gun, I, thank God, didn’t grow up in a gun culture, and I qualified on five weapons, sharpshooter on two and marksman on another

And in terms of laws, reality proves they are next to nonexistent, so have no clue how they are suppose to address forty thousand plus Americans being killed by guns every year

 

[archives]

They all say people are the problem, not guns, but then they also say that the problem should have unrestricted access to guns.

It's such a stupid position to have, and they know it.

That's why they patronize and antagonize, they know they have no defense for it other than insisting really, really hard because their position is incredibly stupid, redundant, and dangerous...but they get their kicks off by flaunting their guns every chance they get.

The problem with unfettered access to guns and armed police that demand subservience is that you have to comply with any idiot or whackjob that is waving a gun around because you don't know if that person is a mass shooter or a cop.

That's why White People are more pro-gun than anyone else...they know the historical power that firearms hold over minorities, since slave patrols are how most of those assholes justified gun ownership back before the Civil War (and after it with the KKK and other fascist militias).

Whew, I don’t know if I would get that ideological over it, but you are correct, the “guns don’t kill, people kill” argument is absurd

 

[LV426]

For beginners, you are correct about both sides demagoguing issues, but I don’t think pointing out the idiocy and results of America’s love of guns is demagoguing the tragedy we see nearly everyday now

Tougher regulations on access to guns is not going to stop mass shootings, but it most likely will reduce the number of mass shootings in addition to the overall number of gun violence incidences. It should reduce the flow of guns into the marketplace, which is why the NRA/gun manufacturers oppose any effort vehemently.

And nothing is going to happen legislatively, if four or five year old kids getting massacred by a semi automatic weapon didn’t produced any measure nothing will. As I said in the offset, only thing that will bring change is when the right see the their own idiocy as a threat. Reagan banned semiautomatic weapons in California when he saw the Black Panthers openly carrying them in public so something similar will have to occur

Exactly.

Sandy Hook radicalized me into thinking that no one should own a gun.

Everything ammosexuals have been saying in defense of guns is covered in the blood of dead 6 year olds, which is why it's a position I wholly and heartily REJECT OUTRIGHT.

Fuck your guns. Fuck all of them.

You want self-defense? Take karate.

You want to hunt? Use a bow and arrow like they did for thousands of years.

You want to cover for your tiny dick? Buy a sportscar.

 

[Lionfish]

What unique right? It's not unique, it's not even real. It's a figment of Conservative imagination that dates all the way back to...2003.

You're gonna need to do more convincing because I'm not buying it when there's more of a tradition of Spider-Man swinging through NYC, than there is this idea of unfettered gun access for any dipshit.




Why?

Are you saying the Republic cannot exist without guns?

To what end and for what purpose?

Do you think the King of England is going to come across the Atlantic on a sailboat and make you board his troops in your home?

Every Conservative position on the 2A is so childish and immature, and not to mention a pretty big display of consciousness of guilt.

Nobody cares if you buy it or not. If guns scare you, move to Canada or get 2/3 of the states to change the constitution.