Total Posts:74|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Do They Want to Ban ALL Guns or Some?

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 3:37:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Gun control advocates say they just want to ban assault weapons, but keep "hunting guns" legal. But is that the case? It seems they just have an aversion to guns and self-defense period and say that the fetal-position is the best defense tactic against criminals and tyranny. Do they really care the size or how fast a gun shoots or is that just an arguing point?

They muddy the waters by saying they want to ban "assault weapons" because they can hide behind that word and not say what they really mean.

They say ban "automatic weapons." Those are already illegal.
They say ban "semi-automatic weapons." That's nearly every single gun (minus the old fashion cowboy Revolver and the classic shotgun). Magnums, rifles, shotguns, etc. are all semi-automatic.

So either they want to ban guns that are already illegal or they want to ban all guns, repeal the 2nd Amendment, and burn the Constitution.

Which is it?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 3:50:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Assault weapons" work exactly like a hunting rifle. My hunting rifle would actually be more deadly as it is a larger caliber and can accept fairly large magazines. Plus, "Assault Weapons" are great for small game shooting, defense, and can actually be used for deer hunting (Elk is pushing it a little too far). They are the most commonly used gun in sport, and look cool.

Saying you want to ban "Assault Weapons" is irrational if you want to keep other semi-automatics. The only difference is the look. One looks scary. It's parts work the same, and usually use .223 or 5.57 NATO, both about the same diameter as a .22, and are not hollow point (meaning they make smaller less deadly holes).

For those not wanting to take apart their guns and believe me, or go out and shoot one, see video.
=
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 3:51:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So the only logical answer for them would be all.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 4:14:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The thing about automatic rifles is that they're pretty much useless unless your goal is just to spray all over the goddamn place. If you're going on a massacre an AR-15 is perfect but for self defense, can't go wrong with an M14.
#BlackLivesMatter
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 6:26:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 4:14:27 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
The thing about automatic rifles is that they're pretty much useless unless your goal is just to spray all over the goddamn place. If you're going on a massacre an AR-15 is perfect but for self defense, can't go wrong with an M14.

The Liberal idiots don't understand that the person who knows where to put the bullet is more deadly precise than the person spraying an automatic. CT shooter had no automatic weapons.

If they realize that, they'll call for sharpshooters to be banned next. They might as well just vote to throw every self-sufficient person in the meat grinder, then they can feel real safe.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 6:41:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 4:14:27 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
The thing about automatic rifles is that they're pretty much useless unless your goal is just to spray all over the goddamn place. If you're going on a massacre an AR-15 is perfect but for self defense, can't go wrong with an M14.

Actually, as I stated, a non military semi-automatic could be just as effective (if not more effective) than an AR-15.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 7:34:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 3:50:26 PM, 16kadams wrote:
"Assault weapons" work exactly like a hunting rifle. My hunting rifle would actually be more deadly as it is a larger caliber and can accept fairly large magazines. Plus, "Assault Weapons" are great for small game shooting, defense, and can actually be used for deer hunting (Elk is pushing it a little too far). They are the most commonly used gun in sport, and look cool.

Saying you want to ban "Assault Weapons" is irrational if you want to keep other semi-automatics. The only difference is the look. One looks scary. It's parts work the same, and usually use .223 or 5.57 NATO, both about the same diameter as a .22, and are not hollow point (meaning they make smaller less deadly holes).

For those not wanting to take apart their guns and believe me, or go out and shoot one, see video.
=

Great... now I want a Mini-14 with a bipod and folding stock.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 10:05:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
For personal protection, there are two sensible options:
1) Rifle. The rifle is probably the safest weapon because it's too large for a child to grab and stick in his or her own mouth. Consider how easy a handgun is, comparably. Rifles are accurate (improving safety of others, as well as effectiveness in its purpose).

2) Revolver. Self-defense doesn't usually include unloading a magazine's worth of bullets. If you fire twice, then you need practice aiming. Revolvers get the job done without the possibility of jamming or a need for a safety.

Other weapons are inherently militaristic in nature.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 10:13:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 10:05:27 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
For personal protection, there are two sensible options:
1) Rifle. The rifle is probably the safest weapon because it's too large for a child to grab and stick in his or her own mouth. Consider how easy a handgun is, comparably. Rifles are accurate (improving safety of others, as well as effectiveness in its purpose).

2) Revolver. Self-defense doesn't usually include unloading a magazine's worth of bullets. If you fire twice, then you need practice aiming. Revolvers get the job done without the possibility of jamming or a need for a safety.

Other weapons are inherently militaristic in nature.

Really.

Who are we to Judge?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 11:32:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 10:05:27 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
For personal protection, there are two sensible options:
1) Rifle. The rifle is probably the safest weapon because it's too large for a child to grab and stick in his or her own mouth.

a. That never happens. They're more likely to stab their eye out with scissors or drown in a pool. Requiring gun safes would be more practical as that is the true basis of keeping children safe, not banning "small" guns (and you also want to ban big guns, so basically you oppose all of them).

b. You just said that Revolvers, which are small enough for a child to put in their mouth, should be allowed.

Consider how easy a handgun is, comparably. Rifles are accurate (improving safety of others, as well as effectiveness in its purpose).

2) Revolver. Self-defense doesn't usually include unloading a magazine's worth of bullets. If you fire twice, then you need practice aiming. Revolvers get the job done without the possibility of jamming or a need for a safety.

Other weapons are inherently militaristic in nature.

Yeah, that's the point.

2nd Amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 1:18:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
When did military become most dangerous?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 9:48:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 1:18:16 AM, OberHerr wrote:
When did military become most dangerotus?

It's ironic that Rob1billion, if faced with a choice, would give military weapons to a violent statist military regime over a citizen populace who are on average law-abiding and peaceful. The military is on average violent killing thousands a month. Democide itself is the biggest cause of unnatural death in the last century.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 10:18:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 3:37:05 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Gun control advocates say they just want to ban assault weapons, but keep "hunting guns" legal.

No, some of us want to ban all guns.

But most of us, I assume, just want to restrict the kind of firepower that would let you kill dozens of children before the school's armed guard could get to you.

But is that the case? It seems they just have an aversion to guns and self-defense period and say that the fetal-position is the best defense tactic against criminals and tyranny. Do they really care the size or how fast a gun shoots or is that just an arguing point?

A big clip in a semi-automatic gun seems to be, in our current society, a recipe for slaughter.

They muddy the waters by saying they want to ban "assault weapons" because they can hide behind that word and not say what they really mean.

What do you think we really mean?

They say ban "automatic weapons." Those are already illegal.

Many people say "automatic" when "semi-automatic" would be more precise. I doubt if you're really confused about this.

They say ban "semi-automatic weapons." That's nearly every single gun (minus the old fashion cowboy Revolver and the classic shotgun). Magnums, rifles, shotguns, etc. are all semi-automatic.

So you don't like imprecision ("automatic" instead of "semi-automatic") from other people, but it's okay when you can use it in your favor?

So either they want to ban guns that are already illegal or they want to ban all guns, repeal the 2nd Amendment, and burn the Constitution.

Which is it?

Nice false dichotomy. Think about it this way: Would you need deception if logic were on your side?
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 10:23:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 6:41:20 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Actually, as I stated, a non military semi-automatic could be just as effective (if not more effective) than an AR-15.

Parkinson wrote something l like. Something like, "In all ages, the sportsmen have been better armed than the soldiers of the same age."
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 10:29:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 11:32:37 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/26/2012 10:05:27 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
For personal protection, there are two sensible options:
1) Rifle. The rifle is probably the safest weapon because it's too large for a child to grab and stick in his or her own mouth.

a. That never happens. They're more likely to stab their eye out with scissors or drown in a pool. Requiring gun safes would be more practical as that is the true basis of keeping children safe, not banning "small" guns (and you also want to ban big guns, so basically you oppose all of them).

b. You just said that Revolvers, which are small enough for a child to put in their mouth, should be allowed.

He said that rifles are safer than handguns. And he said that, of handguns, revolvers are more reliable than semi-automatics.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 10:29:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
@wiploc

It came to my attention yesterday that the nuance is that they want to ban "semi-automatic RIFLES," not all semi-automatics. However, I had heard the Left say "semi-autos" so much that I thought they meant all semi-autos, though many of them probably do.

This brings up another issue though. Why semi-auto rifles and not other semi-autos? They fire the same rate. Is it the big magazine? If theh think big magazines are the root of the problem of mass shootings, their heads aren't on straight.

One thing the Left doesn't get is that Connecticut already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation and that Lanza's weapons were all illegal for him to use.

Plus he used two handguns, why aren't they calling for that to be banned?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Magicr
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 11:02:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 10:38:30 AM, innomen wrote:
In reality, how well would a ban stand up to a constitutional challenge?

