Wonky on Guns (for my fans)

[OKTexas]

Short summation, your a freaking idiot. What if two people break in, do ya just bend over and kiss your ass good bye? Also your forgetting the reason the states insisted on the 2nd Amendment in the first place, hint, it wasn't for personal protection.

If you would ever proofread your comments, for goodness sake, do it when you're accusing someone else of being an idiot.

Of course this comes from one that never has a typo, right? If that's the case you would be the first. Consider yourself appointed as an honorary typing cop.

 

[bobcollum]

Short summation, your a freaking idiot. What if two people break in, do ya just bend over and kiss your ass good bye? Also your forgetting the reason the states insisted on the 2nd Amendment in the first place, hint, it wasn't for personal protection.

If you would ever proofread your comments, for goodness sake, do it when you're accusing someone else of being an idiot.

Of course this come from one that never has a typo, right? If that's the case you would be the first. Consider yourself appointed as an honorary typing cop.

Don't get mad because I noticed your fuck-up, which had it been in any other context besides you demeaning another's intelligence, would've been ignored by me.

I have a typo here and there, but when I'm calling someone an idiot I make sure my shit is straight.

 

[Dreamy]

Mindful of all the hoopla around gun control laws right now, I decided to weigh in for those of you who are interested in the Pundit's take on the issue.

Well before the current wave of mass shootings, I've held that Americans in general should have every right to keep as many weapons for hunting and/or personal protection as they want. I have many friends who own guns, and I've practiced with them myself. The only reasons I don't own one are (1) I have a dog, (2) I don't live in a rural area, and (3) I'd rather not deal with the headaches of keeping my skills fresh and keeping the gun cleaned and maintained.

That said, there are a few things about the current gun laws that do need to change, although most of what I'm proposing would affect only a tiny fraction of gun owners.

1) Gun licensing and registration records should be held by law enforcement and obtainable only through a warrant or subpoena.

2) Felons cannot be given or keep a license. Neither can any member of their household.

3) Anyone failing a psychiatric exam cannot be given or keep a license. The same applies if any member of their household fails or refuses to take the exam.

4) Instead of focusing on "assault weapons," there should be a ban on weapons that are designed with the primary purpose of killing more than one person in a short time (under 60 seconds). There is no logical reason for any civilian to have something like this. If you're truly concerned about multiple criminals targeting you or your home, a weapon like this isn't the answer: you need to hire an armed security detail.

4) Instead of focusing on "assault weapons," there should be a ban on weapons that are designed with the primary purpose of killing more than one person in a short time (under 60 seconds). There is no logical reason for any civilian to have something like this. If you're truly concerned about multiple criminals targeting you or your home, a weapon like this isn't the answer: you need to hire an armed security detail.

So do you want these type of weapons to become illegal? If that is a yes then you are aware that only the bad guys will have them and yes they will still have them.

I never understand people who think they can "gun control" the good lawful people in this country and somehow that will stop the lunatics and the bad people.

 

[ZimothyTahn]

Short summation, your a freaking idiot. What if two people break in, do ya just bend over and kiss your ass good bye? Also your forgetting the reason the states insisted on the 2nd Amendment in the first place, hint, it wasn't for personal protection.

yeah! what if like sixteen black helicopters surround your house and barack kenyan hussein communist obama and eighty five men storm your house?

oh, are we not playing the "freak the fuck out about shit that won't happen" game?

what would gun-fuckers do if they couldn't play on peoples' fears?

 

[OKTexas]

Short summation, you don't have a decent counterargument, so you have to resort to "childish" name calling.

Like I said: if that possibility truly worries you, hire armed guards.


Are you saying it was to form a militia? (The states already did that; it's called the national guard.)

Now your showing how truly ignorant you really are.

Do you have any idea how funny it is when you accuse someone of ignorance and can't even spell the sentence correctly?

First if your going to restrict my ability to defend myself, you hire the armed guards for me, can you really afford that?

Sure. Next you'll be demanding the right to defend yourself by putting a missile silo on your property.

Second, the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to give the power to the people to maintain a FREE state, which has nothing to do with the national guard. If you notice it says the "right of the people" not the right of the government, not the right of the state, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Any more questions?

The 2nd Amendment says no such thing. Thanks for playing.

I'm speaking to intent, not wording. This is what justice Story said about it in his commentaries, I think he was a littler closer to the founders than you are, so forgive me if I take his word over yours, and here is an excerpt.

" The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

Amendment II: Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1890--91

 

[Yurt]

Hard to take someone opining on gun law in the US seriously without knowing Heller.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

what language in heller supports your claim?

Heller affirms the individual right to bear weapons in common usage.

There is an AR15 in practically every cop car in America. Thousands of the 4,000,000 estimated in circulation are in competitions every weekend and I bought mine at WALMART.

Pretty common.

i agree. however, i believe heller only applies to DC and not to the states.

 

[OODA_Loop]

what language in heller supports your claim?

Heller affirms the individual right to bear weapons in common usage.

There is an AR15 in practically every cop car in America. Thousands of the 4,000,000 estimated in circulation are in competitions every weekend and I bought mine at WALMART.

Pretty common.

i agree. however, i believe heller only applies to DC and not to the states.

Incorporated to the States by McDonald V Chicago

McDonald v. Chicago - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Mindful of all the hoopla around gun control laws right now, I decided to weigh in for those of you who are interested in the Pundit's take on the issue.

Well before the current wave of mass shootings, I've held that Americans in general should have every right to keep as many weapons for hunting and/or personal protection as they want. I have many friends who own guns, and I've practiced with them myself. The only reasons I don't own one are (1) I have a dog, (2) I don't live in a rural area, and (3) I'd rather not deal with the headaches of keeping my skills fresh and keeping the gun cleaned and maintained.

That said, there are a few things about the current gun laws that do need to change, although most of what I'm proposing would affect only a tiny fraction of gun owners.

1) Gun licensing and registration records should be held by law enforcement and obtainable only through a warrant or subpoena.

2) Felons cannot be given or keep a license. Neither can any member of their household.

3) Anyone failing a psychiatric exam cannot be given or keep a license. The same applies if any member of their household fails or refuses to take the exam.

4) Instead of focusing on "assault weapons," there should be a ban on weapons that are designed with the primary purpose of killing more than one person in a short time (under 60 seconds). There is no logical reason for any civilian to have something like this. If you're truly concerned about multiple criminals targeting you or your home, a weapon like this isn't the answer: you need to hire an armed security detail.

4) Instead of focusing on "assault weapons," there should be a ban on weapons that are designed with the primary purpose of killing more than one person in a short time (under 60 seconds). There is no logical reason for any civilian to have something like this. If you're truly concerned about multiple criminals targeting you or your home, a weapon like this isn't the answer: you need to hire an armed security detail.

So do you want these type of weapons to become illegal? If that is a yes then you are aware that only the bad guys will have them and yes they will still have them.

I never understand people who think they can "gun control" the good lawful people in this country and somehow that will stop the lunatics and the bad people.

Of course bad people will continue to acquire "people punching" weaponry on the black market. Unfortunately, this doesn't change the fact that there's no "good" reason for a good person to have them outside of a military operation.

 

[OKTexas]

Mindful of all the hoopla around gun control laws right now, I decided to weigh in for those of you who are interested in the Pundit's take on the issue.

Well before the current wave of mass shootings, I've held that Americans in general should have every right to keep as many weapons for hunting and/or personal protection as they want. I have many friends who own guns, and I've practiced with them myself. The only reasons I don't own one are (1) I have a dog, (2) I don't live in a rural area, and (3) I'd rather not deal with the headaches of keeping my skills fresh and keeping the gun cleaned and maintained.

That said, there are a few things about the current gun laws that do need to change, although most of what I'm proposing would affect only a tiny fraction of gun owners.

1) Gun licensing and registration records should be held by law enforcement and obtainable only through a warrant or subpoena.

2) Felons cannot be given or keep a license. Neither can any member of their household.

3) Anyone failing a psychiatric exam cannot be given or keep a license. The same applies if any member of their household fails or refuses to take the exam.

4) Instead of focusing on "assault weapons," there should be a ban on weapons that are designed with the primary purpose of killing more than one person in a short time (under 60 seconds). There is no logical reason for any civilian to have something like this. If you're truly concerned about multiple criminals targeting you or your home, a weapon like this isn't the answer: you need to hire an armed security detail.

4) Instead of focusing on "assault weapons," there should be a ban on weapons that are designed with the primary purpose of killing more than one person in a short time (under 60 seconds). There is no logical reason for any civilian to have something like this. If you're truly concerned about multiple criminals targeting you or your home, a weapon like this isn't the answer: you need to hire an armed security detail.

So do you want these type of weapons to become illegal? If that is a yes then you are aware that only the bad guys will have them and yes they will still have them.

I never understand people who think they can "gun control" the good lawful people in this country and somehow that will stop the lunatics and the bad people.

Of course bad people will continue to acquire "people punching" weaponry on the black market. Unfortunately, this doesn't change the fact that there's no "good" reason for a good person to have them outside of a military operation.

So your admitting you can't control bad people, you're only interested controlling good people. Why?

 

[OKTexas]

Short summation, your a freaking idiot. What if two people break in, do ya just bend over and kiss your ass good bye? Also your forgetting the reason the states insisted on the 2nd Amendment in the first place, hint, it wasn't for personal protection.

yeah! what if like sixteen black helicopters surround your house and barack kenyan hussein communist obama and eighty five men storm your house?

oh, are we not playing the "freak the fuck out about shit that won't happen" game?

what would gun-fuckers do if they couldn't play on peoples' fears?

There have been instances of as many as 4 people invading a home here in Houston, it's called being prepared for the possible, not fear. It's the ones not prepared who should be afraid. Guns are used in self defense more than 2 million times a year, it's a sad fact, but none the less a fact.

 

[Yurt]

Heller affirms the individual right to bear weapons in common usage.

There is an AR15 in practically every cop car in America. Thousands of the 4,000,000 estimated in circulation are in competitions every weekend and I bought mine at WALMART.

Pretty common.

i agree. however, i believe heller only applies to DC and not to the states.

Incorporated to the States by McDonald V Chicago

McDonald v. Chicago - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

thank you, missed that case somehow

 

[OODA_Loop]

i agree. however, i believe heller only applies to DC and not to the states.

Incorporated to the States by McDonald V Chicago

McDonald v. Chicago - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

thank you, missed that case somehow

The pleasure is all mine.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

So do you want these type of weapons to become illegal? If that is a yes then you are aware that only the bad guys will have them and yes they will still have them.

I never understand people who think they can "gun control" the good lawful people in this country and somehow that will stop the lunatics and the bad people.

Of course bad people will continue to acquire "people punching" weaponry on the black market. Unfortunately, this doesn't change the fact that there's no "good" reason for a good person to have them outside of a military operation.

So your admitting you can't control bad people, you're only interested controlling good people. Why?

Some good people are stupid enough to require an extra measure of control.

That's why we have things like helmet laws for motorcyclists.

 

[Dreamy]

Of course bad people will continue to acquire "people punching" weaponry on the black market. Unfortunately, this doesn't change the fact that there's no "good" reason for a good person to have them outside of a military operation.

So your admitting you can't control bad people, you're only interested controlling good people. Why?

Some good people are stupid enough to require an extra measure of control.

That's why we have things like helmet laws for motorcyclists.

Do you think people should be allowed to not protect themselves if they choose?

 

[Wonky Pundit]

So your admitting you can't control bad people, you're only interested controlling good people. Why?

Some good people are stupid enough to require an extra measure of control.

That's why we have things like helmet laws for motorcyclists.

Do you think people should be allowed to not protect themselves if they choose?

With helmets, you mean?

 

[Dreamy]

Mindful of all the hoopla around gun control laws right now, I decided to weigh in for those of you who are interested in the Pundit's take on the issue.

Well before the current wave of mass shootings, I've held that Americans in general should have every right to keep as many weapons for hunting and/or personal protection as they want. I have many friends who own guns, and I've practiced with them myself. The only reasons I don't own one are (1) I have a dog, (2) I don't live in a rural area, and (3) I'd rather not deal with the headaches of keeping my skills fresh and keeping the gun cleaned and maintained.

That said, there are a few things about the current gun laws that do need to change, although most of what I'm proposing would affect only a tiny fraction of gun owners.

1) Gun licensing and registration records should be held by law enforcement and obtainable only through a warrant or subpoena.

2) Felons cannot be given or keep a license. Neither can any member of their household.

3) Anyone failing a psychiatric exam cannot be given or keep a license. The same applies if any member of their household fails or refuses to take the exam.

4) Instead of focusing on "assault weapons," there should be a ban on weapons that are designed with the primary purpose of killing more than one person in a short time (under 60 seconds). There is no logical reason for any civilian to have something like this. If you're truly concerned about multiple criminals targeting you or your home, a weapon like this isn't the answer: you need to hire an armed security detail.

4) Instead of focusing on "assault weapons," there should be a ban on weapons that are designed with the primary purpose of killing more than one person in a short time (under 60 seconds). There is no logical reason for any civilian to have something like this. If you're truly concerned about multiple criminals targeting you or your home, a weapon like this isn't the answer: you need to hire an armed security detail.

So do you want these type of weapons to become illegal? If that is a yes then you are aware that only the bad guys will have them and yes they will still have them.

I never understand people who think they can "gun control" the good lawful people in this country and somehow that will stop the lunatics and the bad people.

Of course bad people will continue to acquire "people punching" weaponry on the black market. Unfortunately, this doesn't change the fact that there's no "good" reason for a good person to have them outside of a military operation.

So your logic is we keep these weapons out of the hands of good people and ooops sorry about the fact that the bad people who will use them in nefarious ways will still have these weapons?

With all due respect, and trying with great effort to suppress my air of condescension, what type of f'n logic or solution is that Wonky?

 

[Dreamy]

Some good people are stupid enough to require an extra measure of control.

That's why we have things like helmet laws for motorcyclists.

Do you think people should be allowed to not protect themselves if they choose?

With helmets, you mean?

Hmmm, How about us taking this in a very general sense at this point.

Do you think people should be allowed to not protect themselves if they choose?

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Do you think people should be allowed to not protect themselves if they choose?

With helmets, you mean?

Hmmm, How about us taking this in a very general sense at this point.

Do you think people should be allowed to not protect themselves if they choose?

Well, let's see. Courts have held that freedom of speech includes the freedom not to speak. So, although I'm not aware of any specific case, it would seem to make sense in legal precedent that the freedom to keep a firearm would include the freedom not to keep one.

So, in a "very general sense," and with no other factors in this hypothetical situation, it would seem that people should be allowed not to protect themselves.

 

[Dreamy]

With helmets, you mean?

Hmmm, How about us taking this in a very general sense at this point.

Do you think people should be allowed to not protect themselves if they choose?

Well, let's see. Courts have held that freedom of speech includes the freedom not to speak. So, although I'm not aware of any specific case, it would seem to make sense in legal precedent that the freedom to keep a firearm would include the freedom not to keep one.

So, in a "very general sense," and with no other factors in this hypothetical situation, it would seem that people should be allowed not to protect themselves.

Motorcycle Helmets? Should they be mandatory? Should I be able to ride and risk cracking my skull like a watermelon if I so choose? Can I have the freedom to not protect my head?

 

[Connery]

Motorcycle Helmets? Should they be mandatory? Should I be able to ride and risk cracking my skull like a watermelon if I so choose? Can I have the freedom to not protect my head?

Only if it does not endanger anyone else on the road....