I support gun control

[swatgig]

But....


The antis start their diatribe with "I support the Second Amendment, but..." and go on to say how common sense laws should be put in place.

OK, Here's my counter.

I support gun control, but that must not infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens.

I will support legislation that will keep guns out of the hands of those who will use those guns to illegally harm others. That's just common sense.

Disclaimer: Please note the word "will" in the above sentence. I didn't say "those who may use guns", or "those who are likely to use guns". I wrote "those who will use guns". As soon as "they" figure out how to predict the future, with certainty, I'll go along with them.

And as for "compromising", I will support legislation that will keep guns out of the hands of those who will use those guns to illegally harm others. That's just common sense.

Any questions?

 

[soam]

Okay, but what happens when one of the precogs disagrees with the other two?

Side note: holy crap Minority Report came out 16 years ago.

 

[Golddiggie]

No need for precogs when someone has already used a gun to [illegally] harm someone. Then again, this is already provisioned in existing laws, so no changes need to be made. Of course, the grabbers won't see it that way (logic is always lost on them).

 

[namedpipes]

I have an issue with "illegally harm".

What prevents "them" from passing a law that defines firing a gun, even at a range against a paper target as harming some sensitive emo. Since they're harmed by you, it was illegal. Now you have to support the gun control law.

Even with the clause in there, never forget how foul and sneaky politicians are. They're almost as bad as lawyers! (Ok, maybe a little worse)

 

[Jedhed]

The anti's don't know what comprise is.

When they say 'waiting periods' say "I want a machine gun."

When they say 'gun show loophole' say "I want hand grenades"

 

[ISOTOX]

Not one inch....

 

[robjax]

The only gun control I might agree to.....and I'm having a hard time talking myself into it....would be if someone committed murder with a gun or not.

Even if they did their time I would probably not want them to be able to legally own a firearm.

But I still firmly believe that if you did your time and paid your debt to society then you are even on the books. So that is my struggle.

I think we strip people's constitutional rights too easily. It isn't something we should take as lightly as it is.

 

[Bonesinium]

I have an issue with "illegally harm".

What prevents "them" from passing a law that defines firing a gun, even at a range against a paper target as harming some sensitive emo. Since they're harmed by you, it was illegal. Now you have to support the gun control law.

Even with the clause in there, never forget how foul and sneaky politicians are. They're almost as bad as lawyers! (Ok, maybe a little worse)

He’s using the actual meaning of the word ‘harm’ not some made up meaning.

But there’s nothing to prevent these psychos from making up their own meaning of words. They already do that with regularity.

 

[swatgig]

A lot of you are missing my point. Everything before the word “but” is bullshit.

I believe in the Second Amendment, but we need common sense laws to reduce gun violence.

I’m just twisting their argument.

I believe in gun control, but we need common sense gun laws that don’t infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens.

 

[robjax]

I don't think we need any gun control. Gun control infringes the rights of some and then eventually all. And once you give that up we get on the slippery slope like we have been on. So people convicted of crimes is a done deal. Now all the laws are focused don law abiding citizens.

We have laws against violence and murder. Just enforce those and forget about gun control.

There is no such thing in any way, shape or form that is "common sense" gun control.

We need to abolish all gun control, right up to and including fully auto rifles and hand guns.

I never thought I was an anti but I guess I am. I am anti-gun control.

 

[namedpipes]

He’s using the actual meaning of the word ‘harm’ not some made up meaning.

But there’s nothing to prevent these psychos from making up their own meaning of words. They already do that with regularity.

That was my point. They'd just redefine stuff until they got their way.

A lot of you are missing my point. Everything before the word “but” is bullshit.

I believe in the Second Amendment, but we need common sense laws to reduce gun violence.

I’m just twisting their argument.

I believe in gun control, but we need common sense gun laws that don’t infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens.

It's Saturday night on NES and nothing worthwhile on the boob tube. We're nit picking for entertainment.

