urbanSTL

MarkHaversham wrote:So what you're saying is that even the strongest gun laws in the country still allow people to purchase guns solely for the purpose of mass murdering other people.

BURNED

shimmy wrote:

ricke002 wrote:

MarkHaversham wrote:So what you're saying is that even the strongest gun laws in the country still allow people to purchase guns solely for the purpose of mass murdering other people.

BURNED

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but do you guys have any reading comprehension skills? Or do I have to explain again everything that I calmly and respectfully wrote on the last page?

Did you not say that their weaponry was legal in California, and that California has some of the strongest gun control in the country?

Hm, I think I did overlook that post somehow. I agree that passing effective gun control is politically impossible.

It's only impossible if politicians can't stand up to the NRA. Expose the NRA and their evil intentions and anything can happen.

MarkHaversham wrote:There's no right to unregulated gun ownership, hope this clears up some confusion for you.

Don't worry. I'm not confused in the slightest about you people's intentions with regard to my property.

That's why I love this conversation. Get yourselves riled up. Get pissed off and angry at the ooga booga men with the evil rooty-tooty point-n-shooties. Stop being impotent little crybabies and try to take the guns. You know that's the only way to solve all of these "problems" you are seeing. So man up and get on it.

Try it. Lets settle this.

Aesir wrote:

MarkHaversham wrote:There's no right to unregulated gun ownership, hope this clears up some confusion for you.

Don't worry. I'm not confused in the slightest about you people's intentions with regard to my property.

That's why I love this conversation. Get yourselves riled up. Get pissed off and angry at the ooga booga men with the evil rooty-tooty point-n-shooties. Stop being impotent little crybabies and try to take the guns. You know that's the only way to solve all of these "problems" you are seeing. So man up and get on it.

Try it. Lets settle this.

This post perfectly encapsulates the childish attitude of gun owners, and why many of them probably shouldn't have guns. Guns are an enormous health and safety risk, but we can't do anything about it because a significant minority of the country views gun control as a mandatory vasectomy.

MarkHaversham wrote:This post perfectly encapsulates the childish attitude of gun owners, and why many of them probably shouldn't have guns. Guns are an enormous health and safety risk, but we can't do anything about it because a significant minority of the country views gun control as a mandatory vasectomy.

I don't care if you like guns or not. That's not my business.

But I do indeed view theft (buttered up with a pretty face and called "confiscation") as something to be fought.

I like my guns. Not because, as you people sure like to say, I have a small ding dong. Or because I'm an evil racist out to stomp all black people's heads into the curb, or because I'm preparing for WWIII. I like having them to shoot, and I like having them in an ever increasingly dangerous neighborhood.

But, none of that should matter. It's my property, and it is none of your business. So talk all you want about how you should do this, or should do that. Don't try to steal my property. It's not yours.

Don't understand that, go back to Kindergarten.

Aesir wrote:

MarkHaversham wrote:There's no right to unregulated gun ownership, hope this clears up some confusion for you.

Don't worry. I'm not confused in the slightest about you people's intentions with regard to my property.

That's why I love this conversation. Get yourselves riled up. Get pissed off and angry at the ooga booga men with the evil rooty-tooty point-n-shooties. Stop being impotent little crybabies and try to take the guns. You know that's the only way to solve all of these "problems" you are seeing. So man up and get on it.

Try it. Lets settle this.

Are you suggesting that if guns are legally regulated (which the 2nd amendment specifically allows for) to the point that some of the ones you own become illegal, you will shoot and kill law enforcement if they discovered and confiscated your illegal property?

I just want to clear this up.

You're threatening to kill people with your guns, yes?

shimmy wrote:I understand the emotions on this issue. I understand why people disagree with me. My problem is that a lot of people who want to implement gun laws to restrict my rights just have no idea what the hell they're talking about. I don't think they're bad people with bad intentions, I just think they're ignorant on the issue.

Unfortunately, every issue in today's society is highly divisive and each side is quick to demonize the other. The issue of guns is no different, though it perhaps underscores the problem more than any other issue.

I just don't want to be shot.

Aesir wrote: I don't care if you like guns or not. That's not my business.

But I do indeed view theft (buttered up with a pretty face and called "confiscation") as something to be fought.

I like my guns. Not because, as you people sure like to say, I have a small ding dong. Or because I'm an evil racist out to stomp all black people's heads into the curb, or because I'm preparing for WWIII. I like having them to shoot, and I like having them in an ever increasingly dangerous neighborhood.

But, none of that should matter. It's my property, and it is none of your business. So talk all you want about how you should do this, or should do that. Don't try to steal my property. It's not yours.

Don't understand that, go back to Kindergarten.

I just read these posts and mentally replace "guns" with "pet polar bear". I like having a pet polar bear, it's cool and it makes me feel safe and I don't think you have any business telling me I can't walk into Chipotle on the back of a polar bear. If you think having a pet polar bear is a public safety risk then you're welcome to try to take it from me.

jstriebel wrote:
Are you suggesting that if guns are legally regulated (which the 2nd amendment specifically allows for) to the point that some of the ones you own become illegal, you will shoot and kill law enforcement if they discovered and confiscated your illegal property?

I just want to clear this up.

You're threatening to kill people with your guns, yes?

I'm threatening to defend myself and my property from people who try to steal from me, yes. That counts for you or any other thug wearing a badge.

Interesting how the people who want blacks to be armed to better defend themselves against the police are the same who are vilified and demonized by the left.

jstriebel wrote: See, in America, we make laws regulating various things. Some things we're allowed to own. Some things we aren't. We try to maintain as many freedoms as possible, but we make certain sacrifices for the general well-being of our society and the people who make it up.

When such laws are put into place, ownership of that property becomes illegal, and you cease to have a right to own it. It is unlikely someone would enter your home searching for this property, as indeed we have pretty strict laws against that. But were it to be discovered, it would be entirely legal for law enforcement to confiscated it and charge you for possession of it. And that is indeed legal confiscation and not theft.

See, in America, we make laws regulating various things. Some things, like slaves, we're allowed to own. Some things, we aren't. We try to maintain as many freedoms as possible, but we make certain sarifices, like slavery, for the general well being of the people who make it up.

When such laws are put into place, ownership of yourself becomes illegal, and you cease to have a right to own your body. It is unlikely that a slave would ever wish to be free, as indeed we have pretty strict laws against that. But were they to be discovered, it would be entirely legal for law enforcement to confiscated them and charge you for returning it. And that is indeed legal confiscation and not theft.

The word games we play to convince ourselves that stealing is right.

MarkHaversham wrote: I just don't want to be shot.

What in the world makes you think I'm going to shoot you? And you accuse gun owners of paranoia

MarkHaversham wrote: I just read these posts and mentally replace "guns" with "pet polar bear". I like having a pet polar bear, it's cool and it makes me feel safe and I don't think you have any business telling me I can't walk into Chipotle on the back of a polar bear. If you think having a pet polar bear is a public safety risk then you're welcome to try to take it from me.

Go ahead and do it. Don't agress upon anyone though. Simple rule.

Whyyyyyyyy won't we compromise? Y r we sooooo unreasonabibble.......?

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/wp-conte ... se_v21.png

Aesir wrote:I'm threatening to defend myself and my property from people who try to steal from me, yes. That counts for you or any other thug wearing a badge.

Ok, so we're clear. You'll shoot people who have (in this hypothetical) have the legal and constitutional right to do what they're doing. You'd be a violent criminal. Just checking.

Interesting how the people who want blacks to be armed to better defend themselves against the police are the same who are vilified and demonized by the left.

I have no response to this because I don't know what you're talking about. I don't want anybody armed to defend themselves against the police. In fact, I can't think of a worse way to solve the issue of killings by police officers than arming people they will interact with.

See, in America, we make laws regulating various things. Some things, like slaves, we're allowed to own. Some things, we aren't. We try to maintain as many freedoms as possible, but we make certain sarifices, like slavery, for the general well being of the people who make it up.

When such laws are put into place, ownership of yourself becomes illegal, and you cease to have a right to own your body. It is unlikely that a slave would ever wish to be free, as indeed we have pretty strict laws against that. But were they to be discovered, it would be entirely legal for law enforcement to confiscated them and charge you for returning it. And that is indeed legal confiscation and not theft.

I don't even know what to do with this. It is practically nonsensical.

Is the point that you're trying to make that sometimes the laws we make are incorrect? Fair enough, I suppose.

But if you're suggesting that restricting gun ownership would be an ill somewhere in the range of restricting a persons humanity by forcing them into slavery, then I don't even know how to continue the discussion.

Stealing is not right. But killing machines are not right either. And if they were illegal, it would not be stealing to confiscate them.

What in the world makes you think I'm going to shoot you? And you accuse gun owners of paranoia

You're probably not. Unless of course I was an in your home as an officer of the law after gun regulation was passed and saw your guns and attempted to legally confiscate them. Then I think you would kill me.

But aside from that, your gun ownership means other people get to own guns too. And those people might shoot me. And also, you might shoot me on accident thinking that you're defending yourself.

Because that's what guns do. They shoot. And they kill. And unless you're hunting or at the range, they usually do it at and too people. That's what they were designed for.

jstriebel wrote:
Ok, so we're clear. You'll shoot people who have (in this hypothetical) have the legal and constitutional right to do what they're doing. You'd be a violent criminal. Just checking.

Criminals are people who steal. Just giving you a heads up for when you join the confiscation squads that are totes just around the corner. After all, gun grabbers are totally going to man up and get on it, right?

jstriebel wrote:
I have no response to this because I don't know what you're talking about. I don't want anybody armed to defend themselves against the police. In fact, I can't think of a worse way to solve the issue of killings by police officers than arming people they will interact with.

You say don't know what I'm talking about, then answer me as if you know exactly what I'm talking about. Man. Honesty abounds.

And fine. "Feel" that people shouldn't be armed when faced with a predatory class of people that don't respect them, and expect peace to break out. Let me know how it works.

jstriebel wrote:
I don't even know what to do with this. It is practically nonsensical.

Is the point that you're trying to make that sometimes the laws we make are incorrect? Fair enough, I suppose.

But if you're suggesting that restricting gun ownership would be an ill somewhere in the range of restricting a persons humanity by forcing them into slavery, then I don't even know how to continue the discussion.

Stealing is not right. But killing machines are not right either. And if they were illegal, it would not be stealing to confiscate them.

Jeez. Again with the "I dunno what you're talking about" stuff, then obviously responding as if you got the message perfectly. I guess I'll take your actions over your words.

No, I'm not equating theft of non-human property to slavery. But they are the same concept. They are both wrong. Both immoral.

"Killing machines are not right". Then cry me a river, or do something about this terrible injustice of firearms plaguing the world, causing mothers to weep for the future of their children and fathers to tremble in fear of the boom boom machine. Hell man, it's your moral imperative as a true anti-gun beleiver to do something about it.

jstriebel wrote:
You're probably not. Unless of course I was an in your home as an officer of the law after gun regulation was passed and saw your guns and attempted to legally confiscate them. Then I think you would kill me.

But aside from that, your gun ownership means other people get to own guns too. And those people might shoot me. And also, you might shoot me on accident thinking that you're defending yourself.

Because that's what guns do. They shoot. And they kill. And unless you're hunting or at the range, they usually do it at and too people. That's what they were designed for.

Quick learner!

I don't understand why gun owners are so vehemently against limiting private gun ownership to inefficient person-killing models. For sporting, and even self defense, I don't see why anyone needs to own a functional AK-47.

We need to draw a line somewhere, and already have in a sense (nobody is allowed to own an artillery gun, as far as I know). But somehow limiting ownership of tacticool semiautos or whatever is some sort of sacred line we cannot cross.

Aesir wrote:"Killing machines are not right". Then cry me a river, or do something about this terrible injustice of firearms plaguing the world, causing mothers to weep for the future of their children and fathers to tremble in fear of the boom boom machine. Hell man, it's your moral imperative as a true anti-gun beleiver to do something about it.

Every time we suggest solutions to it, you threaten to kill us, so

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

MarkHaversham wrote:I don't understand why gun owners are so vehemently against limiting private gun ownership to inefficient person-killing models. For sporting, and even self defense, I don't see why anyone needs to own a functional AK-47.

We need to draw a line somewhere, and already have in a sense (nobody is allowed to own an artillery gun, as far as I know). But somehow limiting ownership of tacticool semiautos or whatever is some sort of sacred line we cannot cross.

Because most gun owners are corrupted by the NRA. The NRA is a terrorist organization. You can reason with a terrorist.

MarkHaversham wrote:I don't understand why gun owners are so vehemently against limiting private gun ownership to inefficient person-killing models.

they don't know either. they're angry about stuff and it's principle for principle's sake. oh, wait i forgot: when the US government tries to make us all slaves they're going to fight back against tanks and fighter jets and drones and chemical weapons and nuclear weapons and whatever else with their handfuls of automatic guns.

I think some guns should be illegal, specifically semi-automatic ones. The likelihood of that happening is slim. So stay calm Aesir. I also think the size of clips available should be limited as well.

EVEN IF there was a ban on guns of any type, I highly doubt the government is just going to come and take them away. There's what, 88 guns per 100 people? You know how much time and money that would take? Not going to happen. What probably would happen (hypothetically) is that the government would offer you compensation for returning your gun and then fine you if you were a registered owner and didn't return it, etc.

I don't understand the freak-out though. Confiscation of property for a public good in commonplace. Look at eminent domain.

Gun related deaths by state based on gun related laws. Just saying, gun laws aren't exactly idiotic...
http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/53345/ ... ted-deaths

https://content.njdc.com/media/media/20 ... t-1203.png