Fucking Wal Mart!!

BY YOUR OWN STATEMENT; "WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO CARRY ANYWHERE AND EVERYWHERE". SO WHICH IS IT? GUN FREE ZONES OR CARRY ANYWHERE? ACCORDING TO THAT STATEMENT NOONE BROKE THE A2 BY CARRYING IN THOSE ZONES.
HOW MANY MASS STABBINGS, MASS BASEBALL BATTINGS, MASS CAR DRIVINGS, MASS SHOVELINGS OR ANY OTHER MASS ANYTHING HAS ACCURED, THAN MASS SHOOTINGS?
LAW ABIDING CITIZENS DONT NEED AK'S OR LIKE WEAPONS. IS TAKING THOSE GOING TO INCREASE THE CRIME RATE? THATS A BIG FAT NO!
 
THE U.K. WAS BROUGHT UP. THIS AINT THE U.K. NOR WOULD I COMPARE US TO THEM IN ANY WAY. ISNT THE REASON WE LEFT BECAUSE WE WERE BETTER THAN THEY ARE?
 
WAMO said:
BY YOUR OWN STATEMENT; "WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO CARRY ANYWHERE AND EVERYWHERE". SO WHICH IS IT? GUN FREE ZONES OR CARRY ANYWHERE? ACCORDING TO THAT STATEMENT NOONE BROKE THE A2 BY CARRYING IN THOSE ZONES.
HOW MANY MASS STABBINGS, MASS BASEBALL BATTINGS, MASS CAR DRIVINGS, MASS SHOVELINGS OR ANY OTHER MASS ANYTHING HAS ACCURED, THAN MASS SHOOTINGS?
LAW ABIDING CITIZENS DONT NEED AK'S OR LIKE WEAPONS. IS TAKING THOSE GOING TO INCREASE THE CRIME RATE? THATS A BIG FAT NO!
Click to expand...

You're talking in circles, Wamo. Nearly ALL the mass shootings in the U.S. since the 1970s have been in gun-free zones. WHY? because the people know they won;t be opposed. That's a fact. If you look at the govt website, you'll see there are many more deaths via beatings, stabbings, etc. than by guns. You'll also see that most of the gun deaths are either via suicide, accident, or justified. Again, if you can tell me a logical reason that penalizing innocent people, and removing the guns from law abiding citizens will lower the crime rate, I will listen. I can guarantee you that taking my guns away will make no one safer. And, to the point of not "needing" an AR or an AK, the constitution says nothing about need. It says we have the right, and the right was written in to protect us from a tyrannical government. Would you have us do that with muzzle loaders?

On a side note: If gun control worked, Boston, Chicago and the state of california would be paradise. Just a thought.
 
AND STILL MASS SHOOTINGS LEAD THE PACK, BY A GREAT MARGIN. SO WHAT HAS CHANGED? MORE GUNS. MORE POWERFUL GUNS. RAPID FIRE GUNS. IF MORE POWERFUL GUNS CAN BE ADDED TO THE PUBLIC EVERY DAY, WHY CANT THEY BE TAKEN AWAY IN THE SAME FASHION?
I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT 1 OR 2 DEATHS WITH A GUN. I FIGURED "MASS" WAS UNDERSTOOD. SORRY. INNOCENT PERSON? DEFINITION PLEASE.
TAKING AK'S AWAY WILL NOT PUT ANYONE IN HARMS WAY.
MUZZLE LOADERS IS WHAT THE A2 WAS WRITTEN ON. WAS IT NOT?
 
IN 2016 THERE WERE MORE DEATHS BY STABBING OR CUTTING INSTRUMENTS THAN BY A RIFLE. BUT NOT MORE THAN ALL GUNS COMBINED. MUCH LIKE KNIVES OR CUTTING INSTRUMENTS.
 
Now, to jump into Greg and WAMO's debate...

On one side, I get it. Cowards keep using guns to kill innocent people, so people get scared and want to think of ways to stop the bad guys because, well who knows if I'll be next to cross paths with a homicidal psycho? Basically, mass shootings are terrorism, plain and simple. It's just that in America terrorists predominantly use guns instead of IED's/homemade bombs.

