Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
Said to have a name not unlike rotpoast aka 'pollie'.
Last edited:
San Bernardino
- Thread starter schuylaar
- Start date
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
What's the difference between the argument that gun control laws didn't prevent the attack in San Bernardino from happening, therefore, gun control laws don't work so we should get rid of them and the argument that homicide laws don't prevent homicide, but we should still keep it to prevent people from committing homicide?
Law's, very clearly are not ONLY to be meant as a deterrent, but also as a defined consequence for committing said crime. We don't make laws to prevent people from committing crimes, we make laws so that when people do commit those crimes, they're held accountable for them.
Law's, very clearly are not ONLY to be meant as a deterrent, but also as a defined consequence for committing said crime. We don't make laws to prevent people from committing crimes, we make laws so that when people do commit those crimes, they're held accountable for them.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
There's laws against shooting people and terrorism.
Should we ban automobiles on the basis that they have the potential for abuse ?
I bet I could kill you quicker with a pickaxe, Ban Pickaxes 2015.
Once you start picking and choosing what constitutional rights to allow, you've undone the whole thing.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Can you explain how enacting stronger gun control legislation circumvents any constitutional amendments?
Nobody is talking about banning anything, let alone for the reason of "because they have the potential for abuse". If that was the case, you'd see people supporting banning forks because hey, "there's a potential for abuse!". Sane people are talking about enacting regulations that make it harder for crazy fucks with a history of violence or religious extremists to obtain weapons - holy shit, such a revolutionary idea!
Conflating "stronger gun control regulations" with "BAN ALL GUNS!!!!!!" intellectually weakens your argument
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
How is my right to "keep and bear Arms" infringed upon by enacting gun control legislation?
Infringed means breaching the contract - like I said before, you're totally welcome to keep and bear Arms - as the Constitution permits - so how does ensuring people with a history of mental illness or violence can't legally obtain firearms obstruct the 2nd amendment?
Nothing is being infringed, nothing is being breached
bearkat42
Well-Known Member
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Do they not have the same inalienable rights?
Or do you want the Supreme Court to start ruling on things like the First Amendment too?
The 4th?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
There are also laws against poisoning people and strangling them, "should we ban ropes for their potential of abuse?"
Like I said, established law doesn't mean much to criminals who would choose to break it, so whether we have the law or not is irrelevant to those that will break it regardless. That's not why we have law. We have law so that when they break it, they're held to a certain established standard. So the idea that discriminating against future laws on the basis of "THEY GONNA BREAK IT ANYWAYZ!!!" is absofuckinglutely retarded. In other words, it doesn't fucking matter to your retarded redneck sensibilities if they break the law or not, they will do it anyway, and they'll have a better chance of doing it if you don't give a fuck about who can legally obtain weapons. That's the point of gun control regulations.
Last edited:
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
"Your rights end where mine begin"
Absofuckinglutely not, crazy fucks with a history of violence do not have the same rights as me. They fucked up, so they deal with the consequences. What happened to people taking responsibility for their actions? Isn't that supposed to be one of the main tenets of conservatism?
Last edited:
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Are they stopped from owning steak knives and SUVs too?
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
It doesn`t, most people that can buy a gun in those States that allow it would not pass the test to be considered a lawful gun owner and or trusted to behave with them. So they oppose.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
The chances of someone killing a theater with a steak knife or SUV are not very good at all. I stand a very good chance against someone with a steak knife or SUV.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Killers gonna kill...
The tool they use is whatever is at hand, at least if a citizen is confronted by a nut and can defend themselves it's better than having a situation like a few days ago where a nut job with a knife was able to get a tube station closed in London cos noone could defend themselves.
One guy got stabbed in the neck.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
The hand gun allows you to creep and stalk, then shoot at distance. Waiting for the chance to use a knife or SUV is not the same as waiting to use your gun.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
You're missing the point, as usual.
How do you suppose you get all the illegal handguns off the street if countries with near gun bans can't do the same?
How does disarming law abiding people work with people who have no concern for the law anyway?
Infidels.
Double InfidelsISIS doesn't like it when you call them Daeshbags. Or douchebags. Check out the hash tag on twitter
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
That kneeling retard has a nice rack.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
It is gay to motorboat a fat man?