Guns Guns Guns

[BuckSwope 278]

On 5/27/2023 at 1:27 PM, 5-Points said:

Then why doesn't it read "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?"

Because it wasn't about The State. It was about A state  A state of freedom. Therefore the PEOPLE were guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms to secure their state of freedom. Be it from foreign invaders or a tyrannical government. 

The entire BoR is about guaranteeing the rights of PEOPLE and restricting government authority. 

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with debating on if we as a country should continue to have the access we do to weapons like that.  Your point would apply to an all out gun ban for individuals, but you lose me a bit when you seem to be trying to claim an AR ban would remove people's right to self and home defense.  

 

[5-Points 2,212]

10 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with debating on if we as a country should continue to have the access we do to weapons like that.  Your point would apply to an all out gun ban for individuals, but you lose me a bit when you seem to be trying to claim an AR ban would remove people's right to self and home defense.  

 

There's no debate. We should continue to have access to weapons like that. That was the whole intent of the 2A. 

[BuckSwope 278]

8 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

There's no debate. We should continue to have access to weapons like that. That was the whole intent of the 2A. 

We can agree on some part of the debate, but I don't agree with you there.  The "whole intent" of the 2nd doesn't revolve around a specific weapon like an AR.  It doesn't remove your right to defend yourself by saying you can't legally use an AR to do so.  

Imo we need more restrictions, but don't think banning a specific gun is going to do much anyway.  It would be more of a symbolic move than one than would save many lives.  

 

[5-Points 2,212]

11 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

We can agree on some part of the debate, but I don't agree with you there.  The "whole intent" of the 2nd doesn't revolve around a specific weapon like an AR.  It doesn't remove your right to defend yourself by saying you can't legally use an AR to do so.  

Imo we need more restrictions, but don't think banning a specific gun is going to do much anyway.  It would be more of a symbolic move than one than would save many lives.  

 

The 2A wasn't about self defense. Self defense is a natural right. The Founders wouldn't have wasted their time stipulating something so obvious. 

The 2A was about defense of liberty and guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear the tools with which to do so. 

[BuckSwope 278]

49 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

The 2A wasn't about self defense. Self defense is a natural right. The Founders wouldn't have wasted their time stipulating something so obvious. 

The 2A was about defense of liberty and guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear the tools with which to do so. 

Good distinction on the first part, thanks.   We are still back to the part where that doesn't mean any tool to do so, at least IMO.   I get that you and your ilk fall back to the position that you are also needing weapons to defend against a tyrannical government.   But when we have a government with tools far greater than ours, that line of thinking is a dangerous one.  I get what you are saying about having that right, but I just pointing out that in 2023, I think you are being a bit silly clinging to the notion that your AR is defending you against your government.   

[5-Points 2,212]

48 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

Good distinction on the first part, thanks.   We are still back to the part where that doesn't mean any tool to do so, at least IMO.   I get that you and your ilk fall back to the position that you are also needing weapons to defend against a tyrannical government.   But when we have a government with tools far greater than ours, that line of thinking is a dangerous one.  I get what you are saying about having that right, but I just pointing out that in 2023, I think you are being a bit silly clinging to the notion that your AR is defending you against your government.   

We just spent 20 years fighting cavemen with AK's and IED's to a draw. The ROE would be much more restrictive on our own soil. The consequences for a mistake on their part would be severe.  

[shorepatrol 1,627]

1 hour ago, BuckSwope said:

Good distinction on the first part, thanks.   We are still back to the part where that doesn't mean any tool to do so, at least IMO.   I get that you and your ilk fall back to the position that you are also needing weapons to defend against a tyrannical government.   But when we have a government with tools far greater than ours, that line of thinking is a dangerous one.  I get what you are saying about having that right, but I just pointing out that in 2023, I think you are being a bit silly clinging to the notion that your AR is defending you against your government.   

Ah, you're in the "we have nukes" dishipt line of thinking. Great 

[BuckSwope 278]

6 hours ago, shorepatrol said:

Ah, you're in the "we have nukes" dishipt line of thinking. Great 

No, I'm just also not in the "our gubments gonna git us" line of thinking either.  Mostly I think that's something people say so they can have the guns they want, but very few truly believe that.   

You are also not going to catch me advocating for any gun bans either - it's not going to happen and wouldn't be effective.  I just usually find gun owners to be full of sh1t when they talk about things like this or why they "need" 30 different weapons at their house.    Instead of just flat out saying it's because the constitution and law allows it,  and it's fun as hell, they dance around "well the Founding Fathers certainly meant for us to have these weapons that none of them could have dreamed of" as if any of us really know how they would react in 2023.  

Personally, I don't care that those guns exist or people have access to them, I would just make it MUCH harder for people to obtain.   I find gun ban people irrational, and I find most gun owners on these boards irrational too.  

[dogcows 818]

1 hour ago, BuckSwope said:

No, I'm just also not in the "our gubments gonna git us" line of thinking either.  Mostly I think that's something people say so they can have the guns they want, but very few truly believe that.   

You are also not going to catch me advocating for any gun bans either - it's not going to happen and wouldn't be effective.  I just usually find gun owners to be full of sh1t when they talk about things like this or why they "need" 30 different weapons at their house.    Instead of just flat out saying it's because the constitution and law allows it,  and it's fun as hell, they dance around "well the Founding Fathers certainly meant for us to have these weapons that none of them could have dreamed of" as if any of us really know how they would react in 2023.  

Personally, I don't care that those guns exist or people have access to them, I would just make it MUCH harder for people to obtain.   I find gun ban people irrational, and I find most gun owners on these boards irrational too.  

The rationale for restricting guns is simple, and based on data: nations with such restrictions have drastically lower rates of gun violence than America does. 

Perhaps you consider those in favor of gun restrictions irrational due to the practicality of restricting guns. I can understand that feeling since we’ve already got millions more guns than people in America. But just because something is impractical doesn’t make one irrational for trying to come up with a way to make it practical.

[BuckSwope 278]

19 minutes ago, dogcows said:

The rationale for restricting guns is simple, and based on data: nations with such restrictions have drastically lower rates of gun violence than America does. 

Perhaps you consider those in favor of gun restrictions irrational due to the practicality of restricting guns. I can understand that feeling since we’ve already got millions more guns than people in America. But just because something is impractical doesn’t make one irrational for trying to come up with a way to make it practical.

I usually use my words specifically.  "Ban", not restrictions is what I find irrational and ineffective.   Total gun ban, maybe, but it's also never happening for a variety of reasons, so not a realistic solution.  Just banning ARs isn't going to do much either.  I don't know a category of gun death where that platform is used the majority of time, so again- an irrational solution IMO. 

I said in an above post I was for limiting access to said guns, not banning them.  

[Wade Garrett 4]

More gun = more killings. 

Ain't rocket science.  And just lol at the high school dropout Jethrows thinking they could stop the gubmint from doing anything with their stupid guns.

How'd that work out during Covid which most of the same crowd thinks was a scam? 

[BuckSwope 278]

18 minutes ago, Wade Garrett said:

More gun = more killings. 

Ain't rocket science.  And just lol at the high school dropout Jethrows thinking they could stop the gubmint from doing anything with their stupid guns.

How'd that work out during Covid which most of the same crowd thinks was a scam? 

Too simplistic here.   100 people owning 30 guns each is different than 3000 people each having a gun.   The # guns isn't the end all be all piece of info. 

At the end of the day, as a country our solution to someone about to enter a building with guns is to have more people inside with guns.  That's where we are messed up, imo.  I don't care if it's an AR or a bag of handguns, I want steps in place to stop that person before they get there, not just planning for a shootout when they do. 

[Wade Garrett 4]

11 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

Too simplistic here.   100 people owning 30 guns each is different than 3000 people each having a gun.   The # guns isn't the end all be all piece of info. 

At the end of the day, as a country our solution to someone about to enter a building with guns is to have more people inside with guns.  That's where we are messed up, imo.  I don't care if it's an AR or a bag of handguns, I want steps in place to stop that person before they get there, not just planning for a shootout when they do. 

Good luck with that.  Many conservative dudes in this country can't get it up without fondling their massive collection of killing tools first. 

[BuckSwope 278]

1 hour ago, Wade Garrett said:

Good luck with that.  Many conservative dudes in this country can't get it up without fondling their massive collection of killing tools first. 

Good luck with what? 

I guess good luck to you framing gun owners as gun fondling wackos.  

[seafoam1 594]

1 hour ago, Wade Garrett said:

Good luck with that.  Many conservative dudes in this country can't get it up without fondling their massive collection of killing tools first. 

So owning guns is erectile disfunction treatment in your eyes? Wow. Focking idiot.

[iam90sbaby 1,797]

1 hour ago, Wade Garrett said:

More gun = more killings. 

Ain't rocket science.  And just lol at the high school dropout Jethrows thinking they could stop the gubmint from doing anything with their stupid guns.

How'd that work out during Covid which most of the same crowd thinks was a scam? 

Every country in the top 10 for murder rate per capita has a massive amount of gun control or has banned guns all together.

You're a good little bot.

[BuckSwope 278]

26 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

Every country in the top 10 for murder rate per capita has a massive amount of gun control or has banned guns all together.

You're a good little bot.

Do you believe if we had the same amount of gun control as the countries you reference we would have similar murder rates per capita? 

[iam90sbaby 1,797]

52 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

Do you believe if we had the same amount of gun control as the countries you reference we would have similar murder rates per capita? 

As we do now? More than likely yes.

[BuckSwope 278]

2 hours ago, iam90sbaby said:

As we do now? More than likely yes.

Gotcha.  Really disagree here, but was curious your take. 

[dogcows 818]

5 hours ago, BuckSwope said:

I usually use my words specifically.  "Ban", not restrictions is what I find irrational and ineffective.   Total gun ban, maybe, but it's also never happening for a variety of reasons, so not a realistic solution.  Just banning ARs isn't going to do much either.  I don't know a category of gun death where that platform is used the majority of time, so again- an irrational solution IMO. 

I said in an above post I was for limiting access to said guns, not banning them.  

We pretty much agree then