Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

I do not find that cars can cause so much devastation as someone with a GUN

Originally Posted by Clak If I remember correctly, I believe I once read about a sensor which, if placed in a car, could detect the alcohol just from a person sitting and breathing in the car. So basically if you got in and tried to start the car drunk, it just wouldn't start. Seems like a good idea to me. edit- Oh and nice try Knoell.

Hahahahahahahhahahaahha!!!!! Holy crap, man! Why don't we just pay a gov't worker to babysit every US citizen 24 hours a day? Who needs to assume self responsibility and independence when the gov't is so incorruptible and can make all the best decisions for you? 1984 has got to be your handbook for gov't SOP. Dang, bro, please tell me that most of your posts are meant to be sarcastic, like many of mine.

Originally Posted by kill3r7 The car breathalyzer analogy is a poor one on two levels. First, The government already regulates who can obtain a driver's license. An individual must be of a certain age, pass a written and a road test prior to obtaining a license. This would be the equivalent of a thorough background check and a mandatory course on gun use and safety. Second, a drivers license is a privilege meanwhile the right to bear guns is a constitutional right.

The drivers license being a priviledge is even more reason to do so.

Also should the government be allowed to regulate a constitutional right for "the good of the people"?

Originally Posted by The Crotch But... I am?

Originally Posted by clak If I remember correctly, I believe I once read about a sensor which, if placed in a car, could detect the alcohol just from a person sitting and breathing in the car. So basically if you got in and tried to start the car drunk, it just wouldn't start. Seems like a good idea to me. edit- Oh and nice try Knoell.

And now we know the lengths people are willing to go to remove any sort of personal responsibility from a persons life with the justification of "their personal choices will impact others, so to combat human error, we will remove the human element from their choices."

Originally Posted by IRHari Do you think an assault weapons ban is unconstitutional?

What is your point here? I notice you ask this question repeatedly throughout the thread.

What impact do you think an assault weapons ban will have on the gun violence?

Originally Posted by Finger_Shocker I do not find that cars can cause so much devastation as someone with a GUN

Yet they do:

2009

31,000+ Guns
36,000+ Motor Vehicles

Originally Posted by Knoell Yet they do: 2009 31,000+ Guns 36,000+ Motor Vehicles

WOW considering car ownership is alot higher then gun ownership

By the way how many of those 36,000 accidents were death?

Originally Posted by Knoell The drivers license being a priviledge is even more reason to do so. Also should the government be allowed to regulate a constitutional right for "the good of the people"? And now we know the lengths people are willing to go to remove any sort of personal responsibility from a persons life with the justification of "their personal choices will impact others, so to combat human error, we will remove the human element from their choices." What is your point here? I notice you ask this question repeatedly throughout the thread. What impact do you think an assault weapons ban will have on the gun violence? Yet they do: 2009 31,000+ Guns 36,000+ Motor Vehicles

Do you think an assault weapons ban is unconstitutional?

Originally Posted by Finger_Shocker WOW considering car ownership is alot higher then gun ownership By the way how many of those 36,000 accidents were death?

65 million guns have been sold since Obama took office. How many cars have been?

Originally Posted by Finger_Shocker WOW considering car ownership is alot higher then gun ownership By the way how many of those 36,000 accidents were death?

That's 36,000 deaths not accidents. In the US alone there are roughly half million accidents a year.

Originally Posted by Knoell Also should the government be allowed to regulate a constitutional right for "the good of the people"?

Should they? No. Can they? Sure. Congress can pass any regulation/law it sees fit as long as it is acting within its power. It's up to the people to challenge its constitutionality.

I'm not opposed to an individual being required to pass a thorough background check and at least take a mandatory gun use and safety class.

Originally Posted by kill3r7 Should they? No. Can they? Sure. Congress can pass any regulation/law it sees fit as long as it is acting within its power. It's up to the people to challenge its constitutionality. I'm not opposed to an individual being required to pass a thorough background check and at least take a mandatory gun use and safety class.

And people are challenging the constitutionality of the things the government is doing.

I have more of a problem with the idiots that rather than making a rational argument that partiular legislation will work to reduce the bodycount, they demonize these people who own guns as "gun toting hillbillies, that would trade their first born for a gun, and shoot everyone/anyone on sight, because they love their guns so much. Yee Haw"

Of course where would politics be without demonization? How can you win an argument if you aren't saying the opposing side is the worst kind of humanity? So tired of it.

That or they go after the constitutionality of it as if the government being able to or not able to do it has anything to do with if they should do it.

Most people can accept background checks, and maybe even a safety course. However how are these things combating gun violence in the country? One may prevent accidents. The other will keep guns out of the hands of only people who have already committed a crime, or known to be mentally ill. Neither of these things will stop any of the massacres, and it won't stop the gang violence that takes up a huge chunk of gun deaths each year. I am fairly certain Chicago has background checks, and it is being torn apart by gangs with guns.

