So if you hold black colored plastic while you talk it’s now para-military assault speech. Got it!

Tell me how you buy a gun without a background check.

ZRX1200 wrote:

I think he’s building a Deathstar out of empty cigars boxes in his blanket fort btw.

ZRX1200 wrote:

You need a permit to learn to drive a car on the road. You need a permit to fish. So I guess Big Gov oppression is already here.

Well lets see now: I need and FAA permit to broadcast (1st)
Cant vote without registering.

Besides, how is a person voting at all dangerous to the public like guns are?






You'er just afraid that if we make owning a gun like driving a car the Govmut is going to take your Ginsu's.

Brewha wrote:

So, you get the right to determine which Constitutional rights can be infringed upon, depending on your perceived danger of that right. Got it. BTW, the last time I checked, neither driving nor fishing where Constitutionally protected rights.

How about we talk about the "danger to the public" of legally owned firearms. In 2013, then President Obama commissioned the CDC to do a study on gun violence. His hope was that he could declare gun violence a health epidemic, and sidestep our Constitution. Instead, the study found that law abiding gun owners use their legally owned firearms between 500,000 to 3,000,000 times EACH year to defend life and property from criminal attack. The study also found that the mere presence of the firearm was many times all that was required to stop the attack, and that shots where not fired. It was also discovered that those who used a firearm for self defense where far less likely to be injuired, or their injuries where far less severe then those who used other forms of self defense.

Since the CDC study found that legally owned firearms prevent up to 3,000,000 murders, rapes, muggings, assaults, robberies, etc. EACH YEAR, I contend that they are more of a benefit to public safety, then a danger.

David

Mrs. dpnewell wrote:

Let me guess, in your view the government taking away your right to own nuclear arms is an "infringement" on your rights?


I think your conclusion from the study data is inductive reasoning. Consider that in nations with full on gun control almost no one gets shot - I puzzlement I will grant you.

Hmmmm....

Brewha wrote:

I'm all for letting only sane people vote. Trump would still be a reality TV star and Hillary would be president.

[sarcasm]

Speyside wrote:

Today you can buy a gun without a back ground check. And people can buy para-military weapons that they have no reason to own. No, "because its cool" and "self defense" aren't reasons.

What happen to Darth Tittmus anyway?

Brewha wrote:

Yes, let's immediately jump to the absurd (nuclear arms). Personally I wish they had never been invented.

Now, let's remove the 300,000,000 legally owned guns from the law abiding. The reality is that you will not be able to do anything about the millions and millions of guns currently in the hands of criminals. All that would do is create an "open season" for criminals on the unarmed, helpless law abiding. Crime rates would skyrocket, as criminals attack the defenseless law abiding with impunity.

Statistics show that where citizens are armed, crime rates plummet. Where I live in the NC foothills, the vast majority of folk are armed, and crime is virtually non-existent. Criminals prefer unarmed, helpless victims.

David

Mrs. dpnewell wrote:

Yes, let's immediately jump to the absurd (nuclear arms). Personally I wish they had never been invented.

Now, let's remove the 300,000,000 legally owned guns from the law abiding. The reality is that you will not be able to do anything about the millions and millions of guns currently in the hands of criminals. All that would do is create an "open season" for criminals on the unarmed, helpless law abiding. Crime rates would skyrocket, as criminals attack the defenseless law abiding with impunity.

Statistics show that where citizens are armed, crime rates plummet. Where I live in the NC foothills, the vast majority of folk are armed, and crime is virtually non-existent. Criminals prefer unarmed, helpless victims.

David

Mrs. dpnewell wrote:

The point of mentioning nukes is that the application of the 2nd Amendment is a balancing act. Yes, you can be armed - No, you cannot have nukes.

I think we agree that our wives having a revolver at home for safety is a good idea. Mine even has a 380 for those long walks in the park. And we agree that there are some weapons civilian should not have. So it is about having a balance between too much risk and too little protection.

Now I understand the distrust and lock eyed fear the conservatives have cause a liberbull is gonna take their guns. But that is just the fear mongering.

The subject is simple control of who can buy a gun and tighter regulation of the batsh1t crazy, 45 round mag, high velocity, nobody needs one guns.

Brewha wrote:

His argument is quite logical.

Your stance is that nothing should infringe on the constitutional right to bear arms.

You cannot claim that stance if you are not also willing to allow your neighbor to have a nuke, or a crate of weaponized anthrax or any other item which would fit under "arms". Otherwise you are infringing upon their right.

If your argument instead had been "hey brewha, I respect that you drew your line for what you thought was reasonable oversight of the 2nd amendment over here, but I personally want to draw my line for reasonable oversight of the 2nd amendment over here instead"

But you didn't. So his question is very valid.

(before anyone starts crying and saying I hate america, I would like to remind you that I firmly stand at "no infringement on 2nd amendment rights". I would be happy and giddy to find out that all your neighbors had nukes and crates of weaponized anthrax)

victor809 wrote: