whidbey: HBK: whidbey: HBK: Most of the gun control advocates I've met have never handled a firearm and seem to be honestly afraid of them. It's really funny. They also generally tend to be from cities in the northeast.

Because anecdotes are somehow important to this discussion.

Anecdotes are the basis for the recent push for gun control, aren't they? 21 children murdered and all?

Pretty sure you're confusing anecdotes with actual on the record evidence.

Where are you from whibdey?

whidbey: CADMonkey79: whidbey: CADMonkey79: We should ban guns cause you are terrified by a inanimate object, but I'm the pant-shiatter?

It's cute you think that progressing as a society and standing up to an unhealthy obsession with firearms constitutes being "terrified by an inanimate object."

And yeah, you're the one shiatting your pants because Obama wants to ban certain assault rifles, close loopholes at shows and strengthen background checks. You act like being civilized violates your Constitutional protections. Seriously grow the fark up.
Never said I didn't support closing loopholes and strengthening background checks did I slick?

Kind of hard to tell when you post like you have the "right" to have any damn weapon you choose.

Whatever dude, I have to go down to the car wash and wash the hippes I ran over last night out of the treads on my tank.

HBK: whidbey: HBK: whidbey: HBK: Most of the gun control advocates I've met have never handled a firearm and seem to be honestly afraid of them. It's really funny. They also generally tend to be from cities in the northeast.

Because anecdotes are somehow important to this discussion.

Anecdotes are the basis for the recent push for gun control, aren't they? 21 children murdered and all?

Pretty sure you're confusing anecdotes with actual on the record evidence.

Where are you from whibdey?

I'm from the PAC NW. The other side of the country. And yes, I've fired a gun.

Your anecdote really doesn't mean anything. It is not evidence, it is not testimony.

CADMonkey79: Do you just sit in your house and worry about all the scary guns out there?,

This has been pretty much your entire "argument" throughout this thread.

I own two guns.

I'm just not stupid enough to think I should be able to do so without accepting some reasonable responsibilities for them or that I should be able to own them if I've proven that I'm likely to use them to suppress others' rights.

But you keep building that strawman until it reaches the sun. If it weren't for shiat you gun nuts wouldn't have anything coming out of your mouths.

whidbey: And yeah, it's time to get serious about gun regulation. Derping that it's un-Consitutiuonal to regulate firearms because you have an absolute "right" to use them isn't going to stop it. It's out there now.

Maybe your side should quit derping that the bill of rights is just a goddamn piece of paper. If you want to change it, go ahead and try.. legally. But don't expect anyone to abide by a law that circumvents the constitution. You need 2/3 majority in both the house and the senate to get it proposed, then you need it ratified in 75% of state legislatures. Until you get that done, gun control advocates get NOTHING.

CADMonkey79: Kind of hard to tell when you post like you have the "right" to have any damn weapon you choose.

Whatever dude, I have to go down to the car wash and wash the hippes I ran over last night out of the treads on my tank.

I wouldn't be surprised. But you really are afraid of regulating firearms, and for no good reason.

whidbey: HBK: whidbey: HBK: whidbey: HBK: Most of the gun control advocates I've met have never handled a firearm and seem to be honestly afraid of them. It's really funny. They also generally tend to be from cities in the northeast.

Because anecdotes are somehow important to this discussion.

Anecdotes are the basis for the recent push for gun control, aren't they? 21 children murdered and all?

Pretty sure you're confusing anecdotes with actual on the record evidence.

Where are you from whibdey?

I'm from the PAC NW. The other side of the country. And yes, I've fired a gun.

Your anecdote really doesn't mean anything. It is not evidence, it is not testimony.

I wasn't making an argument, merely an observation. I have a lot of friends and family from NY, NJ, and they hate guns but have never fired one. My Texas and Louisiana friends grew up around guns and think they're no big deal. It's a pretty funny comparison. The people who lash out the loudest against guns are the ones who have no experience with them, in my experience.

Yeah, Obama very well could be in the process wrapping the next presidency in a little pink bow and handing it to the Republicans.