SCOTUS has ruled that other rights, speech for example, can be limited to a certain extent. So it seems to me that the magnitude of the ban would determine the outcome of such a challenge.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 12:14:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 10:38:30 AM, innomen wrote:
In reality, how well would a ban stand up to a constitutional challenge?

"Law is a prediction of what the courts will do."

I don't remember who said that. But it's nicely applicable here. We don't know what the law is, because we can't predict what the court will say.

1. Clearly they cannot enforce the second amendment as written. If the right to bear arms were not infringed, then grade-school children could take nerve gas to class. People could build their own nukes. You could keep public-water-supply-affecting quantities of LSD in your armaments locker. You could buy bazookas and claymore mines and army tanks at gun shows. This isn't going to happen. (Yes, that's a prediction of what the court will do.) Therefore, the second amendment as written, and as intended by the founders is ... void? Vacated? Without weight? Passe?

2. But we like to give lip service. We don't admit that we've abandoned the 2nd amendment, but nor do we change it to something we can live with and honor. So, instead, we just pretend that the 2nd amendment only applies sometimes. Caliber smaller than .50, for instance, unless the propellant is black powder. No full-auto. Etcetera. An ugly collection of mismatched and arbitrary rules that determine which arms are covered by the ghost of the second amendment, and which aren't.

Can the courts, in these circumstances, defer to a legislature banning "assault rifles"? Certainly. Will it do so? I'm surprised to find that I have a prediction. Yes, if the legislature passes such a statute, the courts will uphold it.

Why? Because if they uphold the statute, and people don't like the statute, they'll pester the legislature to modify the statute. But if the courts overturn the statue, then the pestering for change will happen in the courts rather than the legislature. That's a serious nuisance entirely avoidable.

The court doesn't want to be making case law on issues like, "If 20 round magazines are too big, but six round clips are fine, then how about thirteen round magazines?" That's obviously something that should be decided from the top down (legislated or regulated by bureaucrats) rather than percolating up though the court systems.

The only reason the courts would be tempted to overturn such a law is the pretense that the second amendment still has force. That pretense will be given lip service by the statute (some firearms will still be legal) so the courts needn't accept the burden of themselves determining how many rounds a rifle clip should hold. They can defer to the legislature.

My prediction, then, is that the courts would uphold such a statute, if it were well written. They might defend their territory by striking certain provisions, but they can hardly be eager to let themselves in for that sort of headache.

Courts are good at deferring to legislatures. It can be very frustrating, when you think a statute is unfair. But the courts have little ability to enforce their will on the other branches of government. They defer when they can, and in this case they can.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 12:22:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 10:29:42 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
@wiploc

It came to my attention yesterday that the nuance is that they want to ban "semi-automatic RIFLES," not all semi-automatics. However, I had heard the Left say "semi-autos" so much that I thought they meant all semi-autos, though many of them probably do.

This brings up another issue though. Why semi-auto rifles and not other semi-autos? They fire the same rate. Is it the big magazine? If theh think big magazines are the root of the problem of mass shootings, their heads aren't on straight.

One thing the Left doesn't get is that Connecticut already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation and that Lanza's weapons were all illegal for him to use.

Plus he used two handguns, why aren't they calling for that to be banned?

Firearms law is already an irrational snarl. If semi-auto pistols are just as bad as semi-auto rifles, that doesn't mean someone won't try to do some good by banning one or the other. We've had so many pointless mass murders. People are going to try something.

Harsher punishments won't be the thing tried, since the killers are offing themselves once the police show up. Well, there could be harsher sentences enacted, but gun regulation will probably be tightened up too.

Look at it from the legislator's point of view: He can't make our society nonviolent. He can't make nut cases sane. But he can vote for gun control. If he does that, he can say he did what he could. That has to appeal. And, who knows, it might actually do some good.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 12:24:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 10:38:30 AM, innomen wrote:
In reality, how well would a ban stand up to a constitutional challenge?

The reason many states have Assault Weapons legal is because state courts continually rule the ban unconstitutional. Due to the fact DC's and Chicago's handgun bans have failed, and were found unconstitutional by the supreme court, I suspect the same will happen with Assault Rifles.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 3:16:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 3:37:05 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
So either they want to ban guns that are already illegal or they want to ban all guns, repeal the 2nd Amendment, and burn the Constitution.

Which is it?

Spoken like a true conspiracy theorist. Fabricate the most evil and extreme motivation that one could possibly imagine, then claim that this evil motivation is the only logical assumption.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 3:22:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 10:29:42 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
One thing the Left doesn't get is that Connecticut already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation...

