You can't have my guns.

[Farmer]

There were a couple questions... :\

Here's another one: Hey pal, did you just blow in from stupidville? :sneaky:

I mean, here's what I got froom your post: because your state grants you little to no gun rights, then obviously guns are useless everywhere else.

So, yeah.

 

[Veliko]

Your solution doesn't JUST limit guns. It limits FREEDOM of people who aren't guilty of any crime, and who will NEVER commit one.

If you want to give away YOUR freedom, go ahead. Just don't expect me to lay down and let you steal MINE.

So what if it restricts the freedoms of those people?

The fact that you value the freedom to own such dangerous weapons so highly, is proof that you can't be trusted with it.

 

[Farmer]

So what if it restricts the freedoms of those people?

The fact that you value the freedom to own such dangerous weapons so highly, is proof that you can't be trusted with it.

What???

Can you try using some logic on that one?

And I see we are continuing with the ad hominem arguments.

 

[marvdmartian]

While we're at it, why not just take away EVERYTHING that could ever conceivably hurt or kill another human being, in any way. Then we can all sit around, twiddling our thumbs, while we wait for the end.

OR.....we could stop trying to punish the millions of legal, responsible gun owners, simply for the actions of a few people. But that wouldn't be nearly as much fun, nor would it make the anti-gun crowd feel so high and mighty, would it??

 

[JulesMaximus]

I mean, here's what I got froom your post: because your state grants you little to no gun rights, then obviously guns are useless everywhere else.

So, yeah.

Well, I wasn't asking you genius. I wanted to see what sixone had to say since his post seemed to point to the fact that guns should be used for protection from the tyranny of government. It made me wonder what he would do if the police showed up at his door unlawfully detained him.

 

[BladeVenom]

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin

 

[x-alki]

So what if it restricts the freedoms of those people?

The fact that you value the freedom to own such dangerous weapons so highly, is proof that you can't be trusted with it.

Your arguments are terrible. You make no sense. Man, you are worse than fleabag ever was.

 

[Phanuel]

...not let them in? What do you want out of this Jules?

 

[Veliko]

While we're at it, why not just take away EVERYTHING that could ever conceivably hurt or kill another human being, in any way. Then we can all sit around, twiddling our thumbs, while we wait for the end.

OR.....we could stop trying to punish the millions of legal, responsible gun owners, simply for the actions of a few people. But that wouldn't be nearly as much fun, nor would it make the anti-gun crowd feel so high and mighty, would it??

Ooooooh, is this where the gun nuts start comparing a gun to cars, knives, and other things that have uses beyond their ability to kill and maim?

 

[blankslate]

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

He wasn't talking just about the 2nd amendment either.

We have already given up rights in regards to the 4th amendment.

Those who are consider gun rights sacrosanct must be willing to discuss something that is a factor in many of these shootings.

Which is the ability of mentally ill people to gain access to firearms.

With the 2nd amendment comes the responsibility to address this issue.

Treatment must be made available to those who can be treated and there must be better ways to flag mentally unbalanced individuals during background checks and/or more diligent reporting by mental health professionals about people who should not have firearms.

 

[Iron Woode]

So what if it restricts the freedoms of those people?

The fact that you value the freedom to own such dangerous weapons so highly, is proof that you can't be trusted with it.

that's some mighty fine trolling right there.

 

[JulesMaximus]

...not let them in? What do you want out of this Jules?

I'm genuinely curious what use a privately owned gun is in stopping a tyrannical government. Since gun owners frequently cite this as a reason why it is necessary for them to own guns... well, that and playing batman by fighting crime of course.

 

[Farmer]

I'm genuinely curious what use a privately owned gun is in stopping a tyrannical government. Since gun owners frequently cite this as a reason why it is necessary for them to own guns... well, that and playing batman by fighting crime of course.

Well I don't know, if you were starting a tyrannical regime wouldn't you be more confident in your success if you knew no one had a gun but you?

I mean, they appear to be pretty damn scary things to a lot of people here.

 

[Veliko]

Well I don't know, if you were starting a tyrannical regime wouldn't you be more confident in your success if you knew no one had a gun but you?

You didn't actually answer his question.

 

[Farmer]

You didn't actually answer his question.

What are you, the answer police?

Well, don't worry, if you ever knock on my door I'd make sure to kick you square in the nutsack.

 

[Howard]

I'm genuinely curious what use a privately owned gun is in stopping a tyrannical government. Since gun owners frequently cite this as a reason why it is necessary for them to own guns... well, that and playing batman by fighting crime of course.

Afghanistan would've been possible to take had they not had guns. Probably.

 

[BladeVenom]

Those who are consider gun rights sacrosanct must be willing to discuss something that is a factor in many of these shootings.

Let's discuss Gun Free Zones. All these mass shootings are happening in gun free zones.

 

[TerryMathews]

I'm genuinely curious what use a privately owned gun is in stopping a tyrannical government. Since gun owners frequently cite this as a reason why it is necessary for them to own guns... well, that and playing batman by fighting crime of course.

I'm sure there was a version of you heckling George Washington 250 years ago.

 

[BladeVenom]

Which do you think works better?

 

[JulesMaximus]

Well I don't know, if you were starting a tyrannical regime wouldn't you be more confident in your success if you knew no one had a gun but you?

I mean, they appear to be pretty damn scary things to a lot of people here.

Who is starting a tyrannical regime? Obama? He's out in 4 years. Dianne Feinstien? Hillary Clinton?

 

[Farmer]

Afghanistan would've been possible to take had they not had guns. Probably.

You gotta give small arms credit.

People on here without a lick of relevant experience talking about how "Oh well obviously smart bombs and tanks have made small arms inconsequential in terms of 'resisting tyranny'" as if it were some absolute truth.

I mean, on one hand, it kind of sounds like "we've already been deprived of the best means to resist tyranny, why even bother keeping the rest?" On the other hand, they don't really acknowledge the fact that most tyrannical governments have, historically, ruled over an unarmed populace.

And by 'unarmed,' I mean without firearms, not without drones or tanks.

Who is starting a tyrannical regime? Obama? He's out in 4 years. Dianne Feinstien? Hillary Clinton?

Well I said "you," as in, "try to think if you were in this position," trying to appeal to some common sense, but maybe you're fishing for something I'm not giving you.

But I mean, totally, absolutely no risk of tyranny ever. Obviously society is far too developed for that nonsense right?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Ooooooh, is this where the gun nuts start comparing a gun to cars, knives, and other things that have uses beyond their ability to kill and maim?

There is nothing inherently wrong with killing. Self-defense is just as important an ability, if not much more so, than vehicular transportation.

 

[JulesMaximus]

I'm sure there was a version of you heckling George Washington 250 years ago.

:sneaky: Perhaps.

 

[JulesMaximus]

There is nothing inherently wrong with killing. Self-defense is just as important an ability, if not much more so, than vehicular transportation.

Self-defense never provided for my family, going to work has... and I pretty much need a car to get to work unfortunately.

 

[JulesMaximus]

You gotta give small arms credit.

People on here without a lick of relevant experience talking about how "Oh well obviously smart bombs and tanks have made small arms inconsequential in terms of 'resisting tyranny'" as if it were some absolute truth.

I mean, on one hand, it kind of sounds like "we've already been deprived of the best means to resist tyranny, why even bother keeping the rest?" On the other hand, they don't really acknowledge the fact that most tyrannical governments have, historically, ruled over an unarmed populace.

And by 'unarmed,' I mean without firearms, not without drones or tanks.



Well I said "you," as in, "try to think if you were in this position," trying to appeal to some common sense, but maybe you're fishing for something I'm not giving you.

But I mean, totally, absolutely no risk of tyranny ever. Obviously society is far too developed for that nonsense right?

I don't know but it sounds about as plausible as organizing a bunch of fat angry gun nuts and overthrowing the government of the United States because it is too tyrannical.