Jump to content
  • Playwire Ad Area

Any day now we should reach the critical mass of gun ownership by "law-abiding citizens" where we become safe


Recommended Posts

I can never understand how regulations automatically equals "THEY ARE ELIMINATING OUR RIGHTS"

Every single right we have, rights much more directly relating to the right to live, are regulated.

For example: The AIR we breathe, has regulations.  The WATER we drink, has regulations.  The FOOD we eat, has regulations. 

I have not heard one.....single......lawmaker.......propose the elimination of the right to bear arms.  But, as has been mentioned above, having a straight forward conversation with nothing but facts.  

 

(Gun owner and life long conservative)

  • Fire 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said:

I can never understand how regulations automatically equals "THEY ARE ELIMINATING OUR RIGHTS"

Every single right we have, rights much more directly relating to the right to live, are regulated.

For example: The AIR we breathe, has regulations.  The WATER we drink, has regulations.  The FOOD we eat, has regulations. 

I have not heard one.....single......lawmaker.......propose the elimination of the right to bear arms.  But, as has been mentioned above, having a straight forward conversation with nothing but facts.  

 

(Gun owner and life long conservative)

It’s the logical fallacy of the excluded middle. 
 

(Gun owner and life long liberal)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said:

I can never understand how regulations automatically equals "THEY ARE ELIMINATING OUR RIGHTS"

Every single right we have, rights much more directly relating to the right to live, are regulated.

For example: The AIR we breathe, has regulations.  The WATER we drink, has regulations.  The FOOD we eat, has regulations. 

I have not heard one.....single......lawmaker.......propose the elimination of the right to bear arms.  But, as has been mentioned above, having a straight forward conversation with nothing but facts.  

 

(Gun owner and life long conservative)

They don't usually outright say it, but incrementally it's the goal. Obama directly said he didn't want to take guns away but when asked what country he would model US gun laws after he chose a country that took away everyone's guns. They follow the playbook of those who disarmed their citizens.  Same catch phrases same strategies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It all sounds great until it doesn't. 

Gun control - Now only criminals have the guns because they don't care about the law.   How many crimes have been committed by law abiding citizens?   None.   Oh, and here in Seattle, if you do a crime with a gun, they waive the gun charge.   Yep, that is correct.   You can illegally use a weapon and not pay a cost for it legally.   Like they want the bad guys to have guns and use them.   

Defund police.   Now crime is rampant in every big city in America. 

Don't prosecute - Now crime is rampant in every big city in America.  Criminals stay on the street even if arrested.

WA - Police cannot chase cars - Result is there are faster speeds on the roads and a rapid rise of car theft.  Oh, and the thieves are not apprehended or prosecuted so they stay on the street.  

I really just want these politicians to have their car stolen or something similar and the police can't do a thing for them.  I don't want them physically hurt, just bearing the brunt of their policies that others are living with everyday due to their indifference. 

These all sound good, until they don't.   And by then it is tough to put the genie back in the bottle. 

mspart

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a complete waste of time it is to argue the right to bear arms.  The founders new the controversy that would arise from well meaning naive to tyrannical elites.  They therefore ended the amendment, and discussion, with “shall not be infringed.”  A phrase understood by all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.” – George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

As recent history demonstrates, one packed court from an entirely different definition of reality.

The coury is supposed to apply the constitution as written  and intended. The intent is clear,  anything else is judicial activism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The coury is supposed to apply the constitution as written  and intended. The intent is clear,  anything else is judicial activism. 

Let’s take this to its logical, absurd conclusion.

Nuclear weapons would meet the definition of “arms”, as written. Should wealthy individuals be allowed to purchase and own them to prevent government intrusion upon private citizens?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Le duke said:


Let’s take this to its logical, absurd conclusion.

Nuclear weapons would meet the definition of “arms”, as written. Should wealthy individuals be allowed to purchase and own them to prevent government intrusion upon private citizens?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you meet the criteria they’ll install it for you. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Le duke said:


Let’s take this to its logical, absurd conclusion.

Nuclear weapons would meet the definition of “arms”, as written. Should wealthy individuals be allowed to purchase and own them to prevent government intrusion upon private citizens?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is a nuke a bearable weapon? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Le duke said:


Given that a nuclear recoilless round was developed in the early 1960s, and it weighed ~100lbs, yeah, I’d say so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

seriously....you really believe this??  Come on....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Playwire Ad Area



  • Playwire Ad Area
  • Latest Rankings

  • College Commitments

    Adam Mattin

    Delta, Ohio
    Class of 2025
    Committed to Stanford
    Projected Weight: 125, 133

    Grant Stromberg

    Mukwonago, Wisconsin
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Northern Iowa
    Projected Weight: 285

    Hudson Ward

    Canton, Pennsylvania
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Lock Haven
    Projected Weight: 165

    Alex Reed

    Shikellamy, Pennsylvania
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Lock Haven
    Projected Weight: 125

    Darren Florance

    Harpursville, New York
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Lock Haven
    Projected Weight: 125
  • Playwire Ad Area
×
×
  • Create New...