PDA

View Full Version : ATTN 2nd Amendment Supporters



Howey
08-30-2015, 04:12 PM
Assuming you are opposed to gun control, would you change your stance if your child or spouse were killed (by accident or intentionally) by a gun?

Chris
08-30-2015, 04:14 PM
No. I would probably advocate for greater gun liberty so we the people can defend ourselves.

Cletus
08-30-2015, 04:15 PM
Why would I?

Captain Obvious
08-30-2015, 04:46 PM
If your spouse or child were killed by a drunk driver, would you advocate the banning of cars?

Howey
08-30-2015, 05:02 PM
If your spouse or child were killed by a drunk driver, would you advocate the banning of cars?

No. I'd Advocate banning drunk drivers and making it harder for them to get behind the wheel.

Captain Obvious
08-30-2015, 05:02 PM
No. I'd Advocate banning drunk drivers and making it harder for them to get behind the wheel.

But banning criminals and making it harder for them to obtain firearms isn't your strategy?

Sure...

Captain Obvious
08-30-2015, 05:10 PM
Threadban in 3... 2...

Private Pickle
08-30-2015, 05:17 PM
No. I'd Advocate banning drunk drivers and making it harder for them to get behind the wheel.

So put a breathalyzer in every car in America!

Private Pickle
08-30-2015, 05:29 PM
Well as an ardent supporter of the 2nd Amendment I know that if I had a personal tragedy involving a gun I would become the opposite of what I am to fill the void in my soul and attempt to explain random acts of violence.

rembrant
08-30-2015, 05:57 PM
No. I would probably advocate for greater gun liberty so we the people can defend ourselves. Or liberty for some bad guy to shoot first? Liberty for your kid to find a gun in the house..shoot himself or whoever? Unless you are mentally ill or a felon.... GREATER gun liberty? What.. you want a Howitzer? I could get a gun..no sweat.. a carry permit..no sweat. I can't get (or afford) a machine gun..but then I don't make that many enemies. Here in Ohio.. you can sit in a bar now with a gun. I Georgia.. you can pack heat in church. ...to me..that's just nuts but some folks need to shoot each other in church...want that liberty.

rembrant
08-30-2015, 06:05 PM
Well as an ardent supporter of the 2nd Amendment I know that if I had a personal tragedy involving a gun I would become the opposite of what I am to fill the void in my soul and attempt to explain random acts of violence. Of course... getting shot is not always so random. There's jerks who are ticking bombs and by the time you know that..it may be too late. When the nutcase already is pointing a gun at your face.... doing your best Quick Draw... only assures you get shot. If you see someone pointing a gun at you....that's a plus.. as often people are killed before they see it coming.

rembrant
08-30-2015, 06:08 PM
So put a breathalyzer in every car in America! Oh c'mon... crazy fcks get other fools to get them a gun..they sure can get someone to blow in the little tube.

Private Pickle
08-30-2015, 06:28 PM
Of course... getting shot is not always so random. There's jerks who are ticking bombs and by the time you know that..it may be too late. When the nutcase already is pointing a gun at your face.... doing your best Quick Draw... only assures you get shot. If you see someone pointing a gun at you....that's a plus.. as often people are killed before they see it coming.

And one time...at band camp...

Cletus
08-30-2015, 07:20 PM
When the nutcase already is pointing a gun at your face.... doing your best Quick Draw... only assures you get shot.

Another blanket and provably false statement. You MAY not be able to engage your assailant before he engages, but you also may very well be able to do exactly that.

One thing we do know... If you just stand there, you are nothing but a stationary target.

kilgram
08-30-2015, 07:31 PM
But banning criminals and making it harder for them to obtain firearms isn't your strategy?

Sure...
It means restricting the gun license. And that goes agaisnt your ideas :)

Chris
08-30-2015, 07:41 PM
It means restricting the gun license. And that goes agaisnt your ideas :)

How restrict? Do you want to restrict criminals? Some aren't criminals till they commit crime and those who are by definition don't follow the law. Or those who psychological makeup makes them prone to mass murder? Psychology cannot tell us this beforehand, only after the fact. That leaves law abiding citizens who need to be able to defend themselves against criminals and the state, that an anarchist like you ought to appreciate.

Green Arrow
08-30-2015, 07:50 PM
I suppose the first question should be...who doesn't support the second amendment? I support every aspect of the constitution, even the aspects I don't care for. There's a process to change the parts we don't like, but we should still defend it in its entirety. It's the entire foundation of our society and system of governance.

Captain Obvious
08-30-2015, 08:02 PM
It means restricting the gun license. And that goes agaisnt your ideas :)

You knee jerk guys take too much for granted, I'm fairly staunchly in support of gun licensing.

Search "12,000 guns" and read through the thread and see how the RWNJ's all shit the bed over my stance.

Then maybe I'll accept your apology.

Private Pickle
08-30-2015, 08:50 PM
Oh c'mon... crazy fcks get other fools to get them a gun..they sure can get someone to blow in the little tube.

They already have laws for that.

zelmo1234
08-30-2015, 09:06 PM
Assuming you are opposed to gun control, would you change your stance if your child or spouse were killed (by accident or intentionally) by a gun?

NO! And if it was, like most shootings in areas that have heavy restrictions on guns I would be more for the 2nd amendment that I am today.

But then I realize that Guns don't kill people, people kill people. The left has not figured that out yet.

zelmo1234
08-30-2015, 09:09 PM
No. I'd Advocate banning drunk drivers and making it harder for them to get behind the wheel.

You don't have to, it is already illegal to drink and drive? and in a related story, is happens to be illegal to kill people as well

But here in lies the problem, the left is under the impression that more laws will prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns. The truth is the only thing that it does is to make it much harder for law abiding citizens to protect themselves.

zelmo1234
08-30-2015, 09:13 PM
Oh c'mon... crazy fcks get other fools to get them a gun..they sure can get someone to blow in the little tube.

actually how dies he know that I am reaching for a gun and not my wallet? And if you think it is easy to shoot someone? look at the shootings that how many shots are fired compared to what people think happens

Dr. Who
08-31-2015, 01:02 AM
NO! And if it was, like most shootings in areas that have heavy restrictions on guns I would be more for the 2nd amendment that I am today.

But then I realize that Guns don't kill people, people kill people. The left has not figured that out yet.
People with guns kill more people deliberately than those without guns. I think that's a pretty fair statement. People who are immoral, people with mental issues and people who are under the influence of drugs/alcohol and the utterly irresponsible kill the most people with guns. Gun control i.e. attempting to ensure that some people who should be excluded from weapon ownership don't readily acquire weapons is not gun grabbing, it's just common sense. Ensuring that people have to legally secure their weapons is also not gun grabbing anymore than requiring that you not leave your keys in the ignition of your car, is car grabbing, nor is requiring motor vehicle licensing or registration.

People have property rights too, but that doesn't stop the bank from requiring you to have insurance if you want a mortgage.

Personal responsibility means very little if there is no practical consequence. Someone without any means cannot be sued for improper gun storage such that a child or casual thief can take their weapon and use it. The worst we can do is jail them, which is small comfort if someone ends up grievously injured or dead because of that irresponsibility. That is transferred to the victim and their family. It is small comfort that an emotionally disturbed young adult was not a diagnosed paranoid personality who should never have been allowed to purchase a weapon, when he managed to purchase a weapon and shoot up his school. If purchasing an insurance policy was also a requirement of gun ownership, like it is with car ownership, strawman purchases would be far less economical and therefore far more limited. The price of illegal weapons would increase substantially and likely exclude many many illegal gun purchases on economic grounds. That would then leave stolen weapons as the primary source of weapons for criminals. Legally requiring proof of secure weapon storage would eliminate most gun thefts.

The very idea that if everyone is armed at all times, that no one will be killed is naive. All soldiers in an armed conflict are armed and plenty are killed and maimed, sometimes by friendly fire. In a panic situation a whole bunch of ill trained armed emotional people will likely result in an even bigger bloodbath, with people who might not otherwise lose their lives dying, because while they would otherwise hide from the gunfire, they are now involved in a shoot out at the OK Corral with stray bullets finding unintended targets.

Cthulhu
08-31-2015, 02:40 AM
Assuming you are opposed to gun control, would you change your stance if your child or spouse were killed (by accident or intentionally) by a gun?
No.

Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.

zelmo1234
08-31-2015, 03:38 PM
People with guns kill more people deliberately than those without guns. I think that's a pretty fair statement. People who are immoral, people with mental issues and people who are under the influence of drugs/alcohol and the utterly irresponsible kill the most people with guns. Gun control i.e. attempting to ensure that some people who should be excluded from weapon ownership don't readily acquire weapons is not gun grabbing, it's just common sense. Ensuring that people have to legally secure their weapons is also not gun grabbing anymore than requiring that you not leave your keys in the ignition of your car, is car grabbing, nor is requiring motor vehicle licensing or registration.

People have property rights too, but that doesn't stop the bank from requiring you to have insurance if you want a mortgage.

Personal responsibility means very little if there is no practical consequence. Someone without any means cannot be sued for improper gun storage such that a child or casual thief can take their weapon and use it. The worst we can do is jail them, which is small comfort if someone ends up grievously injured or dead because of that irresponsibility. That is transferred to the victim and their family. It is small comfort that an emotionally disturbed young adult was not a diagnosed paranoid personality who should never have been allowed to purchase a weapon, when he managed to purchase a weapon and shoot up his school. If purchasing an insurance policy was also a requirement of gun ownership, like it is with car ownership, strawman purchases would be far less economical and therefore far more limited. The price of illegal weapons would increase substantially and likely exclude many many illegal gun purchases on economic grounds. That would then leave stolen weapons as the primary source of weapons for criminals. Legally requiring proof of secure weapon storage would eliminate most gun thefts.

