Gun control vs. Terrorism (Dem hypocrisy)

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The right of self defense, even when it comes to the state, say a police officer acting unjustly. The constitution is just a piece of paper, it had no real power, the founders recognized this. If the population wasn’t armed, then the state, or some rogue group, with power (firearms) could at any time ignore the constitution at will. So the second defends the natural right of self defense, as well as defense the entire constitution, that put the power (firearms) into the hands of its people. This shouldn’t have to be explained to you.

He knows.

He and his communist ilk are trying to subvert the meaning so they can confiscate our guns and leave us powerless when Red October arrives.

 

[Slade3200]

I think it is a fine debate to have. The merits behind the auto restrictions are the same merits for those that argue for further restrictions. Of course there are always going to be those who push for more and there are going to be those who want none and then there is the middle majority whose limitations vary, thus the debate.

The Virginia Tech shooter murdered 32 people with pistols...so now, according to you, we can't have pistols either....right?

Absolutely not, you don’t seem to understand the opposing arguement. Or are you intentionally trying to distort it?

No....you don't seem to understand...you stated that Americans should not have access to weapons that can kill a lot of people in a few seconds.....and yet the Virginia Tech shooter murdered 32 people with pistols.....following your logic, we won't be allowed to have pistols either....

I have already seen one journalist who commented on being in a restaurant in Texas where he saw people openly carrying guns...he wrote about the guy with the revolver...and the other guy with the military pistol...by which he meant the semi-auto pistol that had a magazine.....the anti gunners are not going to let those pistols be owned if they get any real power.....

No that’s not my logic, that’s your warped interpretation of it. You are trying to equate the firepower of a pistol to a machine gun because a guy with a pistol killed 32 people. It isn’t an intellectually honest arguement but I think you know that. Nice try

When was the last time a machine gun was used in a murder?

Exactly! Thank you. Seems like the restrictions have done some good

 

[Slade3200]

No that’s not my logic, that’s your warped interpretation of it. You are trying to equate the firepower of a pistol to a machine gun because a guy with a pistol killed 32 people. It isn’t an intellectually honest arguement but I think you know that. Nice try

Trying to understand your logic here. So if somebody only has a pistol instead of a whatever, and he only kills 40 people instead of 70, you would consider that an accomplishment?

If there is a crazy dude on a rampage I’d much rather see him with a pistol instead of a machine gun... wouldn’t you?

The logic isnt tough

Logic like nobody ever uses machine guns for mass murders outside of the rigged guns used by the Vegas shooter?

So what would your suggestion be, no semi-automataic guns available to the public?

No, I think we are pretty close with our current laws. I own guns and respect our right to have them. I don’t care if things like bump stocks and high capacity mags get restricted. Not a big deal IMO

 

[jon_berzerk]

No that’s not my logic, that’s your warped interpretation of it. You are trying to equate the firepower of a pistol to a machine gun because a guy with a pistol killed 32 people. It isn’t an intellectually honest arguement but I think you know that. Nice try

Trying to understand your logic here. So if somebody only has a pistol instead of a whatever, and he only kills 40 people instead of 70, you would consider that an accomplishment?

If there is a crazy dude on a rampage I’d much rather see him with a pistol instead of a machine gun... wouldn’t you?

The logic isnt tough

Logic like nobody ever uses machine guns for mass murders outside of the rigged guns used by the Vegas shooter?

So what would your suggestion be, no semi-automataic guns available to the public?

No, I think we are pretty close with our current laws. I own guns and respect our right to have them. I don’t care if things like bump stocks and high capacity mags get restricted. Not a big deal IMO

i dont care either although i have one

they are wasteful on ammo

that aside

banning the bump stock will do nothing to prevent future incidents

more then anything i am against making laws

that only affect the law abiding

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

What? Trucks aren’t designed to kill people but guns are? Absolute dumbest argument I have ever heard. As if the designers intended use of an object somehow determines weather it should be considered lethal or not. Both are deadly, and in the wrongs hands will kill people. I suppose if I design a gun intended for target practice it magically becomes unable to penetrate human flesh. If you have a point to make, try a sprinkle of logic.

Okay. Guns are designed to kill people. when the first gun was made, it was made to kill another person, because it was more efficient than a sword or arrow.

Trucks are designed to move heavy loads from one place to another. When the first truck was made, that's what it was designed for.

That's the difference.

This isn't complicated.

Neither is a kitchen knife, but there are case trials where it’s been referred to as the “murder weapon”. That’s checkmate Joe.

 

[danielpalos]

lol. Projecting much, right wingers?

No, it isn't. Militia and the People are collective, not Individual.

The right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, like usual.

Self defense has always been an individual thing, like it or not. LOL

Defense of self and property is recognized as a natural right in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

There is no due process needed for a right to exist it is only needed when attempting to deny rights to an individual

Yes, there is. Defense of self and property is recognized as a natural right in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

You are confusing defense of self and property, with defense of a State or the Union.