Greg has good points too. Prohibiting guns is risky, because this country doesn't exactly have a successful record enforcing prohibitionist laws and eliminating the behaviors that were expected to be curbed by such legislation. Look at prohibition - it merely made petty criminals of otherwise law-abiding citizens who just wanted a beer, and also fueled a massive underground crime ring that profitted from providing illegal booze. Same thing happened with the "War on Drugs". So I'm skeptical about banning guns - my fear is that just like with alcohol and booze, there will be a massive increase in illegal underground gun smuggling activity. These dealers will make the whole situation much more dangerous than the risk we take with Wal Mart accidentally selling a rifle to a nutcase.

I'm not sure the perfect answer exists. After all, as Greg pointed out, human beings have a consistent track record of killing each other throughout history. Even without guns cowards and terrorosts will find a way to efficiently and effectively kill people. It's been happening since the beginning of humanity on earth (maybe before?)

On edit - Another nod to WAMO's point; just because we've failed in the past doesn't mean we should accept it as it is and stop trying to strive towards a better solution. Humans have a spectacular history in resolving problems - if not, we'd still be riding horses and averaging a 35 year life span. We've gone to the moon and beyond. Surely we can figure out how to create and maintain a successful, safe society?
 
Last edited:
WELL EXPLAINED 9. AND IM GLAD YOU SEE THIS FOR WHAT IT IS, A DEBATE, NOT AN ARGUMENT.
ANYTIME YOU HAVE 2 SIDES, ESPECIALLY WHERE GUNS ARE INVOLVED, THERE WILL MORE THAN LIKELY NEVER BE A HAPPY MEDIUM. I DO LIKE THE WAY YOU SAID WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ABLE TO RATIONALIZE BAD SITUATIONS AND MAKE THEM BETTER. AS MORE REPUBS START CHANGING THEIR MINDS ON CERTAIN GUN CONTROL ISSUES, GUN FOLKS WILL START SAYING THEIR BAD FOR THE COUNTRY. AS YOU KNOW, ITS ALREADY HAPPENING HERE IN TEXAS.
SOMETIMES PASSION OVERTAKES REASON AND WE LOSE SITE OF THE REAL ISSUES. I AGREE THAT WHACKOS CAUSE ALOT OF THE PROBLEMS. BUT IF THE WHACKOS HAVE ACCESS TO ALL THE OTHER TOOLS OF DEATH, WHY IS THE GUN THIER TOOL OF CHOICE? BECAUSE THERE EASY TO GET AND CAN CAUSE MASS DESTRUCTION WITH LITTLE EFFORT. AND I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT UNTIL A MASS SHOOTING PERSONALY AFFECTS YOUR LIFE, YOU DONT REALLY HAVE ALL THE FACTS TO BASE YOUR JUDGEMENT ON.
 
WAMO said:
WELL EXPLAINED 9. AND IM GLAD YOU SEE THIS FOR WHAT IT IS, A DEBATE, NOT AN ARGUMENT.
ANYTIME YOU HAVE 2 SIDES, ESPECIALLY WHERE GUNS ARE INVOLVED, THERE WILL MORE THAN LIKELY NEVER BE A HAPPY MEDIUM. I DO LIKE THE WAY YOU SAID WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ABLE TO RATIONALIZE BAD SITUATIONS AND MAKE THEM BETTER. AS MORE REPUBS START CHANGING THEIR MINDS ON CERTAIN GUN CONTROL ISSUES, GUN FOLKS WILL START SAYING THEIR BAD FOR THE COUNTRY. AS YOU KNOW, ITS ALREADY HAPPENING HERE IN TEXAS.
SOMETIMES PASSION OVERTAKES REASON AND WE LOSE SITE OF THE REAL ISSUES. I AGREE THAT WHACKOS CAUSE ALOT OF THE PROBLEMS. BUT IF THE WHACKOS HAVE ACCESS TO ALL THE OTHER TOOLS OF DEATH, WHY IS THE GUN THIER TOOL OF CHOICE? BECAUSE THERE EASY TO GET AND CAN CAUSE MASS DESTRUCTION WITH LITTLE EFFORT. AND I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT UNTIL A MASS SHOOTING PERSONALY AFFECTS YOUR LIFE, YOU DONT REALLY HAVE ALL THE FACTS TO BASE YOUR JUDGEMENT ON.
Click to expand...


