Right wingers...regarding Orlando tragedy....you have a tough choice to make

[SassyIrishLass]

]Agreed, but that is exactly the logic the Left is using to ban/restrict guns.

The logic to restrict guns is that we should't sell them to minors and crazies and we shouldn't sell those that make mass killings easy.

I don't see a single reason why this should be legal to obtain:

How about this one? Ban it also?

 

[Divine Wind]

]Agreed, but that is exactly the logic the Left is using to ban/restrict guns.

The logic to restrict guns is that we should't sell them to minors and crazies and we shouldn't sell those that make mass killings easy.

I don't see a single reason why this should be legal to obtain:

Why not? Do you see a single reason why drugs or alcohol should be legal to obtain? Both kill more people than "assault weapons" in this country.

How about cars more powerful than a Smartcar? What is the logic in having a car with 500+ HP and capable of up to 200MPH in a country where the maximum speed is 70MPH.

Of course, none of those things are an enumerated right yet I have no doubt you support our right to them.

OTOH, I have no problem preventing mentally ill gay homophobic Islamic extremists from obtaining any guns, not even a musket. Let's work on that one together. Deal?

 

[Divine Wind]

]Agreed, but that is exactly the logic the Left is using to ban/restrict guns.

The logic to restrict guns is that we should't sell them to minors and crazies and we shouldn't sell those that make mass killings easy.

I don't see a single reason why this should be legal to obtain:

How about this one? Ban it also?

No doubt it will come to that point. First they'll come for the "high capacity magazines" (more than 10 rounds) then, after a few years, if limiting magazines to 10 rounds was a good idea, why not limit them to 5 rounds and make only non-removable magazines legal? A few years later, if 5 rounds was a good idea, then why not go back to single shot?

 

[AntonToo]

Why not? Do you see a single reason why drugs or alcohol should be legal to obtain? Both kill more people than "assault weapons" in this country.

How about cars more powerful than a Smartcar? What is the logic in having a car with 500+ HP and capable of up to 200MPH in a country where the maximum speed is 70MPH.

Of course, none of those things are an enumerated right yet I have no doubt you support our right to them.

OTOH, I have no problem preventing mentally ill gay homophobic Islamic extremists from obtaining any guns, not even a musket. Let's work on that one together. Deal?

I don't see how it is at all comparable. These are machines designed for very narrow purpose of quickly killing sht. I just don't have any sympathies for their aficionados. Sorry. How about picking up golf or maybe skydiving?

 

[AntonToo]

By "the fire" you mean a policy of banning immigration from Muslim countries. Yes, I am adding fuel to that fire.

Using the word "extremist" is the sign of a demagogue. Truth is often extreme. Please explain why we should import a single one of these bloodthirsty savages. What do we have to gain? We already know we have plenty to lose.

Well ok, so long as you understand what you are and what you are doing here. Good luck.

On second thought I don't think you know what you are doing and are not fully appreciating how such policy would work right into the hands Islamic extremists who will use it in their "see? We told you America hates you" propaganda and recruitment.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

when you have lost Morning Joe

‘Morning Joe’ compares Trump’s comments on Obama to ‘scumbags’ who blamed Bush for 9/11

 

[Divine Wind]

I don't see how it is at all comparable. These are machines designed for very narrow purpose of quickly killing sht. I just don't have any sympathies for their aficionados. Sorry. How about picking up golf or maybe skydiving?

A standard LW anti-gun meme. I have a few semi-automatic, magazine-fed rifles and none have ever killed anyone. All are of new manufacture for the civilian market.

In fact, the only "military" rifles I have are bolt action with a limit of 5 rounds in an internal magazine. Do you want to ban those "military" rifles too?

The fact you don't have any sympathy for the Second Amendment yet you support drug/alcohol use and driving over-powered cars in a country that kills 30K+/year, mostly due to Drunk Driver accidents, tells me you are more interested in political ideology rather than in reducing harm to people.

Drunk Driving Facts & Statistics | Intoxalock
Alcohol impairment & drunk driving

9,967 people were killed in drunk driving crashes in 2014.
Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2015

10,076 people were killed in drunk driving crashes in 2013 - 1 every 53 minutes.
Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2014

Every day in America, another 28 people die as a result of drunk driving crashes.
Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration FARS data, 2014

Drunk driving costs each adult in the United States almost $800 per year.
Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2014

Drunk driving costs the United States $199 billion a year.
Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2014

In 2012, 15% of all drivers involved in fatal crashes during the week were alcohol-impaired, compared to 30% on weekends.
Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration FARS data, 2013

In fatal crashes in 2011, the highest percentage of drunk drivers was for drivers ages 21 to 24 (32%), followed by ages 25 to 34 (30%) and 35 to 44 (24%).
Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2012

Each day, people drive drunk almost 300,000 times, but fewer than 4,000 are arrested.
Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2012

Impairment is not determined by the type of drink, but rather by the amount of alcohol drunk over time.
Source: National Highway Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2012

Adults drank too much and got behind the wheel about 112 million times in 2010—that is almost 300,000 incidents of drinking and driving each day.

 

[blastoff]

The O. P. has a choice to make....whether she will get her head out of her ass long enough to realize that something must be done about Murderous Muslim Terrorism, or leave it in, and continue to look like a damn fool.

True. But at least she'll have a great view of the essence of liberalism.

 

[AntonToo]

I don't see how it is at all comparable. These are machines designed for very narrow purpose of quickly killing sht. I just don't have any sympathies for their aficionados. Sorry. How about picking up golf or maybe skydiving?

A standard LW anti-gun meme. I have a few semi-automatic, magazine-fed rifles and none have ever killed anyone. All are of new manufacture for the civilian market.

In fact, the only "military" rifles I have are bolt action with a limit of 5 rounds in an internal magazine. Do you want to ban those "military" rifles too?

So that begs the question - what do you have those guns for? Ornamentation? Sporting? Neither makes me think -"yea I could see how that's worth making it easy for people with bad intent acquiring them"

I'm open to any reasonable conversation on the limits, but when your position is that everything is slippery slope all the way to up nuclear weapons, it's a non-starter.

 

[Divine Wind]

So that begs the question - what do you have those guns for? Ornamentation? Sporting? Neither makes me think -"yea I could see how that's worth making it easy for people with bad intent acquiring them"

I'm open to any reasonable conversation on the limits, but when your position is that everything is slippery slope all the way to up nuclear weapons, it's a non-starter.

When you embark on a road of "You need to justify exercising a Constitutional right", then you are on a path to limiting one's rights. Did you support the Patriot Act after 9/11? Do you think limiting Constitutional rights makes us safer? I'm not talking about limiting (however temporary) the rights of the mentally ill and criminals, but all law-biding citizens as you are suggesting.

The LW "nuclear weapons" meme is silly but it's standard LW bullshit. By your logic, we need to license Facebook users because a few are cyberbullies.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Trump should drop out if he can't use the words "universal background checks."

You should go back to sleep.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

.................................................................................................................Pastors Praise Orlando Killings Of ‘Vile, Perverted Predators’ (VIDEO)

 

[boedicca]

Ding Ding Ding! You're wrong! You Lose!

I can get a much better and more intelligent response from my dog.

Well, I surmise your dog would debate you under the rug.

Well, I surmise, as well as accurately declare, that You Are A Moron.

 

[Skull Pilot]

]Agreed, but that is exactly the logic the Left is using to ban/restrict guns.

The logic to restrict guns is that we should't sell them to minors and crazies and we shouldn't sell those that make mass killings easy.

I don't see a single reason why this should be legal to obtain:

You do know that the scary black gun in your picture is no different than this not so scary ranch rifle other than cosmetically don't you?

 

[nat4900]

Are you at all aware that there about 1.8 billion muslims in the world, about 25% of population? What you say is straight up insane and adds nothing but fuel to the fire. Yea some muslims are backward, some are extremists and handful are violent...but what say is ALSO extremist.

What exactly is your fix for "Islam issue"? Online flame fests because some reject crazy snaps and shoots up the club?

The idiotic poster you're responding to.....(bripat) is one who perfectly fits his avatar....That of a petulant, profane stupid child.

 

[AntonToo]

When you embark on a road of "You need to justify exercising a Constitutional right", then you are on a path to limiting one's rights. Did you support the Patriot Act after 9/11? Do you think limiting Constitutional rights makes us safer? I'm not talking about limiting (however temporary) the rights of the mentally ill and criminals, but all law-biding citizens as you are suggesting.

The LW "nuclear weapons" meme is silly but it's standard LW bullshit. By your logic, we need to license Facebook users because a few are cyberbullies.

I don't see it to be silly. Seems like a valid point based on reducto ad absurdum reasoning.

Does constitution give you the right to buy nuclear arms? Surely a ridiculous position, although all it says is that you can own arms for some clearly outdated purposes of "maintaining well trained militia". In other words Constitution makes barely any sane comment on gun ownership and from there it's just a matter of interpreting in that picasso whatever you judge wants.

 

[Skull Pilot]

When you embark on a road of "You need to justify exercising a Constitutional right", then you are on a path to limiting one's rights. Did you support the Patriot Act after 9/11? Do you think limiting Constitutional rights makes us safer? I'm not talking about limiting (however temporary) the rights of the mentally ill and criminals, but all law-biding citizens as you are suggesting.

The LW "nuclear weapons" meme is silly but it's standard LW bullshit. By your logic, we need to license Facebook users because a few are cyberbullies.

I don't see it to be silly. Seems like a valid point based on reducto ad absurdum reasoning.

Does constitution give you the right to buy nuclear arms? Surely a ridiculous position, although all it says is that you can own arms for some clearly outdated purposes of "maintaining well trained militia". In other words Constitution makes barely any sane comment on gun ownership and from there it's just a matter of interpreting in that picasso whatever you judge wants.

No the right to own arms precedes the membership in a militia

And you do know that a neighborhood watch can be considered a militia don't you?

The framers wanted to allow citizens to form a militia on their own if they felt the need and not to be prevented in doing so by the government

 

[AntonToo]

You do know that the scary black gun in your picture is no different than this not so scary ranch rifle other than cosmetically don't you?

We could have some standards based on consistent,objective qualifying measures on how deadly a weapon is.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You do know that the scary black gun in your picture is no different than this not so scary ranch rifle other than cosmetically don't you?

We could have some standards based on consistent,objective qualifying measures on how deadly a weapon is.

There are a lot of deadly things in the world
For example fists and feet are far more deadly than all rifles combined

 

[AntonToo]

The framers wanted to allow citizens to form a militia on their own if they felt the need and not to be prevented in doing so by the government

Right, which is completely different from just about EVERY reason people today actually own guns for.