Last time I checked Connecticut doesn't have border control, neither does any state with strict gun control laws. States enacting strict gun laws is absolutely worthless when guns can simply be purchased out of state and brought in. Ask the Mayor of Chicago.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 3:28:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 3:37:05 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Gun control advocates say they just want to ban assault weapons, but keep "hunting guns" legal. But is that the case? It seems they just have an aversion to guns and self-defense period and say that the fetal-position is the best defense tactic against criminals and tyranny. Do they really care the size or how fast a gun shoots or is that just an arguing point?

They muddy the waters by saying they want to ban "assault weapons" because they can hide behind that word and not say what they really mean.

They say ban "automatic weapons." Those are already illegal.
They say ban "semi-automatic weapons." That's nearly every single gun (minus the old fashion cowboy Revolver and the classic shotgun). Magnums, rifles, shotguns, etc. are all semi-automatic.

So either they want to ban guns that are already illegal or they want to ban all guns, repeal the 2nd Amendment, and burn the Constitution.

Which is it?

I imagine you will find "Gun control advocates" as having opinions all over the spectrum regarding this issue and aren't a group with a singular, uniform platform on the issue.

Rather than identifying this as some sort of troubling contradiction, you've basically discovered that different people can disagree on specifics while agreeing on generalizations.

Congratulations!
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 3:41:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 10:38:30 AM, innomen wrote:
In reality, how well would a ban stand up to a constitutional challenge?

Well, thanks to Heller, the ban would have to pass strict scrutiny. That means it has serve a compelling government interest, be narrowly tailored, and the least restrictive means of achieving the interest.

It's narrowly tailored enough, and the conservatives are find with regulating the commercial sale of arms. The conservative reading of US v Miller makes it legitimate to ban certain types of weapons. For instance, you can ban sawed-off shotguns and machine guns because they were not shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defence." (military since the sense of militia, not standing army military).

My money is that the main court argument would be over whether assault rifles constitute the "common sense evolution" from 18th century handguns and rifles or the evolution from cannons (machine guns were found in the latter) and non-common-defense-related weapons (sawed off shotgun).

The court must restrain its ruling to issues relevant to the defendant/prosecutors standing, so they technically won't even have the chance to do away with the second amendment. All they can do is limit the government's ability to regulate certain TYPES of guns. Granted, the "sticking the relevant standing" is more a custom than a rule (I'm looking at you, Clarence Thomas).
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 3:42:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And on the random note, when it comes to activist judges, Clarence Thomas makes every liberal on the court combined look timid.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 8:30:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 3:37:05 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Gun control advocates say they just want to ban assault weapons, but keep "hunting guns" legal. But is that the case? It seems they just have an aversion to guns and self-defense period and say that the fetal-position is the best defense tactic against criminals and tyranny. Do they really care the size or how fast a gun shoots or is that just an arguing point?

They muddy the waters by saying they want to ban "assault weapons" because they can hide behind that word and not say what they really mean.

They say ban "automatic weapons." Those are already illegal.
They say ban "semi-automatic weapons." That's nearly every single gun (minus the old fashion cowboy Revolver and the classic shotgun). Magnums, rifles, shotguns, etc. are all semi-automatic.

So either they want to ban guns that are already illegal or they want to ban all guns, repeal the 2nd Amendment, and burn the Constitution.

Which is it?

Well, I'd certainly be 100% on board with applying a bit of white-out to that bit of the ole U.S. Constitution that some folks interpret as granting private citizens the right to own firearms, and, yes, with categorically banning all guns except perhaps water pistols and cigarette lighters that resemble handguns.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 10:18:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 3:16:25 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/26/2012 3:37:05 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
So either they want to ban guns that are already illegal or they want to ban all guns, repeal the 2nd Amendment, and burn the Constitution.

Which is it?

Spoken like a true conspiracy theorist. Fabricate the most evil and extreme motivation that one could possibly imagine, then claim that this evil motivation is the only logical assumption.

Which is why nobody takes Geo seriously anymore
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2013 11:50:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Tried to get some .308 ammo the other day, you can't find it anywhere. Have to be put on a waiting list at stores. Just talking about gun control sends weapons and ammo flying off the shelves.

Saw this video on drudge, ignore the last part with the metal music.
Makes a good point, all these celebrities play a major role in gun violence depicted in entertainment, yet act like the problem is one entirely of govt control and legislation.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler