The Constitution means exactly what it says

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
I thought the second amendment said people can have guns so they could resist the government....
wat.png
 
SmarterThanYou said:
if there was any more proof we needed to know you're legion troll, it's over now. LOL
Click to expand...



Translation from pussy-language: "I haven't done shit, except run my mouth on the internet, and I never will. Signed, SmarterThanFew"


:chicken: ​
 
SmarterThanYou said:
that's one. there are many more.

all of them. In fact, I even posted about Mr. Miles when it happened.

by dismissing the victims of violent crime because it's a small percentage has the same outcome as ignoring violent crime itself. so what do you really want?
Click to expand...

You made a big leap by saying I "dismissed the victims of violent crime". IMO some regulations might prevent people from becoming victims of violent crime.

yet you expect me to relinquish my rights because some idiot violent thug committed a crime?
Click to expand...

What right did I ask you to relinquish? That's just a slippery slope argument.

YOU mentioned the mass killing of liberals. I'm merely reminding you of what you said. I live between dallas and fort worth, so don't think for a second I don't know about crime and police violence, k?
Click to expand...

I just reread the thread and you are the one who used the phrase mass killing of liberals" right here: "it's called reality. something i've noticed that you seem to be unaware of, unless you see a republican majority. Then you see anarchy and mass killings of liberals. you need to remove your liberal colored glasses and look at the real world."

One of the things that ticks me off is when ordinary people, not just criminals, become responsible for gun death or injury because they're drunk, hot-headed, mistaken, careless, etc. and gun lovers soft-pedal those incidents by calling the perp an idiot or jerk rather than the violent SOB he/she is. It's the same dead and it's still due to gun use.
 
christiefan915 said:
You made a big leap by saying I "dismissed the victims of violent crime". IMO some regulations might prevent people from becoming victims of violent crime.
Click to expand...
yet by demanding disarmament, you ensure that SOME people will still remain victims. do they still not count? or do you believe they have a right to self preservation?

christiefan915 said:
What right did I ask you to relinquish? That's just a slippery slope argument.
Click to expand...
If you continue to increase restrictions and limitations on the types of arms available to fulfill the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, you are indeed creating that slippery slope.

christiefan915 said:
I just reread the thread and you are the one who used the phrase mass killing of liberals" right here: "it's called reality. something i've noticed that you seem to be unaware of, unless you see a republican majority. Then you see anarchy and mass killings of liberals. you need to remove your liberal colored glasses and look at the real world."
Click to expand...
You used that phrase in another thread, not this one. pardon me for not being more exact and specific.

christiefan915 said:
One of the things that ticks me off is when ordinary people, not just criminals, become responsible for gun death or injury because they're drunk, hot-headed, mistaken, careless, etc. and gun lovers soft-pedal those incidents by calling the perp an idiot or jerk rather than the violent SOB he/she is. It's the same dead and it's still due to gun use.
Click to expand...
people will do stupid things. It's called free will. That's why we have a justice system, to punish such idiots and/or criminals. If it wasn't guns, it would be something else. your utopia of people being peaceful because all the implements of violence have been prohibited is never going to be within reach.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
yet by demanding disarmament, you ensure that SOME people will still remain victims. do they still not count? or do you believe they have a right to self preservation?
Click to expand...

I did not demand disarmament. Where are you getting this stuff? I don't think self-preservation is solely dependent on being armed to the teeth.

If you continue to increase restrictions and limitations on the types of arms available to fulfill the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, you are indeed creating that slippery slope.
Click to expand...

It doesn't necessarily follow that restrictions will continue to increase just because some are put into place.

You used that phrase in another thread, not this one. pardon me for not being more exact and specific.
Click to expand...

I don't remember that, but whatever.

people will do stupid things. It's called free will. That's why we have a justice system, to punish such idiots and/or criminals. If it wasn't guns, it would be something else. your utopia of people being peaceful because all the implements of violence have been prohibited is never going to be within reach.
Click to expand...

If it wasn't guns, the something else wouldn't necessarily be a weapon. What if the 11-year-old shooter didn't have a gun and just ran out of the house and chased away the kids? That's what normal people do.

I don't believe in Utopia because I think people have and always will have a propensity for rash behaviour. However, IMO it doesn't seem stupid to regulate something that can cause harm or death. Something that was invented for that very purpose.
 
It's official. Yurt and SmarterThanFew have acknowledged their inability to debate me, and confess that I rule the board.



king.gif
​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top