I'm not the one who is confused

Inalienable or natural rights do not have to be sanctioned by government as they exist within each person

Yes, you are the one confused. Private justice is not public or social justice. Only the right wing, never gets it.

 

[danielpalos]

I am saying our Second Amendment has nothing to do with natural rights. It has Only to do with what is necessary to the security of a free State and why well regulated militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

1. You have NEVER provided any authority or source for your statement that the Second Amendment does not protect natural rights. That is complete bullshit, and I have proved (with citations) over and over again, the exact opposite. The bill of rights was to ensure that natural rights would be protected in forming a union, and even if they were not at the time the constitution was created, the 14th Amendment made it so. The Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment provide a double protection, against State authority.

2. You have, again, misstated the text of the Amendment to to twist and torture it to the meaning you want, but you are wrong!!! You state:

"It has Only to do with what is necessary to the security of a free State and why well regulated militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union."

This CONFIRMS what I have said before about how you read the Amendment. You read it like this:

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You have repeatedly attempted to twist the meaning for your own communist ends, but **** off. We are smarter than you and whomever is feeding you this unadulterated horse shit.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State and well regulated militia being necessary, not the unorganized militia.

All y'all have is appeals to ignorance.

 

[danielpalos]

No, it doesn't. Arms are declared socialized for the militia in Article 1, Section 8. Any more reading comprehension issues?

Na, The Second Amendment is solely for the individual

No, it isn't. Militia and the People are collective, not Individual.

The right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, like usual.

If that were the case, then why the need to differentiate between the militia, and people? And people cannot just be a declared for the collective because you want it to, that’s just a ridiculous interpretation since we know they did not mean collective as in “we look out for the collective over the individual” because that was not at all the way it was put into practice. Even if your interpretation (as ridiculous as it is) were correct, then why was there a need to mandate that the right to keep and bear arms NOT BE INFRINGED upon by the government???? That makes no sense whatsoever.

The mental gymnastics you have to do...have moved into the realm of delusions.

Not militarily preferable to try to have everyone muster and become well regulated.

Natural rights are distinct from the obligation of the militia to the security of a free State or the Union.

It wasn’t at all, and they learned that during the revolution that took place before the creation of the 2nd amendment, that militias were terrible when going up against regular armies, yet they still banned a standing army...why did they ban a standing army that’s immensely more effective at a common defense?

And agian your not even acknowledging the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Not the right of the militia, not the right of certain well trained people, not the right of the government, not the right of the collective, the people, which refers to all individuals under jurisdiction.

Natural rights are distinct from the obligation of the militia to the security of a free State or the Union. They are mutually incompatible.

 

[sakinago]

Na, The Second Amendment is solely for the individual

No, it isn't. Militia and the People are collective, not Individual.

The right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, like usual.

If that were the case, then why the need to differentiate between the militia, and people? And people cannot just be a declared for the collective because you want it to, that’s just a ridiculous interpretation since we know they did not mean collective as in “we look out for the collective over the individual” because that was not at all the way it was put into practice. Even if your interpretation (as ridiculous as it is) were correct, then why was there a need to mandate that the right to keep and bear arms NOT BE INFRINGED upon by the government???? That makes no sense whatsoever.

The mental gymnastics you have to do...have moved into the realm of delusions.

Not militarily preferable to try to have everyone muster and become well regulated.

Natural rights are distinct from the obligation of the militia to the security of a free State or the Union.

It wasn’t at all, and they learned that during the revolution that took place before the creation of the 2nd amendment, that militias were terrible when going up against regular armies, yet they still banned a standing army...why did they ban a standing army that’s immensely more effective at a common defense?

And agian your not even acknowledging the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Not the right of the militia, not the right of certain well trained people, not the right of the government, not the right of the collective, the people, which refers to all individuals under jurisdiction.

Natural rights are distinct from the obligation of the militia to the security of a free State or the Union. They are mutually incompatible.

Says who, they don’t have an obligation, they are civilian ran. And it’s still a natural right to form up groups and do whatever you please in those groups as long as you’re not hurting anyone else, perhaps maybe a militia group...that’s a natural right haha. Again you have zero clue what natural rights are. And the legislative branch is charged with the common defense, article 1 section 8, good job pointing that out. The militia was always a local civilian group that the state (whether fed, or state government) had no control over. If they did have control over them, why not just use a standing army instead? I’ve asked you like 20 questions at this point that you have no answer for, instead you just parrot your incorrect suppositions over and over. You need to ask your professor to give you lots of these incorrect suppositions because you’re running out of them.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State and well regulated militia being necessary, not the unorganized militia.

All y'all have is appeals to ignorance.

BULLSHIT, and you ******* know it.

