Question for our gun enthusiast friends.

[Into the Night]

That's literally every rifle since 1886.

He doesn't know anything about guns. That's obvious. Yet he wants to dictate which ones are appropriate for any specific purpose, and he wants to dictate which ones to ban because 'they server no legitimate purpose'.

He wants to be King.

[Into the Night]

Him who? Toxic TOP? That's allegedly a female, if that's who you're talking about. There is no point in murdering the already-brain dead.

Yet you suggested doing exactly that. I'll consider you locked in paradox on this issue. You are going to have to clear this paradox before you can be rational about it. The only way to clear a paradox is choose one of the conflicting arguments and utterly reject the other. So which is it going to be?

[Into the Night]

Go ahead and ban automatic rifles. Leave the semi automatic ones alone and we can agree.

Don't think so.

The U.S. government has no authority to ban any weapon because of the type of action it has. There is no such authority given in the Constitution. The 2nd amendment certainly doesn't mention it.

[Into the Night]

Well, that settles your concerns; because "automatic rifles" are already regulated and not readily available to the public.

illegally.

[Into the Night]

Heller said that gun regulation is legal, dumbfuck. You know, that “infringed” thing.

Stupid fuck.

Heller himself didn't say any such thing.

No such ruling was made. Gun regulation was not even part of the case.

Gun regulation is illegal, but that was not brought up as the reason for the lawsuit.

[Into the Night]

Is the question "when life begins" or "when does a life become person"? Because, really, life only began once, a trillion years ago. Both the sperm and the egg are alive.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

But neither sperm nor egg can develop into a human being on their own. Yes, they are both living cells, but they cannot reproduce another human being until conception. Then, and only then, does the resulting cell have the necessary chromosome count and DNA to make a human being.

You bring up the classical question: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

You say life began a trillion years ago. How do you know? Were you there? Do you truly understand the problems associated with the Theory of Abiogenesis?

[USFREEDOM911]

Will make it harder for those who aren't a problem to get guns. It does nothing to make it harder for those who are the problem. Just like drug addicts don't have a problem getting hold of banned drugs.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Even though Stone hasn't admitted it; it does appear that he believes if it's harder for a law abiding citizen to possess a firearm, then the criminal element will just disappear.

[Into the Night]

Which is fine if all that you're interested in is gun deaths. If you look at broader measures, such as total homicide rate, the conclusion falls apart. But control freaks will argue that gun deaths are all that really matter, as if other deaths don't matter.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Well put. This is exactly how many of them view homicides.

They also just count homicides. Sometimes the homicide is justified. There IS a right to self defense, even if it results in killing of another human being.

Some people just need shootin'.

[USFREEDOM911]

Where guns are restricted, dumbfuck, the gun death rate is lower. Deny all you want. You merely look stupid

And where abortions are restricted, dumbfuck, the murder of an unborn child is less. Deny all you want. You merely look stupid.

[USFREEDOM911]

A heart CAN pump without a brain. It does not require signals from the brain to pump. However, without a brain, there is no breathing. The heart muscle dies as a result of no oxygen. It pumps useless blood until it dies.

In the womb, of course, the umbilical cord takes place of oxygenating the blood. Therefore, no brain is necessary to pump that blood through the developing body. As long as the mother is breathing, the fetus gets oxygenated blood and no brain is required because breathing is not necessary.

Heart muscle cells will naturally start twitching at regular intervals. If one touches another heart muscle cell, they will synchronize and twitch together. As the heart develops, a few cells take the role of pacemaker and produce the master twitch on their own. This is all you need to make a heart beat. As long as the muscle cells receive oxygen and nourishment, they will continue to beat completely on their own without any brain.

A brain can adjust heartbeat rate, but it is not necessary to make a heart beat.

It may be "rudimentary" brain activity; but without something telling the heart to beat, it wouldn't.

Otherwise why do people who have no noticeable brain activity, need to be on life support to keep the heart working?

[USFREEDOM911]

illegally.

Correct and that's why I included the phrase "readily available".

[domer76]

Heller himself didn't say any such thing.

No such ruling was made. Gun regulation was not even part of the case.

Gun regulation is illegal, but that was not brought up as the reason for the lawsuit.

Try to educate yourself so you don’t publicly humiliate yourself.

Scalia said:

The late justice also more generally offered the belief that “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” For instance, Scalia said concealment laws were permitted at the time of the Constitution’s ratification and should be permitted today.

[domer76]

And where abortions are restricted, dumbfuck, the murder of an unborn child is less. Deny all you want. You merely look stupid.

I never said one word about abortion, stupid fuck

[Aimée]

did you know that more women die every year from the complications of legal abortions than died of illegal abortions in 1970?........

Do you have a link for those stats? I would love to take a look at them, if I may.

[USFREEDOM911]

Try to educate yourself so you don’t publicly humiliate yourself.

Scalia said:

The late justice also more generally offered the belief that “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” For instance, Scalia said concealment laws were permitted at the time of the Constitution’s ratification and should be permitted today.

So Into the Night was correct and no such ruling was made; because what you've posted was an OPINION.

Thanks for playing.