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Now is not the time to discuss increased gun regulation, AGAIN.


That's sad. Shall we get all emotional?

It's a long thread, so I'm sure you missed this:

Total number of homicides committed with rifles in 2011: 323  (This would include but is not limited to "Assault Rifles")

Compare to:

Knives or cutting instruments: 1,694
Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc): 496
Personal weapons (hands, feet, etc): 726

In spite of the emotionally hyped recent events, knives, blunt objects and HANDS AND FEET have all proven to be FAR more deadly than all rifles.

What shall we ban next?

Lend a hand?

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Maybe your side should quit derping that the bill of rights is just a goddamn piece of paper.

[strawman.jpg]

If you want to change it, go ahead and try.. legally. But don't expect anyone to abide by a law that circumvents the constitution. You need 2/3 majority in both the house and the senate to get it proposed, then you need it ratified in 75% of state legislatures. Until you get that done, gun control advocates get NOTHING.

You seem to have this obsession where you insist that regulation equates to abolition.

Not surprising since I've seen you waste more than a couple posts ranting about how cars "kill" people so they're the same thing.

HBK: I wasn't making an argument, merely an observation. I have a lot of friends and family from NY, NJ, and they hate guns but have never fired one. My Texas and Louisiana friends grew up around guns and think they're no big deal. It's a pretty funny comparison. The people who lash out the loudest against guns are the ones who have no experience with them, in my experience

I don't see the relevance. People from all over the country are gun control advocates, and many own weapons.

I would say that someone who feels it's "no big deal" isn't really paying attention.

Vegan Meat Popsicle: CADMonkey79: Do you just sit in your house and worry about all the scary guns out there?,

This has been pretty much your entire "argument" throughout this thread.

I own two guns.

I'm just not stupid enough to think I should be able to do so without accepting some reasonable responsibilities for them or that I should be able to own them if I've proven that I'm likely to use them to suppress others' rights.

But you keep building that strawman until it reaches the sun. If it weren't for shiat you gun nuts wouldn't have anything coming out of your mouths.

Making a lot of assumptions there as well my friend.

Stone Meadow: Fart_Machine: Did you forget that this same mass hysteria about Obama "banning" guns has been around since before his first term in office and he won both times?

Have you forgotten that until now he has never pressed for any actual changes to gun laws?

I have to go do the family thing now and will be off the web for the rest of the day. You guys have fun. :^)

What exactly is so outrageous that is being proposed?

GoldSpider: Wayne 985: 40% of gun sales are without a background check. That sounds like a pretty big "loophole", regardless of the semantics you want to use.

Then make the NICS available to the general public.

I have no problem with this.

whidbey: CADMonkey79: Kind of hard to tell when you post like you have the "right" to have any damn weapon you choose.

Whatever dude, I have to go down to the car wash and wash the hippes I ran over last night out of the treads on my tank.

I wouldn't be surprised. But you really are afraid of regulating firearms, and for no good reason.

I am not afraid of regulation, I am against feel good laws that do nothing. My posts have been extreme mostly in response to our friend The Name who wishes to completely abolish the 2nd. Also, trying to explain how the "gun culture" thinks. I have stated several good reasons for my views throughout this thread, I am not going to rehash them again.

whidbey: HBK: I wasn't making an argument, merely an observation. I have a lot of friends and family from NY, NJ, and they hate guns but have never fired one. My Texas and Louisiana friends grew up around guns and think they're no big deal. It's a pretty funny comparison. The people who lash out the loudest against guns are the ones who have no experience with them, in my experience

I don't see the relevance. People from all over the country are gun control advocates, and many own weapons.

I would say that someone who feels it's "no big deal" isn't really paying attention.

Why do would you say that?

Alonjar: lul wut?

The weapons ABB used were fully legal. They were bought over the counter.

There were 723 murders in Norway in the years 1991-2010, of which 171 were done with firearms. By type of firearm:
• Shotgun: 58.
• Pistol: 53.
• Revolver: 27.
• Rifle: 23.
• Machine-gun / -pistol: 10.

AFAIK only the machine-guns / -pistols are illegal. The statistics stop at 2010 because what ABB did skews the numbers.

There are 1233510 registered weapons in Norway, owned by 485170 people. Those weapons are not for showing off or for self-defense, but for hunting and plinking at targets.
Owning a gun is about as interesting as owning a shovel. The gun-nut culture (warning: naughty words) we see in the US doesn't really exist here.

Just statistics. Get over it you whining vaginas.

HBK: whidbey: HBK: I wasn't making an argument, merely an observation. I have a lot of friends and family from NY, NJ, and they hate guns but have never fired one. My Texas and Louisiana friends grew up around guns and think they're no big deal. It's a pretty funny comparison. The people who lash out the loudest against guns are the ones who have no experience with them, in my experience

I don't see the relevance. People from all over the country are gun control advocates, and many own weapons.

I would say that someone who feels it's "no big deal" isn't really paying attention.

Why do would you say that?

Because shootings like Sandy Hook keep happening. The status quo is not working.

If I felt that it was "no big deal" to have little or no gun regulation, then I would be guilty of basically living in my own Private Idaho and not paying attention to what's been going on in the outside world.

Amos Quito: cryinoutloud: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Amos Quito: Now, would someone kindly explain the "logic" behind the push for banning "Assault Weapons"?
There is none. Not a single person has presented a reasoned argument for any kind of ban on assault weapons. And I don't just mean on fark, I mean anywhere. Every single argument is founded in emotionalism.

Explain the logic behind why anyone needs to own one. And no, "defending myself against the government" isn't a good reason, unless you live in some fantasy land.

and "because I want one" isn't good enough either. Greed isn't logical. It's an emotion.

No one needs testicles either.

Testicles demonstrably cause more crime than any other factor. With modern technology, your 'nads can be removed, and the genetic material stored for reproductive use (IF you meet government established genetic criteria, of course).

Now, give me one logical reason why you be allowed to keep your balls.

and "because I want to" isn't good enough either. Selfishness isn't logical. It's an emotion.

You know equating your balls with firearms doesn't really help your case. Unless you're overcompensating for something.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: whidbey: And yeah, it's time to get serious about gun regulation. Derping that it's un-Consitutiuonal to regulate firearms because you have an absolute "right" to use them isn't going to stop it. It's out there now.

Maybe your side should quit derping that the bill of rights is just a goddamn piece of paper. If you want to change it, go ahead and try.. legally. But don't expect anyone to abide by a law that circumvents the constitution. You need 2/3 majority in both the house and the senate to get it proposed, then you need it ratified in 75% of state legislatures. Until you get that done, gun control advocates get NOTHING.

Just out of curiosity, how many votes do you think it takes to pass a bill in the Senate?

Fart_Machine: Amos Quito: cryinoutloud: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Amos Quito: Now, would someone kindly explain the "logic" behind the push for banning "Assault Weapons"?
There is none. Not a single person has presented a reasoned argument for any kind of ban on assault weapons. And I don't just mean on fark, I mean anywhere. Every single argument is founded in emotionalism.

Explain the logic behind why anyone needs to own one. And no, "defending myself against the government" isn't a good reason, unless you live in some fantasy land.

and "because I want one" isn't good enough either. Greed isn't logical. It's an emotion.

No one needs testicles either.

Testicles demonstrably cause more crime than any other factor. With modern technology, your 'nads can be removed, and the genetic material stored for reproductive use (IF you meet government established genetic criteria, of course).

Now, give me one logical reason why you be allowed to keep your balls.

and "because I want to" isn't good enough either. Selfishness isn't logical. It's an emotion.

You know equating your balls with firearms doesn't really help your case. Unless you're overcompensating for something.

Comparing guns to genitalia is like the only way to connect to the anti-gun people.

unamused: Fart_Machine: Stone Meadow: If Democrats insist on pushing this issue to its logical conclusion, we will lose at the mid-terms, and erase all the gains we've made in recent years when the GOP has a unified government in '16.

Because everyone is a single issue voter.

It only took 538 single issue voters in Florida in 2000.

Citation?

Alonjar: The Name: That hunk of metal is just as important to you as your protection against unlawful search and seizure?

The hunk of metal is what prevents LEO's from conducting unlawful search and seizures whenever they please.

You should see how much more polite cops are after they are informed that I am armed.

Thanks Internet tough guy.

whidbey: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Maybe your side should quit derping that the bill of rights is just a goddamn piece of paper.

[strawman.jpg]

If you want to change it, go ahead and try.. legally. But don't expect anyone to abide by a law that circumvents the constitution. You need 2/3 majority in both the house and the senate to get it proposed, then you need it ratified in 75% of state legislatures. Until you get that done, gun control advocates get NOTHING.

You seem to have this obsession where you insist that regulation equates to abolition.

Not surprising since I've seen you waste more than a couple posts ranting about how cars "kill" people so they're the same thing.

I usually go with the alcohol comparison because as your side likes to claim, guns have no "valid use" alcohol cannot be argued to have a "valid use", and it's far, far more deadly, racking up an annual death toll of 80,000 people. Strange that so many people suddenly care so deeply about life in the past month and a half, and these very people really couldn't give a shiat to prioritize their efforts based on what's killing people the fastest. It's almost as if protecting life really isn't their goal, and banning a relatively harmless, but scary looking object is.

I don't think regulation equates abolition, but it's absolutely unconstitutional. You can't skip "shall not be infringed", no matter how much you'd like to. Any infringement is necessarily unconstitutional. And the fact that you disagree is exactly why you think the bill of rights is just a goddamn piece of paper, so no, that wasn't a strawman, that really is the central point of your position, and why you're wrong.

whidbey: HBK: whidbey: HBK: I wasn't making an argument, merely an observation. I have a lot of friends and family from NY, NJ, and they hate guns but have never fired one. My Texas and Louisiana friends grew up around guns and think they're no big deal. It's a pretty funny comparison. The people who lash out the loudest against guns are the ones who have no experience with them, in my experience

I don't see the relevance. People from all over the country are gun control advocates, and many own weapons.

I would say that someone who feels it's "no big deal" isn't really paying attention.

Why do would you say that?

Because shootings like Sandy Hook keep happening. The status quo is not working.

If I felt that it was "no big deal" to have little or no gun regulation, then I would be guilty of basically living in my own Private Idaho and not paying attention to what's been going on in the outside world.

Ah, so because people don't overreact as much as you means that they're not paying attention? And not that you're jumping on the "emotional cause of the week."

Here's a crazy:

Say a 100% ban on all guns is passed. 50 years from now the nation is unarmed. Christian Fundamentalism has swept the nation. Fred Phelps III has won the presidency by a landslide. He immediately signs an action making homosexuality illegal which is almost just as quickly signed into law (or bolted on to the Constitution, whatever). Thanks to citizens voluntarily registering themselves as homosexual, by getting married in states that allow such things, the military is able to quickly begin rounding up all the gays and moving them to prison camps where they can opt for rehabilitation or life in prison or even death. Since pots was fully Federally legalized in 2033, there are plenty of abandoned prisons ready to be repopulated.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: I usually go with the alcohol comparison because as your side likes to claim, guns have no "valid use" alcohol cannot be argued to have a "valid use", and it's far, far more deadly, racking up an annual death toll of 80,000 people. Strange that so many people suddenly care so deeply about life in the past month and a half, and these very people really couldn't give a shiat to prioritize their efforts based on what's killing people the fastest. It's almost as if protecting life really isn't their goal, and banning a relatively harmless, but scary looking object is.

I don't think regulation equates abolition, but it's absolutely unconstitutional. You can't skip "shall not be infringed", no matter how much you'd like to. Any infringement is necessarily unconstitutional. And the fact that you disagree is exactly why you think the bill of rights is just a goddamn piece of paper, so no, that wasn't a strawman, that really is the central point of your position, and why you're wrong.


Sooo...can you point to any examples of a person walking into a school and killing two dozen kids with a case of beer?

DittoToo: Here's a crazy:

Thanks for the heads up. No gun for you.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Any infringement is necessarily unconstitutional.

You're welcome to cite the court case that backs up your point.

Otherwise, it is completely absurd. We have had judicial review almost as long as the 2nd Amendment for that matter.

I usually go with the alcohol comparison because as your side likes to claim, guns have no "valid use" alcohol cannot be argued to have a "valid use", and it's far, far more deadly, racking up an annual death toll of 80,000 people.

Well I would drop that, not only because of the strawman fallacy in the first part, but making false comparisons is also a fallacious use of your debating skills.

So you have no real arguments. Just the emotional responses you tend to rail against in your opponents.

It's almost as if protecting life really isn't their goal, and banning a relatively harmless, but scary looking object is.

Your inability to admit that firearms are in fact dangerous is also disturbing.

Amos Quito: The Name: Fark It: The Name: CADMonkey79: Thanks for proving my point.

I admit, it is pretty hard not to be condescending when talking to Americans about their precious guns rights.

To me this is about rights.


Indeed, rights that became obsolete about a hundred and fifty years ago. And rights that most other developed countries knew better than to enshrine in their constitutions in the first place.


The Second Amendment is THE right that allows the People to defend all other rights.

Wrong - the First is much better than the 2nd for defending rights.

gimmegimme: BraveNewCheneyWorld: whidbey: And yeah, it's time to get serious about gun regulation. Derping that it's un-Consitutiuonal to regulate firearms because you have an absolute "right" to use them isn't going to stop it. It's out there now.

Maybe your side should quit derping that the bill of rights is just a goddamn piece of paper. If you want to change it, go ahead and try.. legally. But don't expect anyone to abide by a law that circumvents the constitution. You need 2/3 majority in both the house and the senate to get it proposed, then you need it ratified in 75% of state legislatures. Until you get that done, gun control advocates get NOTHING.

Just out of curiosity, how many votes do you think it takes to pass a bill in the Senate?

Just out of curiosity, you do realize an amendment isn't the same thing, right?

Better mental health care.
Tackle the roots of the problem, not the symptoms: poverty, health, education.
Mandatory licensing and registration for all firearms, along with tracking their buying, selling, and traveling history.
Mandatory police-level gun training and safety instruction for all owners.
Better removing of guns from gangs and criminals (hell, better removing of gangs and criminals).
Develop and implement technology that prevents guns from working for anyone but their owner.

CADMonkey79: Making a lot of assumptions there as well my friend.

That didn't actually make any sense since I didn't actually post anything of any material value.

As has been and will continue to be my policy regarding you idiots for as long as the prevailing "wisdom" from the gun nut side of the argument is that any regulation is too much.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: gimmegimme: BraveNewCheneyWorld: whidbey: And yeah, it's time to get serious about gun regulation. Derping that it's un-Consitutiuonal to regulate firearms because you have an absolute "right" to use them isn't going to stop it. It's out there now.

Maybe your side should quit derping that the bill of rights is just a goddamn piece of paper. If you want to change it, go ahead and try.. legally. But don't expect anyone to abide by a law that circumvents the constitution. You need 2/3 majority in both the house and the senate to get it proposed, then you need it ratified in 75% of state legislatures. Until you get that done, gun control advocates get NOTHING.

Just out of curiosity, how many votes do you think it takes to pass a bill in the Senate?

Just out of curiosity, you do realize an amendment isn't the same thing, right?

Whoa, chill, daddy-o. I'm just amused by conservatives who only want to follow the rules when it suits them. (Or before they've had a chance to rig them.)

whidbey: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Any infringement is necessarily unconstitutional.

You're welcome to cite the court case that backs up your point.

Otherwise, it is completely absurd. We have had judicial review almost as long as the 2nd Amendment for that matter.

I usually go with the alcohol comparison because as your side likes to claim, guns have no "valid use" alcohol cannot be argued to have a "valid use", and it's far, far more deadly, racking up an annual death toll of 80,000 people.

Well I would drop that, not only because of the strawman fallacy in the first part, but making false comparisons is also a fallacious use of your debating skills.

So you have no real arguments. Just the emotional responses you tend to rail against in your opponents.

It's almost as if protecting life really isn't their goal, and banning a relatively harmless, but scary looking object is.

Your inability to admit that firearms are in fact dangerous is also disturbing.

The VT massacre was committed using handguns. Do think hand guns should be banned?

Uranus Is Huge!: I'm in favor of regulating the shiat out of firearms manufacturers to the point of making them almost impossible to operate and simultaneously jacking up tariffs on foreign firearms. They do it to abortion clinics in the name of safety. All remaining firearms are registered to an owner who assumes liability for any damage or crime tied to their weapons. Mandatory 40 hours of weapons safety training. All 40 hours of this training occur in a classroom.

Explain to me the constitutional conflict. Difficulty: I have proposed no bans. I have no interest in tired slippery slopes.

All you have to do is swap 'printing' for 'gun' to see the absurdity of your statement. You do realize printing presses required licenses before the revolutionary war, right?

HBK: If I felt that it was "no big deal" to have little or no gun regulation, then I would be guilty of basically living in my own Private Idaho and not paying attention to what's been going on in the outside world.

Ah, so because people don't overreact as much as you means that they're not paying attention? And not that you're jumping on the "emotional cause of the week."

It's not an overreaction. This has been building up for a long time now. We live in a very violent country, and part of the reason for that cycle of continuation of violence is because of our obsession with it.

Weapons need to be even more regulated than alcohol or other controlled substances. Part of the problem is that we're not enforcing laws we do have, that there is a notably ineffective policy for addressing gun violence. It is not a numbers game, it is not about how many were killed by assault rifles versus handguns, toys, cars or TVs.

The status quo is not working. Why do you choose to just shrug off this indefensible truth?

CADMonkey79: whidbey: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Any infringement is necessarily unconstitutional.

You're welcome to cite the court case that backs up your point.

Otherwise, it is completely absurd. We have had judicial review almost as long as the 2nd Amendment for that matter.

I usually go with the alcohol comparison because as your side likes to claim, guns have no "valid use" alcohol cannot be argued to have a "valid use", and it's far, far more deadly, racking up an annual death toll of 80,000 people.

Well I would drop that, not only because of the strawman fallacy in the first part, but making false comparisons is also a fallacious use of your debating skills.

So you have no real arguments. Just the emotional responses you tend to rail against in your opponents.

It's almost as if protecting life really isn't their goal, and banning a relatively harmless, but scary looking object is.

Your inability to admit that firearms are in fact dangerous is also disturbing.

The VT massacre was committed using handguns. Do think hand guns should be banned?

Cool. So you admit that firearms are inherently dangerous. I'm quite sure that you support the President's recent efforts to keep them out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.

Fart_Machine: Amos Quito: cryinoutloud: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Amos Quito: Now, would someone kindly explain the "logic" behind the push for banning "Assault Weapons"?
There is none. Not a single person has presented a reasoned argument for any kind of ban on assault weapons. And I don't just mean on fark, I mean anywhere. Every single argument is founded in emotionalism.

Explain the logic behind why anyone needs to own one. And no, "defending myself against the government" isn't a good reason, unless you live in some fantasy land.

and "because I want one" isn't good enough either. Greed isn't logical. It's an emotion.

No one needs testicles either.

Testicles demonstrably cause more crime than any other factor. With modern technology, your 'nads can be removed, and the genetic material stored for reproductive use (IF you meet government established genetic criteria, of course).

Now, give me one logical reason why you be allowed to keep your balls.

and "because I want to" isn't good enough either. Selfishness isn't logical. It's an emotion.

You know equating your balls with firearms doesn't really help your case


It is a proven fact that people with testicles commit far more crimes in all categories that those who are without.

Are you willing to surrender your testicles for the "greater good"? For the children???

If not, why not?

Vegan Meat Popsicle: CADMonkey79: Making a lot of assumptions there as well my friend.

That didn't actually make any sense sinceI didn't NEVER actually post anything of any material value.

As has been and will continue to be my policy regarding you idiots for as long as the prevailing "wisdom" from the gun nut side of the argument is that any regulation is too much.

Fixed.

Amos Quito: It is a proven fact that people with testicles commit far more crimes in all categories that those who are without.

Because there's no correlation and there's no parallel to be drawn between your choice to own a gun and the fact that you were born with a normal body part.

Next ridiculous question that has nothing to do with anything and only serves to further prove how utterly idiotic the gun nuts are?

whidbey: HBK: If I felt that it was "no big deal" to have little or no gun regulation, then I would be guilty of basically living in my own Private Idaho and not paying attention to what's been going on in the outside world.

Ah, so because people don't overreact as much as you means that they're not paying attention? And not that you're jumping on the "emotional cause of the week."

It's not an overreaction. This has been building up for a long time now. We live in a very violent country, and part of the reason for that cycle of continuation of violence is because of our obsession with it.

Weapons need to be even more regulated than alcohol or other controlled substances. Part of the problem is that we're not enforcing laws we do have, that there is a notably ineffective policy for addressing gun violence. It is not a numbers game, it is not about how many were killed by assault rifles versus handguns, toys, cars or TVs.

The status quo is not working. Why do you choose to just shrug off this indefensible truth?


Hi whidbey.

Got a few minutes?

Enjoy

CADMonkey79: Fixed.

Oh, I'm sorry. You don't get it.

Your opinions are so stupid I feel no need to justify them with any sort of real response.

When I stop seeing idiotic arguments like "lol you have balls" being advanced from your side of the "debate" I'll reconsider my position.

gimmegimme: CADMonkey79: whidbey: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Any infringement is necessarily unconstitutional.

You're welcome to cite the court case that backs up your point.

Otherwise, it is completely absurd. We have had judicial review almost as long as the 2nd Amendment for that matter.

I usually go with the alcohol comparison because as your side likes to claim, guns have no "valid use" alcohol cannot be argued to have a "valid use", and it's far, far more deadly, racking up an annual death toll of 80,000 people.

Well I would drop that, not only because of the strawman fallacy in the first part, but making false comparisons is also a fallacious use of your debating skills.

So you have no real arguments. Just the emotional responses you tend to rail against in your opponents.

It's almost as if protecting life really isn't their goal, and banning a relatively harmless, but scary looking object is.

Your inability to admit that firearms are in fact dangerous is also disturbing.

The VT massacre was committed using handguns. Do think hand guns should be banned?

Cool. So you admit that firearms are inherently dangerous. I'm quite sure that you support the President's recent efforts to keep them out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.

That is exactly what I said, bravo you are a gentleman and a scholar sir.

Yes I support an effort to keep guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them, THAT IS COMMON FARKING SENSE, AWB no, because that will not make a difference and lead to a call for a handgun ban, which is the point I was trying to make.

CADMonkey79: The VT massacre was committed using handguns. Do think hand guns should be banned?

No I don't. But they could be.

Obviously we need to pour a lot of funding into understanding mental health issues as much as regulating firearms, but that means all the "but Socialism!" bullshiat about raising taxes and expanding social programs is going to have to stop.

And yeah, we're also going to have to cut the military budget to do it.

whidbey: The status quo is not working. Why do you choose to just shrug off this indefensible truth?

You keep saying this... but you're blind to the fact that not everybody really cares. Bad things happen to good people all the time. Doesnt mean you should go around regulating everything.

Status quo is just fine for me... having my child killed in a mass shooting is just so statistically improbable that it isnt worth worrying about. So I dont.

I do worry about protecting my home from intruders, and the crazy farks who try to kill people over driving etiquette.

There are over 2 million home invasion/burglaries commited in the United States every year. How many mass shootings?