The Cysko Kid Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 What would the founding fathers think of the internet and it's consequences on free speech? I mean you either stick by the rules as theyre written or you don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 Yes because this country was founded on one being an inalienable right and the other not being. But the right to own a gun is already supposed to be taken away from people who have been convicted felons, drug users, mental illness, etc. The point isn't to take away your right or my right to own a gun, but to enforce the law that keeps guns out of those people's hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 Right. You amend them based on changing times Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 And they have. They've amended it heavily you already have assault weapon bans. Magazine limits and laws against who cannot own a gun. The fact is a lot of these mass murderers have no priors. How's that helping us? Human ingenuity is such that if you take away all guns save a revolver or a single shot musket people will find a new way to kill a bunch of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 What you're saying in a nutshell is that technology should be limited so no one can so anything bad with it. Broadband Internet should be only for the government so hackers have to jump through more hoops to steal data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 And they have. They've amended it heavily you already have assault weapon bans. Magazine limits and laws against who cannot own a gun. The fact is a lot of these mass murderers have no priors. How's that helping us? Human ingenuity is such that if you take away all guns save a revolver or a single shot musket people will find a new way to kill a bunch of people. Idk but it's reasonable to discuss for possible solutions. It's tougher to get your driver's license than it is to get a gun, and its still pretty easy to get a license. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 I've long said I'd support smart guns . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 Idk but it's reasonable to discuss for possible solutions. It's tougher to get your driver's license than it is to get a gun, and its still pretty easy to get a license. Again a car is not an inalienable right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 The point is that anything can be used to murder. You can't legislate murder away. Here's the point I was making. Murder: already illegal. Next? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 The standard argument which is without merit is they it would be "harder" to murder without a gun. Not really. It's not difficult at all to run over a bunch of people. Yes but it might be harder to kill specific people. Like the kid who just shot up the Oregon school, he went there for a point. If his intent was to just kill as many utterly random people as possible, yeah he probably would have waited for a parade and plowed through it. But even that isn't always decisively fatal as we've witnessed...the first couple people might get it but a lot of people bounce off the mass of other people being pushed by the car. If there's a specific group of people you want to kill, the gun is your go-to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 Really? That's where you were trying to get to from "the purpose is to fire a projectile"? There are a handful of different debates going on right now. The only one I was concerned with was: car != gun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 You guys keep going on about how a car and a gun aren't a valid comparison. Well comparing a right and a privelage isn't valid either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 The Point of mass shootings, cleve, is to kill a bunch of random people. It's essentially non religiously motivated terrorism. As terrorists have shown you don't need a gun to accomplish it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 Again a car is not an inalienable right Guns aren't either, since certain people can't have them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 Shall not be infringed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 The Point of mass shootings, cleve, is to kill a bunch of random people. It's essentially non religiously motivated terrorism. As terrorists have shown you don't need a gun to accomplish it. well now we have to parse "random". The kid that shot up the black church, he didn't know those people...any ole black people would have done. But he went into that church cause he knew he'd catch some congregated black people, concentrating his ability to kill them. So random is as random does. There was "some" specificity to his act of terror than right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 Where's it say that about cars (or horses and carriages as it were) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 Again a car is not an inalienable right The free market would quite honestly disagree with you vehemently. I consider an "inalienable" right as something given to us by god/nature whatever. Like the right to be free. How is a firearm, which is a product of the same free market that produces cars...."inalienable"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 well now we have to parse "random". The kid that shot up the black church, he didn't know those people...any ole black people would have done. But he went into that church cause he knew he'd catch some congregated black people, concentrating his ability to kill them. So random is as random does. There was "some" specificity to his act of terror than right? Could he have driven to a black neighborhood revved up and run down a group of people standing on a street corner yes or no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 The free market would quite honestly disagree with you vehemently. I consider an "inalienable" right as something given to us by god/nature whatever. Like the right to be free. How is a firearm, which is a product of the same free market that produces cars...."inalienable"? Not my problem I didn't draft the constitution. I just live by it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 Looks like many in Europe are now wanting to own a gun for protection: Islamic invasion pulls trigger: Europe now scrambles for guns Many 'now wish they had a 2nd Amendment' Published: 2 days ago Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/islamic-invasion-pulls-trigger-europeans-scramble-for-guns/#G3UlzDPjDYPY1xkP.99 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 Could he have driven to a black neighborhood revved up and run down a group of people standing on a street corner yes or no? technically yes, but would he kill of them? Running people over that are gonna see/hear you coming and killing them isn't as easy as it sounds. Plus, in a black neighborhood....chances are other people have guns. And he was a coward afterall remember? So he chose people sitting around praying in a church. Again, you could walk up to people and throw gasoline in their faces then light em up with a roman candle. There are many ways to kill people without a firearm, but was gasoline refined from the beginning to burn people? No it's a source of energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 Who can blame them? Muslims are known to kill indiscriminately for their god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 technically yes, but would he kill of them? Running people over that are gonna see/hear you coming and killing them isn't as easy as it sounds. Plus, in a black neighborhood....chances are other people have guns. And he was a coward afterall remember? So he chose people sitting around praying in a church. Again, you could walk up to people and throw gasoline in their faces then light em up with a roman candle. There are many ways to kill people without a firearm, but was gasoline refined from the beginning to burn people? No it's a source of energy. He was an opportunist like they all are. You kind of just randomly fucked your own argument by admitting that armed people could have defended themselves. That's a big no no for the anti gun position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 The free market would quite honestly disagree with you vehemently. I consider an "inalienable" right as something given to us by god/nature whatever. Like the right to be free. How is a firearm, which is a product of the same free market that produces cars...."inalienable"? Firearms are the great equalizer. Thus, the right to self defense for all should be inalienable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 If I wanted to cleve I feel confident I could mow down two dozen people today by hitting groups of people and then driving off and hitting a binch more over and over again before I was caught or my vehicle became inoperable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 He was an opportunist like they all are. You kind of just randomly fucked your own argument by admitting that armed people could have defended themselves. That's a big no no for the anti gun position. I've never been against other people arming themselves. I intend to myself based on what I've seen. What i'm not going to abide by is unfettered access to high powered weapons. I'm not a selfish asshole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 High power or revolver they all kill you. Nonsensical argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 If I wanted to cleve I feel confident I could mow down two dozen people today by hitting groups of people and then driving off and hitting a binch more over and over again before I was caught or my vehicle became inoperable. might be harder than yo uthink. I've watched numerous tapes the last few years of cars barreling into people and killed remarkably few of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 the potential lethality of a car isn't the issue here though is it? I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.