 

[Dadstoys]

I'm sure David Duke has told people "I have black friends "
Carries about as much meaning to me as that line of crap.
They have made their intentions crystal clear on many occasions when they though no one was paying attention or in some cases right up front.
Eliminate the second amendment.
No sale.
Nut up , stack up or f*ck off.

 

[BarnBuilder]

A lot of you are missing my point. Everything before the word “but” is bullshit.

I believe in the Second Amendment, but we need common sense laws to reduce gun violence.

I’m just twisting their argument.

I believe in gun control, but we need common sense gun laws that don’t infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens.

There are no "Buts" in the second amendment or anywhere in the "Bill of Rights"

 

[soam]

Sarcasm and satire are essentially impossible in a world where even the most ridiculous viewpoints have ardent supporters. Hence why the point of this thread is flying over so many heads.

Poe's law - Wikipedia

 

[robjax]

I don't think the thread is flying over anyone's head. I think that in a lot of states the second amendment has been stripped to almost nothing. Most people, myself included, do not see any humor in talking about any type of common sense gun reforms.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The anti's don't know what comprise is.

When they say 'waiting periods' say "I want a machine gun."

When they say 'gun show loophole' say "I want hand grenades"

Keep it more modest.

Say "I want carry permits reciprocity, and a system in which ones record and skills, rather than level of connectedness, determines who gets a permit".

 

[teaser452]

Okay, but what happens when one of the precogs disagrees with the other two?

Side note: holy crap Minority Report came out 16 years ago.

You old! Old old old! Like me! But it’s ok, Maverick and Iceman are still flying so we’ll be ok.

 

[soam]

You old! Old old old! Like me! But it’s ok, Maverick and Iceman are still flying so we’ll be ok.

But not Goose though.

 

[Orion2k]

I believe in gun control too.......As long as I'm the one controlling it.

 

[wahsben]

I have an issue with "illegally harm".

What prevents "them" from passing a law that defines firing a gun, even at a range against a paper target as harming some sensitive emo. Since they're harmed by you, it was illegal. Now you have to support the gun control law.

Even with the clause in there, never forget how foul and sneaky politicians are. They're almost as bad as lawyers! (Ok, maybe a little worse)

Actually I believe a good amount of politicians were/are lawyers.

 

[wahsben]

Tyrants, terrorists, criminals and madmen don't abide by infringements which leaves them armed. Only the innocent law abiding abide by infringements which leaves them disarmed or less armed giving the balance of power to the first group which is the group that isn't supposed to have the power. Gun control benefits the bad people and victimizes the innocent. People should have all the power, arms and ability they need to protect and defend themselves against the first group. No gun control! Tyrant, terrorist, criminal and madmen control is what there needs to be.

 

[snax]

How about a violent felon registry, like the diddlers have to do. That way, when a psycho moves in next door, you know to get down to the LGS and get some more protection.

 

[last ranger]

Gun control, using both hands.

 

[amm5061]

I support gun control: I support keeping guns out of the hands of Democrats.

 

[Mountain]

No need for precogs when someone has already used a gun to [illegally] harm someone. Then again, this is already provisioned in existing laws, so no changes need to be made. Of course, the grabbers won't see it that way (logic is always lost on them).

Agreed! The laws pertaining to violent crime do not need to be changed. Perhaps we do need laws that prevent certain courts from applying their 'justice' system revolving door policy for repeat violent offenders. Disgusting what some people get tripped up on for 3 strikes yet others walk for something heinous. Detroit and St. Louis have violent crime rates at ~2,000 per 100,000 population. I forget the stat, but something like 97% of this crime is committed by repeat offenders.

What's most sad to me, long ago the discussion was twisted to gun control, not crime control. Oh wait, maybe it's not really about reducing crime?

 

[JohnZ]

But....


The antis start their diatribe with "I support the Second Amendment, but..." and go on to say how common sense laws should be put in place.

OK, Here's my counter.

I support gun control, but that must not infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens.

I will support legislation that will keep guns out of the hands of those who will use those guns to illegally harm others. That's just common sense.