The very idea that if everyone is armed at all times, that no one will be killed is naive. All soldiers in an armed conflict are armed and plenty are killed and maimed, sometimes by friendly fire. In a panic situation a whole bunch of ill trained armed emotional people will likely result in an even bigger bloodbath, with people who might not otherwise lose their lives dying, because while they would otherwise hide from the gunfire, they are now involved in a shoot out at the OK Corral with stray bullets finding unintended targets.

How about we require people to purchase insurance when they buy a beer because drunk drivers kill people. purchase insurance before swimming? or taking a bath?

Here is the thing, Gun violence was going down for decades, until the laws stopped being enforced, Just like Democrats always do, they went soft on crime. But even at the Obama administration rates gun violence is much lower than in the past. Considering that nearly 2/3's of gun deaths each year are suicides, we are talking about 11,000 people in a country of 330 million +

What we can conclude though is the mass shootings nearly always happen in Gun free zones. That the people usually are mentally ill, and they are trying for their `5 mins of fame.

Bob
08-31-2015, 03:52 PM
People with guns kill more people deliberately than those without guns. I think that's a pretty fair statement. People who are immoral, people with mental issues and people who are under the influence of drugs/alcohol and the utterly irresponsible kill the most people with guns. Gun control i.e. attempting to ensure that some people who should be excluded from weapon ownership don't readily acquire weapons is not gun grabbing, it's just common sense. Ensuring that people have to legally secure their weapons is also not gun grabbing anymore than requiring that you not leave your keys in the ignition of your car, is car grabbing, nor is requiring motor vehicle licensing or registration.

People have property rights too, but that doesn't stop the bank from requiring you to have insurance if you want a mortgage.

Personal responsibility means very little if there is no practical consequence. Someone without any means cannot be sued for improper gun storage such that a child or casual thief can take their weapon and use it. The worst we can do is jail them, which is small comfort if someone ends up grievously injured or dead because of that irresponsibility. That is transferred to the victim and their family. It is small comfort that an emotionally disturbed young adult was not a diagnosed paranoid personality who should never have been allowed to purchase a weapon, when he managed to purchase a weapon and shoot up his school. If purchasing an insurance policy was also a requirement of gun ownership, like it is with car ownership, strawman purchases would be far less economical and therefore far more limited. The price of illegal weapons would increase substantially and likely exclude many many illegal gun purchases on economic grounds. That would then leave stolen weapons as the primary source of weapons for criminals. Legally requiring proof of secure weapon storage would eliminate most gun thefts.

The very idea that if everyone is armed at all times, that no one will be killed is naive. All soldiers in an armed conflict are armed and plenty are killed and maimed, sometimes by friendly fire. In a panic situation a whole bunch of ill trained armed emotional people will likely result in an even bigger bloodbath, with people who might not otherwise lose their lives dying, because while they would otherwise hide from the gunfire, they are now involved in a shoot out at the OK Corral with stray bullets finding unintended targets.

For all those reasons and more, Government simply can't stop it. They can jail you once the shots are fired, but till then, they can't prevent it. We need to adjust to facts that as in auto accidents, people die, so do they to those criminals using guns.

I resent rules designed to make my life hard and not one bit wish to help the mentally ill have guns.

maineman
08-31-2015, 04:00 PM
NO! And if it was, like most shootings in areas that have heavy restrictions on guns I would be more for the 2nd amendment that I am today.

But then I realize that Guns don't kill people, people kill people. The left has not figured that out yet.

people without guns don't kill any where NEAR as many people as people with guns do.

Howey
08-31-2015, 05:46 PM
How about we require people to purchase insurance when they buy a beer because drunk drivers kill people. purchase insurance before swimming? or taking a bath?

Here is the thing, Gun violence was going down for decades, until the laws stopped being enforced, Just like Democrats always do, they went soft on crime. But even at the Obama administration rates gun violence is much lower than in the past. Considering that nearly 2/3's of gun deaths each year are suicides, we are talking about 11,000 people in a country of 330 million +

What we can conclude though is the mass shootings nearly always happen in Gun free zones. That the people usually are mentally ill, and they are trying for their `5 mins of fame.



According to these folks (https://www.nraila.org/articles/20130927/not-a-peep-from-obama-violent-crime-now-at-a-42-year-low) gun violence is at an all time low.

Thanks, Obama!

