Jump to content
IGNORED

WorthyNews: Trump, NRA open to ban on ‘bump stocks’ for guns


WorthyNewsBot

Recommended Posts

Guest shiloh357
On 10/6/2017 at 9:19 PM, Running Gator said:

So, since people will do drugs even if they are illegal, there is no reason to make them illegal

No, that is not an accurate analogy.  I am arguing against the irrational point that banning things means that people will not use those banned items anymore.   My point is that taking away rights and forcing law-abiding people to pay with their freedoms for what the Las Vegas shooter did isn't going to prevent other mass killings.

In that noisy crowd with many of the people inebriated, a man armed with a 9mm Glock 19 could have killed nearly as many people as the Las Vegas shooter.   He would not have been able to injure as many perhaps, but he could have approached a similar fatality rate.  With all of the noise and the slow reaction time by many due to alcohol consumption who knows the damage he could have done before anyone would have had the presence of mind to stop him. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  28
  • Topic Count:  338
  • Topics Per Day:  0.05
  • Content Count:  15,673
  • Content Per Day:  2.46
  • Reputation:   8,494
  • Days Won:  39
  • Joined:  10/25/2006
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  02/27/1985

On 10/6/2017 at 7:29 PM, Running Gator said:

By this I take it you are against any restrictions on any arms? 

yes, that would be a safe assertion. I think guns should be made easier to get, not harder.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member *
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  91
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  10,596
  • Content Per Day:  3.73
  • Reputation:   2,743
  • Days Won:  25
  • Joined:  06/16/2016
  • Status:  Offline

5 hours ago, The_Patriot2017 said:

yes, that would be a safe assertion. I think guns should be made easier to get, not harder.

Remember the 2nd speaks of Arms not guns,  arms entails a lot more than guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎10‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 7:02 AM, Running Gator said:

There is no constitutional right related to accessories for firearms. 

Yes there is.  We have a right to keep and bear arms, and that obviously includes accessories like bullets, and things necessary to use the weapon.  This is not about hunting deer.  It is to defend the nation against foreign invaders.  You are your own militia, and can actually help kill the enemy if the nation is at war and they have invaded.  It would be real helpful to have things like machine guns, flame throwers, a canon, anything to kill a foreign army and make them think twice about coming into our country.  We should be able to own pretty much any weapon we want with no restrictions or background checks, short of nuclear weapons.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎10‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 10:19 PM, Running Gator said:

So, since people will do drugs even if they are illegal, there is no reason to make them illegal

This is not even close to the same thing.  I won't use those kind of drugs whether they are legal or not.  Yes, crack heads will, but they aren't harming me with their drugs.  I don't need to defend myself against being attacked with illegal cocaine.  On the other hand, if you make guns illegal, as a law abiding citizen, I can't get guns.  On the other hand, criminals will have guns, which can harm me, and I will be defenseless.  You need a much better example than that!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  28
  • Topic Count:  338
  • Topics Per Day:  0.05
  • Content Count:  15,673
  • Content Per Day:  2.46
  • Reputation:   8,494
  • Days Won:  39
  • Joined:  10/25/2006
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  02/27/1985

17 hours ago, Butero said:

This is not even close to the same thing.  I won't use those kind of drugs whether they are legal or not.  Yes, crack heads will, but they aren't harming me with their drugs.  I don't need to defend myself against being attacked with illegal cocaine.  On the other hand, if you make guns illegal, as a law abiding citizen, I can't get guns.  On the other hand, criminals will have guns, which can harm me, and I will be defenseless.  You need a much better example than that!  

You might need to defend yourself from said crackheads with a gun however! Especially if such drugs we're legalized and become easy to get ahold of!

Also note you can't overdose on target practice. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  28
  • Topic Count:  338
  • Topics Per Day:  0.05
  • Content Count:  15,673
  • Content Per Day:  2.46
  • Reputation:   8,494
  • Days Won:  39
  • Joined:  10/25/2006
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  02/27/1985

On 10/13/2017 at 4:34 AM, Running Gator said:

Remember the 2nd speaks of Arms not guns,  arms entails a lot more than guns.

Did you read what all I said?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  28
  • Topic Count:  338
  • Topics Per Day:  0.05
  • Content Count:  15,673
  • Content Per Day:  2.46
  • Reputation:   8,494
  • Days Won:  39
  • Joined:  10/25/2006
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  02/27/1985

On 10/6/2017 at 11:16 AM, Running Gator said:

I am pretty sure that the 2nd Amendment does not cover accessories, just the arms themselves. 

The second amendment says shall not infringe upon, and removing the ability to purchase accessories is an infringement, no matter how you look at it because it's limiting the arms you have.

The fact that full auto are largely illegal is also an infringement. Anything regulating firearms in anyway is an infringement and unconstitutional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member *
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  91
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  10,596
  • Content Per Day:  3.73
  • Reputation:   2,743
  • Days Won:  25
  • Joined:  06/16/2016
  • Status:  Offline

5 hours ago, The_Patriot2017 said:

The second amendment says shall not infringe upon, and removing the ability to purchase accessories is an infringement, no matter how you look at it because it's limiting the arms you have.

I would disagree with this, but I do wonder if you look at the 1st amendment the same way?  Is any law restricting what can be said an infringement of the 1st?   Do libel laws run afoul of the 1st in your opinion?

Quote

The fact that full auto are largely illegal is also an infringement. Anything regulating firearms in anyway is an infringement and unconstitutional.

I think if you are going to go down this road that you cannot limit the 2nd to firearms as it just states "arms" so any arm should be available to whomever can afford to buy it. That would include tanks, flame throwers, fighter jets, bombs, and etc.    Do you think that anything regulating arms in anyway is an infringement and unconstitutional?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  28
  • Topic Count:  338
  • Topics Per Day:  0.05
  • Content Count:  15,673
  • Content Per Day:  2.46
  • Reputation:   8,494
  • Days Won:  39
  • Joined:  10/25/2006
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  02/27/1985

1 hour ago, Running Gator said:

I would disagree with this, but I do wonder if you look at the 1st amendment the same way?  Is any law restricting what can be said an infringement of the 1st?   Do libel laws run afoul of the 1st in your opinion?

I think if you are going to go down this road that you cannot limit the 2nd to firearms as it just states "arms" so any arm should be available to whomever can afford to buy it. That would include tanks, flame throwers, fighter jets, bombs, and etc.    Do you think that anything regulating arms in anyway is an infringement and unconstitutional?

 

Seeing as the second ammendment was put in place so we could protect ourselves from either an invading army or our own government if it turned to tyranny, and thats kinda hard to do if all we have are 12 gauge shotguns and pea shooters and they have tanks and jet fighthers, then yes, I think items like tanks, fighter jets and the like should be totally legal if you can afford to buy one. The bomb arguments kinda silly, just about anyone can go down to home depot and buy everything they need to make variety of different bombs, regardless of whether theyre legal or not.

Of course I look at the first amendment the same way.....im not opposed to the practicing of any religion inside the US, including Islam (im guessing thats where your going with this) so long as it doesnt involve killing anyone else or stepping upon their rights. You want to be a muslim, thats fine, I don't care, as long as your not trying to force a christian business out of business for selling bacon. 

Ive even vocally defended our local mosque against some jerks who were were going out of their way to destroy them. Don't get me wrong-I dont support Islam, they are a 100% false religion, and a dangerous one at that-but as long as theyre practicing their religion peacefully, I will defend their right to do so. and our local mosque is very peaceful.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...