Disclaimer: Please note the word "will" in the above sentence. I didn't say "those who may use guns", or "those who are likely to use guns". I wrote "those who will use guns". As soon as "they" figure out how to predict the future, with certainty, I'll go along with them.

And as for "compromising", I will support legislation that will keep guns out of the hands of those who will use those guns to illegally harm others. That's just common sense.

Any questions?

It's better to educate them on what 2A means. They will find that they do not support 2A. Anything other than that and you are on the slippery slope into the pit of words and that's what they are after. What's that old saying about getting into the mud with a pig?

 

[Golddiggie]

How about a violent felon registry, like the diddlers have to do. That way, when a psycho moves in next door, you know to get down to the LGS and get some more protection.

You can use that as "justification" with the wife/other for when you bring home another 'stray'...

Agreed! The laws pertaining to violent crime do not need to be changed. Perhaps we do need laws that prevent certain courts from applying their 'justice' system revolving door policy for repeat violent offenders. Disgusting what some people get tripped up on for 3 strikes yet others walk for something heinous. Detroit and St. Louis have violent crime rates at ~2,000 per 100,000 population. I forget the stat, but something like 97% of this crime is committed by repeat offenders.

What's most sad to me, long ago the discussion was twisted to gun control, not crime control. Oh wait, maybe it's not really about reducing crime?

IMO, IF you're not a violent felon, or committed murder, then you should be able to own a firearm even IF you did something stupid. But, if you killed someone (not talking manslaughter or in self defense here) then that goes out the window. This would just be a minor tweak to existing laws, to allow some to regain their rights. NOT adding more restrictions.

I also see that the NFA should be repealed so that we can get new manufacture full auto if we want. Plus not add the extra $200 to the price of a suppressor or if you want something with a shorter barrel (than rifle with an actual stock).

Of course, WE know that felons will ignore any/all laws that they don't care for (which is most, if not all, of them) since that's their nature. The ONLY people that laws restrict are those that obey them. I'm just glad I live in a less retarded state (than many).

 

[AHM]

Detroit and St. Louis have violent crime rates at ~2,000 per 100,000 population. I forget the stat, but something like 97% of this crime is committed by repeat offenders.

Ironic; in any other "profession", that would be a hint that there is a high barrier to entry, and most of the "market" is owned by a cartel. But with violent crime, the truth is, "jump right in, the water's fine" and "a journey of a thousand muggings begins with a single punch".

What's most sad to me, long ago the discussion was twisted to gun control, not crime control. Oh wait, maybe it's not really about reducing crime?

The environment in Mass. is so sour for us
that I find GOAL's seeming lack of traction to be distressing.

But I see that their weekly mailings have picked up an incessant drumbeat:

Every issue now includes a litany of career criminals
finally committing an extra-heinous crime
because some libberal judge last gave them a slap on the wrist.

Being able to point to a history of failed government stretching back decades
is really going to resignate when the state finally reaches a tipping point.

And it's not like they're going to run out of stories anytime soon
in the first-world <bleep>hole that is the PRM.

 

[BUMPA01603]

I believe in gun control too.......As long as I'm the one controlling it.

In the words of the immortal Clint Eastwood.....

 

[Mountain]

Ironic; in any other "profession", that would be a hint that there is a high barrier to entry, and most of the "market" is owned by a cartel. But with violent crime, the truth is, "jump right in, the water's fine" and "a journey of a thousand muggings begins with a single punch".




The environment in Mass. is so sour for us
that I find GOAL's seeming lack of traction to be distressing.

But I see that their weekly mailings have picked up an incessant drumbeat:

Every issue now includes a litany of career criminals
finally committing an extra-heinous crime
because some libberal judge last gave them a slap on the wrist.

Being able to point to a history of failed government stretching back decades
is really going to resignate when the state finally reaches a tipping point.

And it's not like they're going to run out of stories anytime soon
in the first-world <bleep>hole that is the PRM.

Agreed that the situation here is sour, but I'm glad to support GOAL because they continue to try to improve our situation.