Dr. Who
08-31-2015, 06:16 PM
How about we require people to purchase insurance when they buy a beer because drunk drivers kill people. purchase insurance before swimming? or taking a bath?

Here is the thing, Gun violence was going down for decades, until the laws stopped being enforced, Just like Democrats always do, they went soft on crime. But even at the Obama administration rates gun violence is much lower than in the past. Considering that nearly 2/3's of gun deaths each year are suicides, we are talking about 11,000 people in a country of 330 million +

What we can conclude though is the mass shootings nearly always happen in Gun free zones. That the people usually are mentally ill, and they are trying for their `5 mins of fame.



How about we require people to purchase insurance when they buy a beer because drunk drivers kill people. purchase insurance before swimming? or taking a bath?
You don't need beer insurance, because you have vehicle insurance. If you are swimming in your own pool, you probably already have disability insurance or life insurance, if it's someone else's pool, hopefully they carry homeowner's insurance or liability insurance.

Green Arrow
08-31-2015, 06:49 PM
According to these folks (https://www.nraila.org/articles/20130927/not-a-peep-from-obama-violent-crime-now-at-a-42-year-low) gun violence is at an all time low.

Thanks, Obama!

Gun violence is at an all time low and all without any significant gun control legislation.

So, in other words...there are other factors that drive crime rates up and the existence of guns isn't one of them.

Howey
08-31-2015, 07:37 PM
Gun violence is at an all time low and all without any significant gun control legislation.

So, in other words...there are other factors that drive crime rates up and the existence of guns isn't one of them.
Crime rates are lower too...

Cthulhu
08-31-2015, 07:51 PM
people without guns don't kill any where NEAR as many people as people with guns do.
Tell that to the Boer farmers in south Africa who are regularly hacked apart, raped and mutilated by other south Africans.

Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.

rembrant
09-02-2015, 03:04 PM
No. I'd Advocate banning drunk drivers and making it harder for them to get behind the wheel. My Nephew was killed by a drunk driver who...was an off duty local cop. I HAVE..a few times drove home when.. functional but probably over the limit. Not long ago.. friends at the pub insisted i NOT drive.. found me a ride home..and a ride to pick up the car the next day. I now learned a few things.

GUNS? I kind of need to drive on a regular basis. I have never really NEEDED a gun. I sold my rifle BECAUSE.. I was in a mood to shoot a certain guy.

Redrose
09-02-2015, 03:21 PM
Assuming you are opposed to gun control, would you change your stance if your child or spouse were killed (by accident or intentionally) by a gun?


No. More people are protected by being armed than injured or killed.

We have more than enough gun laws already on the books. They need to be better applied and enforced.

This topic can go off in many areas, so I'll try not to derail. We need to punish more severely gun crimes. No plea downs. I've seen too many cases in court where the "armed" was dropped from the plea agreement for a lesser sentence. Usually private lawyers, not the court appointed ones get a that done.

You use a gun, you going to do serious time, no breaks. That goes for the comman man too. The guy who loves his guns, keeps them loaded and not locked up with kids around needs to be punished severely if an accident happens. That would send a message loud and clear there is a zero tolerance policy with gun accidents, or if a gun is "taken" by a family member and used to massacre people, the owner is liable too.
Not for the actual murder, but a criminal charge of being criminally negligent. Many people may reevaluate the need to have a gun, and that may eliminate those who feel they need a gun, but donot have the necessary respect for it's power and the intelligence to properly secure them. Owning a gun is a right, and it is also comes with a responsibility.

Also, our jails and prisons are crowded, we need to fill the prisons with the violent and dangerous offenders. The white collar and non-violent offenders could be sentenced to very strict community control leaving the jails and prisons available for the bad stuff.

rembrant
09-02-2015, 04:41 PM
Tell that to the Boer farmers in south Africa who are regularly hacked apart, raped and mutilated by other south Africans.

Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone. Well..Boer farmers have over the years dished out as much damage as they got. TRUTH (if you even care) is it's MORE danger to be in a Texas biker bar or to be in a Chicago gang. Maybe even worse is to be in the prison system. Then.. you can't run or hide. In the good old USA.. odds of getting killed are scary.

Whatever.. go club a seal...a puppy.

Doublejack
09-03-2015, 03:32 AM
I'm a 2ndA guy but anti-NRA.

I happen to be a responsible gun owner today but growing up in the sticks it's a miracle my group of friends never shot themselves or someone else. It definitely wouldn't have hurt us to take a safety course. Some friends did but most of us didn't.

I wouldn't have any problem with mandatory safety courses, heavier backgrounds, mental aptitude test, small one time home appointment discussing the safest solutions and tactics for defending a home with a firearm as well as securing and storing.

As for the question - Not sure really. If the gun happened to be one of my guns that would be a rough one for sure, but other than that I don't think so.

I would be more pissed that idiots are allowed to have guns.