The ONE thing you'll just never get, Wamo, is that criminals do not obey laws. That's why they're ummmmmmmmmmmm criminals. Take the guns away from law abiding citizens and guess who will have ALL the guns......rhetorical question. Point, set, and match.
 
Greg T. said:
The ONE thing you'll just never get, Wamo, is that criminals do not obey laws. That's why they're ummmmmmmmmmmm criminals. Take the guns away from law abiding citizens and guess who will have ALL the guns......rhetorical question. Point, set, and match.
Click to expand...

So the police and military are criminals? If they are not, then it will be impossible for criminals to have ALL the guns. :p

I don't think legislation needs to go so far as to deny people weapons. But at the same time, I think there should be age and/or educational requirements to acquire a weapon. The more powerful the weapon - or the more rounds it holds, the greater the age and educational requirements should be to obtain it. I also feel the exact same way about cars... too many idiots out there who prove every day they should not be trusted with either.
 
9andaWiggle said:
So the police and military are criminals? If they are not, then it will be impossible for criminals to have ALL the guns. :p

I don't think legislation needs to go so far as to deny people weapons. But at the same time, I think there should be age and/or educational requirements to acquire a weapon. The more powerful the weapon - or the more rounds it holds, the greater the age and educational requirements should be to obtain it. I also feel the exact same way about cars... too many idiots out there who prove every day they should not be trusted with either.
Click to expand...

Unconstitutional. All those requirements infringe on our constitutional right to carry weapon. Even the laws we have now are total infringement. Nowhere in the constitution does it say we can keep and bear arms....with a permit......after passing a test......having certain capacity....yada yada. Now, I agree that nut cases should have weapons. Criminals should not have weapons...again, yada yada. BUT, if changes are to be made they must be made at the constitutional level. All these fucking laws are, well, illegal. And, I'm not even sure I agree with making those laws because every law we make that limits or controls/inhibits ones right to protect himself is one step closer to confiscation and elimination. Stalin did it, Hitler did it, .......
 
CRIMINAL? ANYONE WHO BREAKS THE LAW, RIGHT? SO, IF YOU HAVE SMOKED WEED, DONE COKE, TAKEN A CANDY BAR FROM A STORE, SPED DOWN THE HIGHWAY OR ANY OTHER NUMBER OF THINGS, YOUR A CRIMINAL. YOU BROKE THE LAW. WHEATHER YOU WERE CAUGHT OR NOT IS IRRELEVANT. YOU STILL BROKE THE LAW.
 
Greg T. said:
The constitution says nothing about the right to bear arms, as long as someone says it's okay. That puts us right back into the tyrannical government. All the govt has to do is fail everyones background check. Nope. We have a right to carry anywhere and everywhere.
Click to expand...
The supreme Court also says that the Constitution prevent the federal government can't regulate the arms either. That's why felons can't have guns.

There are many words in the Constitution limiting the federal government. They should have limited the federal government here, but the didn't.

Just because the Constitution doesn't explicitly allow for the federal government to regulate arms, it also doesn't explicitly disallow them either.
 
Last edited:
Djarum300 said:
The supreme Court also says that the Constitution prevent the federal government can't regulate the arms either. That's why felons can't have guns.

There are many words in the Constitution limiting the federal government. They should have limited the federal government here, but the didn't.

Just because the Constitution doesn't explicitly allow for the federal government to regulate arms, it also doesn't explicitly disallow them either.
Click to expand...
Yes, it does. "Shall not be infringed"
 
THAT SAYS IT RIGHT THERE. "THERE WERE 32,000 GUN DEATHS LAST YEAR". ANYTHING AFTER THAT IS JUST FLUFF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top