No one will make that argument with a straight face. It is UNEQUIVOCAL that the intent was to preserve the right of PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, not organize and provide for a militia.

To reach such an absurd conclusion, one must completely ignore the phrase "the right of the people" which you continually do.

You cannot argue from a position of reason, so you resort to your tired response of "clueless and causeless" to get out of admitting that you are ******* wrong.

I will go ahead and declare myself the winner here. Thank you very much.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Natural rights are distinct from the obligation of the militia to the security of a free State or the Union. They are mutually incompatible.

Could you point to the part of the Constitution that obligates a militia to protect a free State?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

It made me think about how the "Left" typically reacts to gun violence, something we heard a lot of after Vegas, and I noticed that the messaging is quite different. After a shooting event the Left seems quick and adamant to try and change our laws to make communities safer. I've heard it communicated as a negligence of duty to not talk about gun control after a shooting. In the same spirit, why isn't there a reaction to legislate a way to keep us safer from terrorism after a terror attack by the Left? Its a rhetorical question, i know why, hence the hypocrisy. But if anybody would like to try to rationalize it then please go ahead!

Simple.

Home Depot Trucks aren't designed to kill people.

Guns are.

But I will bet you'll find out that this guy had a harder time renting a truck from the Home Depot than that other nut had building up a small arsenal.

What? Trucks aren’t designed to kill people but guns are? Absolute dumbest argument I have ever heard. As if the designers intended use of an object somehow determines weather it should be considered lethal or not. Both are deadly, and in the wrongs hands will kill people. I suppose if I design a gun intended for target practice it magically becomes unable to penetrate human flesh. If you have a point to make, try a sprinkle of logic.

Only one of those is specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

 

[sakinago]

I am saying our Second Amendment has nothing to do with natural rights. It has Only to do with what is necessary to the security of a free State and why well regulated militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

1. You have NEVER provided any authority or source for your statement that the Second Amendment does not protect natural rights. That is complete bullshit, and I have proved (with citations) over and over again, the exact opposite. The bill of rights was to ensure that natural rights would be protected in forming a union, and even if they were not at the time the constitution was created, the 14th Amendment made it so. The Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment provide a double protection, against State authority.

2. You have, again, misstated the text of the Amendment to to twist and torture it to the meaning you want, but you are wrong!!! You state:

"It has Only to do with what is necessary to the security of a free State and why well regulated militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union."

This CONFIRMS what I have said before about how you read the Amendment. You read it like this:

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You have repeatedly attempted to twist the meaning for your own communist ends, but **** off. We are smarter than you and whomever is feeding you this unadulterated horse shit.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State and well regulated militia being necessary, not the unorganized militia.

All y'all have is appeals to ignorance.

No we have the actual text supporting us. I don’t think you know what an appeal to ignorance is, since we’re not making shit up, we’re going off what it actually says, logic, how it was put into practice, the context in history, and better yet WHAT THE FREAKING AUTHORS SAY THEY MEANT, AND WHY THEY THOUGHT THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS IMPORTANT. You are just pulling stuff out of whatever professors ass who keeps feeding you this junk.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

I like to call out hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle when I see it, usually on the Right but today I see it on the Left. I just watched the press conference for the recent tragedy in Manhattan. My heart goes out to the victims. During this press conference I heard De Blasio and Como speak about the resolve of New Yorkers and Americans. They emphasized the point that terrorists are trying to break our spirit and if we change our lives in any way then we are letting them win. A respectable point.

It made me think about how the "Left" typically reacts to gun violence, something we heard a lot of after Vegas, and I noticed that the messaging is quite different. After a shooting event the Left seems quick and adamant to try and change our laws to make communities safer. I've heard it communicated as a negligence of duty to not talk about gun control after a shooting. In the same spirit, why isn't there a reaction to legislate a way to keep us safer from terrorism after a terror attack by the Left? Its a rhetorical question, i know why, hence the hypocrisy. But if anybody would like to try to rationalize it then please go ahead!

Note that i'm pretty liberal and support both of these reactions. I'm fine with common sense gun control measures and I am pro immigration and religious freedom. But I have to call it like I see it when hypocrisy hits.

We are very similar...I support common sense gun control, I am pro legal immigration and I support religious freedom.

What gun control do you think works? For me.....my common sense gun control is essentially these two items...

1) if you commit a crime with a gun, you go to jail for 30 years.

2) if you are a convicted, violent felon, caught in possession of a gun, you go away for 30 years.

That pretty much covers everything we need to stop criminals and illegal guns......

I think there are a few more factors involved. I don't think citizens should be able to walk into walmart and buy a fully automatic uzi, so I think limitations on available firepower make sense. I think every honest citizen should be able to get a pistol or riffle to defend themselves, but all this high power stuff, I'm fine with regulating. I'm fine with harsh punishments for gun violence offenders but it is very situational and I don't think a teenager who got caught up with the wrong crowd should go to jail till they are 50 for making a stupid mistake... Again, it all depends on the case.