Most gun deaths are related to suicide. Why aren't we talking more about helping those people? Awareness campaigns for them?

Originally Posted by Knoell Also should the government be allowed to regulate a constitutional right for "the good of the people"?

My bad, I missed this when you first posted it. I think I have your answer to my question now.

Curious to see if you think a citizen should be able to own a rocket launcher.

Originally Posted by Knoell I have more of a problem with the idiots that rather than making a rational argument that partiular legislation will work to reduce the bodycount, they demonize these people who own guns as "gun toting hillbillies, that would trade their first born for a gun, and shoot everyone/anyone on sight, because they love their guns so much. Yee Haw"

As an idiot who has tried to make rational arguments that particular legislation might work to reduce the bodycount, I find it odd that I was so quickly demonized as someone who demonizes people who own guns as "gun toting hillbillies" damn near every time I spoke up in this thread.

It's almost like it's a convenient way to shut down a discussion.

Originally Posted by IRHari My bad, I missed this when you first posted it. I think I have your answer to my question now. Curious to see if you think a citizen should be able to own a rocket launcher.

I see what you did there.

Lose-Lose situation.

If I agree then I am an insane extremist who wants people running around with rocket launchers.

If I disagree, then I am a hypocrite, who will allow one but not the other super scary weapon.

I will take the third option, that says assault weapons arent scary black weapons navy seals use, and assault weapons do not account for a tenth of the gun murders each year.

It is entertaining that you are turning assault weapons into rocket launchers in your head though. True, guns are scary, but so are a lot of things.

Extreme situations are always fun to get that "gotcha" moment.

Nice try though.

Originally Posted by The Crotch As an idiot who has tried to make rational arguments that particular legislation might work to reduce the bodycount, I find it odd that I was so quickly demonized as someone who demonizes people who own guns as "gun toting hillbillies" damn near every time I spoke up in this thread. It's almost like it's a convenient way to shut down a discussion.

You mean the one post where you (self admittedly) googled a bunch of graphs, threw them on the thread and said "see I am right!" and ignored the rest of the conversation and went back to the snarky comments? Sorry I must have missed it.

I googled the source of your own statement who admitted he was wrong.

Originally Posted by The Crotch I googled the source of your own statement who admitted he was wrong.

Where in that is talking about legislation you think will work and why?

Alright, you got me. That was just a friendly reminder that you should check your sources to make sure they don't say something totally different. And also gun-havers are all inbred Christofascist schizophrenics.

Mostly the second one, now that I think about it. Shit!

Originally Posted by Knoell I see what you did there. Lose-Lose situation. If I agree then I am an insane extremist who wants people running around with rocket launchers. If I disagree, then I am a hypocrite, who will allow one but not the other super scary weapon. I will take the third option, that says assault weapons arent scary black weapons navy seals use, and assault weapons do not account for a tenth of the gun murders each year. It is entertaining that you are turning assault weapons into rocket launchers in your head though. True, guns are scary, but so are a lot of things. Extreme situations are always fun to get that "gotcha" moment. Nice try though.

So banning rocket launchers is constitutional but banning assault rifles is unconstitutional?

Depends on your definition of arms.

Since people are more interested in JAQ-ing off, vacuous statements, low-content posts, and passive aggressive trolling...









...I suppose the least I could do is post some humorous macros to lampoon those "arguments."


Ok, one more...

I love it when the anti-gun crowd brings up rocket launchers. It's an old classic.

I'll bite.

If the citizens elect and push legislators to allow a method for citizens to legally purchase rocket launchers then damn straight - they should be legal. If that's what the citizens want, then that's what they get.

Since the second amendment was obviously meant to be a power check for tyranny, you do have to let citizens have a certain portion of firepower that the government has. It's a sliding scale that must be defined by the people.

For example, if we were only allowed to have muskets in the modern warfare age then the purpose of the second amendment would be lost. Conversely, it's probably not a good idea to let just anyone build fuel-air bombs, phosphorus grenades, and nukes as well.

Most people into this stuff feel like the assault rifle thing is the modern "line" that should not be crossed. Having lots of citizens with assault rifles (that are responsible for very few murders, remember) is widely acknowledged as a reasonable balance of power against tyranny.

There will be some smart ass here that will inevitably say "har har! What's an AR-15 going to do against a tank or a jet with laser guided bombs! Har har!" So lets nip that in the bud right now - the answer is nothing. But that isn't the point. The point is a populace armed with assault rifles will still be very difficult to subjugate with any modern tech - unless the goal is to just exterminate (which is highly unlikely).

An interactive map that is growing daily, tracking the rapes, assaults, murders, and robberies that were stopped by armed citizens.

It's important data to keep in mind when having this debate, so you aren't brainwashed into thinking these evil chunks of metal just kill innocent people all the time.