Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Assault weapons ban unconstitutional...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    If you don't like guns, don't own a gun. Simple.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      For the longest time handguns were pretty much the only target of the gun grabbers -- particularly inexpensive models which the poor could afford (so-called Saturday Night Specials).
      I have one of those, a 32 cal. made in the 1930s...
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by seer View Post

        I have one of those, a 32 cal. made in the 1930s...
        The closest I have is a .38 derringer. Great pocket pistol.

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          The closest I have is a .38 derringer. Great pocket pistol.
          I have my eye on a 45cal. derringer. Probably will beak my hand though...

          https://www.bondarms.com/bond-arms-4...ger-perfected/
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by seer View Post

            You do know that most people killed with a firearm are killed with a pistol. Would you ban those too?
            It may be necessary - though I'd go for licensing with regular psych evals and certification for use before an out and out ban.

            The right to bear arms implies a population with enough integrity and sanity to be able to handle that responsibility. For whatever the reason, we seem to have left that place behind.
            Mockery is the argument of the mentally and/or emotionally challenged.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              If you don't like guns, don't own a gun. Simple.
              I like shooting guns. It's great fun, a good skill to have. But I don't own an actual gun for many reasons, not the least of which is that keeping it safe from kids or theft means keeping it locked up in a safe where it would be of no use whatsoever in a home self-defense situation. So the only other reason would be the sport of shooting it, and I just don't really have the time for another hobby.

              I'm not hopeful there is any real solution to the crazies our there shooting up people though. The 2nd amendment has allowed so many guns to be out there that reigning them in would be a herculean task. That is why I lamented it has become our curse. There probably isn't a way to stop the carnage. But it would be nice of we tried.
              Mockery is the argument of the mentally and/or emotionally challenged.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                The right to bear arms implies a population with enough integrity and sanity to be able to handle that responsibility. For whatever the reason, we seem to have left that place behind.
                It implies no such thing, anymore that the 1st Amendment does.

                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by seer View Post

                  It implies no such thing, anymore that the 1st Amendment does.
                  Don't be silly. I'm not talking about the text of the amendment. I'm talking about the moral responsibility that is required to have and use a lethal weapon safely. Sure, you can just give guns out willy nilly, but that is morally irresponsible unless the population you give them to knows how to use them has the integrity and character to only use them as can be morally justified.

                  So I'm speaking in the abstract about what is required for the existence of the 2nd amendment not to result in the sort of nearly daily mass shooting events we are having now.

                  I'm of the opinion the risk/benefit ratio has long ago been shown to be far too large to consider the 2nd amendment useful to our society as it is now in play. We need strict controls on who qualifies for such weapons where those controls are designed and moderated by a non-political body. The criteria needs to be no history of violence, no felonies, as well as of sound mind psychologically. And their need to be be good ways of revoking such a license if the person becomes unstable mentally, or commits a felony or act of violence.

                  Yes, I know criminals wont follow the rules, which is why possession of an illegal firearm needs to have very strict penalties. If you are not licensed and/or the gun is not registered, or you are not under legitimate supervision (e.g. in training or a licensed father with his kids etc), off to jail you go.

                  Yeah, I know there are lots of fears as to how politicians might use those restraints to control access to guns for other reasons, but it's out of control. If you have better ideas about how to bring it under control, feel free to propose them. But doing nothing is becoming more and more untenable.
                  Last edited by oxmixmudd; 06-07-2021, 12:55 PM.
                  Mockery is the argument of the mentally and/or emotionally challenged.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                    Don't be silly. I'm not talking about the text of the amendment. I'm talking about the moral responsibility that is required to have and use a lethal weapon safely. Sure, you can just give guns out willy nilly, but that is morally irresponsible unless the population you give them to knows how to use them has the integrity and character to only use them as can be morally justified.

                    So I'm speaking in the abstract about what is required for the existence of the 2nd amendment not to result in the sort of nearly daily mass shooting events we are having now.

                    I'm of the opinion the risk/benefit ratio has long ago been shown to be far too large to consider the 2nd amendment useful to our society as it is now in play. We need strict controls on who qualifies for such weapons where those controls are designed and moderated by a non-political body. The criteria needs to be no history of violence, no felonies, as well as of sound mind psychologically. And their need to be be good ways of revoking such a license if the person becomes unstable mentally, or commits a felony or act of violence.

                    Yes, I know criminals wont follow the rules, which is why possession of an illegal firearm needs to have very strict penalties. If you are not licensed and/or the gun is not registered, or you are not under legitimate supervision (e.g. in training or a licensed father with his kids etc), off to jail you go.