What you say sounds reasonable .

The left is not out to “ban all guns “. That’s just the over the top response every time someone talks gun control.

They never say ban all weapons not the smart ones anyway, But the argument always ends with one of them stating how well the bans in the UK and Australia work,

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No that’s not my logic, that’s your warped interpretation of it. You are trying to equate the firepower of a pistol to a machine gun because a guy with a pistol killed 32 people. It isn’t an intellectually honest arguement but I think you know that. Nice try

Trying to understand your logic here. So if somebody only has a pistol instead of a whatever, and he only kills 40 people instead of 70, you would consider that an accomplishment?

If there is a crazy dude on a rampage I’d much rather see him with a pistol instead of a machine gun... wouldn’t you?

The logic isnt tough

Logic like nobody ever uses machine guns for mass murders outside of the rigged guns used by the Vegas shooter?

So what would your suggestion be, no semi-automataic guns available to the public?

No, I think we are pretty close with our current laws. I own guns and respect our right to have them. I don’t care if things like bump stocks and high capacity mags get restricted. Not a big deal IMO

The bump stock has only been used once and as we've seen, it jammed the shooters guns. He probably could have done more damage without them. Limiting magazine size won't stop one problem.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I have already declared victory here, but I am going to go a victory dance anyway, with this:

danialpalos argues that 2A was a grant of rights to States to form militia. That is in DIRECT contradiction to the priviously adopted Article 1, Section 10, which states in part:

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

The Constitution must be read as a whole, giving meaning to all its provision, and not in a fashion that renders part of it meaningless.

Victory Dance

 

[sakinago]

I am saying our Second Amendment has nothing to do with natural rights. It has Only to do with what is necessary to the security of a free State and why well regulated militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

1. You have NEVER provided any authority or source for your statement that the Second Amendment does not protect natural rights. That is complete bullshit, and I have proved (with citations) over and over again, the exact opposite. The bill of rights was to ensure that natural rights would be protected in forming a union, and even if they were not at the time the constitution was created, the 14th Amendment made it so. The Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment provide a double protection, against State authority.

2. You have, again, misstated the text of the Amendment to to twist and torture it to the meaning you want, but you are wrong!!! You state:

"It has Only to do with what is necessary to the security of a free State and why well regulated militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union."

This CONFIRMS what I have said before about how you read the Amendment. You read it like this:

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You have repeatedly attempted to twist the meaning for your own communist ends, but **** off. We are smarter than you and whomever is feeding you this unadulterated horse shit.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State and well regulated militia being necessary, not the unorganized militia.

All y'all have is appeals to ignorance.

I’ll ask this for the 50th time IF IT WAS ABOUT THE SECURITY OF THE STATE, AND A WELL REGULATED MILITIA...WHY DID THEY NOT USE A STANDING ARMY VS A BUNCH OF LITTLE GROUPS THAT MET UP EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE, ELECTED THEIR OWN BUDDIES TO LEAD THEM??? A standing army is much more effective than a milita. The founders already knew this after the revolution. Militias back then were in no way shape or form “well regulated” like you seem to imagine. They meet whenever, elected their own leaders, and brought their own guns and ammo, no matter how shitty they were, and were very disorganized. USING THEM IN THE REVELOUTION WAS LIKE HERDING CATS, AND THEN TRYING TO HERD THOSE CATS AT A VERY WELL TRAINED ARMY THEY WERE AFRAID OF, AND HOPING THEY KILLED SOME OF THEM. So why entrust the “security of the free state,” to the herd of cats, vs the standing army that actually won the revolution.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I don’t think you know what an appeal to ignorance is

Funny. I have said this to him countless times. He is rattling off a bunch of buzzwords his idiot, communist professor taught him.

 

[sakinago]

I have already declared victory here, but I am going to go a victory dance anyway, with this:

danialpalos argues that 2A was a grant of rights to States to form militia. That is in DIRECT contradiction to the priviously adopted Article 1, Section 10, which states in part:

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

The Constitution must be read as a whole, giving meaning to all its provision, and not in a fashion that renders part of it meaningless.

Victory Dance

Do that victory dance, but don’t you see...that part of the constitution doesn’t count...because it doesn’t fit in with Daniels reality, so sorry guess you’ll have to go back to the drawing board.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Do that victory dance, but don’t you see...that part of the constitution doesn’t count...because it doesn’t fit in with Daniels reality, so sorry guess you’ll have to go back to the drawing board.

Because...reasons, right?

We're just not smart enough to "get it" so he will laugh and throw out his buzzwords and tell us how uncool we are because we don't ignore reason and go along with the in-crowd.