                    Yeah, I know there are lots of fears as to how politicians might use those restraints to control access to guns for other reasons, but it's out of control. If you have better ideas about how to bring it under control, feel free to propose them. But doing nothing is becoming more and more untenable.
                    Any freedom or right can (and will be) be misused, Jim. That is no reason to eliminate it.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by seer View Post

                      I have my eye on a 45cal. derringer. Probably will beak my hand though...

                      https://www.bondarms.com/bond-arms-4...ger-perfected/
                      Looks to be longer than my .38 which has the sort of kick you'd expect

                      Since you have to manually pull back the hammer to fire the second round, a little kick is not really an issue.

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                        Don't be silly. I'm not talking about the text of the amendment. I'm talking about the moral responsibility that is required to have and use a lethal weapon safely. Sure, you can just give guns out willy nilly, but that is morally irresponsible unless the population you give them to knows how to use them has the integrity and character to only use them as can be morally justified.

                        So I'm speaking in the abstract about what is required for the existence of the 2nd amendment not to result in the sort of nearly daily mass shooting events we are having now.

                        I'm of the opinion the risk/benefit ratio has long ago been shown to be far too large to consider the 2nd amendment useful to our society as it is now in play. We need strict controls on who qualifies for such weapons where those controls are designed and moderated by a non-political body. The criteria needs to be no history of violence, no felonies, as well as of sound mind psychologically. And their need to be be good ways of revoking such a license if the person becomes unstable mentally, or commits a felony or act of violence.

                        Yes, I know criminals wont follow the rules, which is why possession of an illegal firearm needs to have very strict penalties. If you are not licensed and/or the gun is not registered, or you are not under legitimate supervision (e.g. in training or a licensed father with his kids etc), off to jail you go.

                        Yeah, I know there are lots of fears as to how politicians might use those restraints to control access to guns for other reasons, but it's out of control. If you have better ideas about how to bring it under control, feel free to propose them. But doing nothing is becoming more and more untenable.
                        The thing you don't seem to appreciate is that these arguments could apply to any freedom. The other thing you don't seem to appreciate is that the Second Amendment guarantees us the means to defend every other right. Disarm the citizens, and stripping them of their other rights becomes trivial.
                        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                        Than a fool in the eyes of God


                        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                          The thing you don't seem to appreciate is that these arguments could apply to any freedom. The other thing you don't seem to appreciate is that the Second Amendment guarantees us the means to defend every other right. Disarm the citizens, and stripping them of their other rights becomes trivial.
                          One could argue that the Founding Fathers never envisioned the telegraph much less radio, TV, phones, the internet, wifi... when they wrote the First Amendment so free speech only covers what is said to people in your physical presence or written by quill or printed by a hand-powered printing press. After all, such things greatly enable say the widespread dissemination of libelous and slanderous statements. Someone can commit treason, endangering the entire nation by posting highly classified material that can be seen worldwide in an instance.



                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                            Any freedom or right can (and will be) be misused, Jim. That is no reason to eliminate it.
                            It is when people are being gunned down daily by that misuse. Rights can in fact be lost. Just ask any Felon.

                            When do you suppose the cost in lives lost outweighs the potential benefit of the 2nd Amendment.
                            Last edited by oxmixmudd; 06-07-2021, 02:16 PM.
                            Mockery is the argument of the mentally and/or emotionally challenged.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                              It is when people are being gunned down daily by that misuse. Rights can in fact be lost. Just ask any Felon.

                              When do you suppose the cost in lives lost outweighs the potential benefit of the 2nd Amendment.
                              and you are advocating taking away the rights of non criminals because of what criminals do. That is like arguing that we remove free speech because people have misused it to defame others, or even start riots or wars.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                                One could argue that the Founding Fathers never envisioned the telegraph much less radio, TV, phones, the internet, wifi... when they wrote the First Amendment so free speech only covers what is said to people in your physical presence or written by quill or printed by a hand-powered printing press. After all, such things greatly enable say the widespread dissemination of libelous and slanderous statements. Someone can commit treason, endangering the entire nation by posting highly classified material that can be seen worldwide in an instance.

                                The fact they could not envision what was coming can in fact mean that they did not consider the potential of trying to maintain the rights they proposed in said environments. In fact, that is more likely than the idea they considered all possible scenarios and went forward fully aware of the sort of situations we face today. In fact, I do believe that when Ben Franklin made clear that our system of government was only suitable for a MORAL people, he was getting a glimpse of what we face today - a society where morality has in many ways collapsed. For example, you can't have free access to guns when a significant percentage of the general population has no respect for life or the law, without also reaping carnage on the scale we are seeing or even beyond.
                                Last edited by oxmixmudd; 06-07-2021, 02:40 PM.
                                Mockery is the argument of the mentally and/or emotionally challenged.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Reepicheep, Today, 10:22 AM
                                20 responses
                                71 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by seer, Yesterday, 12:04 PM
                                42 responses
                                236 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 07:21 AM
                                11 responses
                                96 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Ronson, 07-25-2021, 07:36 PM
                                9 responses
                                58 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Gondwanaland, 07-24-2021, 01:18 PM
                                7 responses
                                186 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X