The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues

Hacker15e said:
M60: regulated as a machine gun under the 1934 NFA and subject to tightly controlled restrictions on ownership.

Veteran suffering from severe PTSD and having committed several serious crimes: would not be eligible to own the M60 under the NFA restrictions.
Click to expand...

OK, but you missed the point.
 
Seggy said:
You and others trying to make 'points' and define Constitutional law is also 'quite generous', as you would say.
Click to expand...

We don't have to define Constitutional law. The SCOTUS has already done a fine job of that. We just repeat what they had to say on the matter.

As for your posts, they don't include any points, unlike most everyone else in these threads. You do little drive-bys, like your homoerotic Rambo picture, instead of making any valid points or arguments. When pressed to actually take a position, you dodge.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
We don't have to define Constitutional law. The SCOTUS has already done a fine job of that. We just repeat what they had to say on the matter.

As for your posts, they don't include any points, unlike most everyone else in these threads. You do little drive-bys, like your homoerotic Rambo picture, instead of making any valid points or arguments. When pressed to actually take a position, you dodge.
Click to expand...

'Everyone else' has been engaged in group think, falling over each other to agree with one another how they are right concerning the 2nd Amendment and how someone like jtrain609, who is actually going to graduate law school, is wrong.
 
Hacker15e said:
Okay, what was it I missed? What does a photo of an actor in a movie have to do with the discussion at hand?
Click to expand...

You have a bunch of people on here who think that just because they own a gun, they would have prevented the Colorado Theater Massacre (if they were there), would have stopped the shootings in Newton (only if teachers were armed), and would be able to stop ANY violent act against them no matter what the numbers would be against them, because they have their guns.

As I said, all I am hearing is group think, with everyone falling over each other to agree with one another. Wake up to reality and common sense.
 
Seggy said:
You have a bunch of people on here who think that just because they own a gun, they would have prevented the Colorado Theater Massacre (if they were there),
Click to expand...

Actually, if you go back and read the thread from last year afte that shooting, you'll find that most of us who hold CCWs stated quite clearly that we believed it would have done no good in that specific case.

would have stopped the shootings in Newton (only if teachers were armed)
Click to expand...

I've seen most people arguing for armed cops in schools, which is the NRA's position. Armed teachers has not been the main point of discussion.

and would be able to stop ANY violent act against them no matter what the numbers would be against them, because they have their guns.
Click to expand...

No one has claimed any such thing.

Wake up to reality and common sense.
Click to expand...

No, that's what we're asking you to do. As seen in this post, you've clearly paid attention to what no one on the other side of the debate has to say. You put words in their mouths and imagine crazy arguments that aren't actually being made. Just another sign that your position is based entirely upon an irrational fear of something on which you have incredibly limited knowledge.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
No, that's what we're asking you to do. As seen in this post, you've clearly paid attention to what no one on the other side of the debate has to say. You put words in their mouths and imagine crazy arguments that aren't actually being made. Just another sign that your position is based entirely upon an irrational fear of something on which you have incredibly limited knowledge.
Click to expand...

Remember when a certain someone wanted to start a shooting club and the how the Canadian we both know reacted? They obviously have a ton of guns up there, but they view them differently as we do. It is the delusional gun culture of this country that you are doing a great job fostering that has swayed the discussion from what the 2nd Amendment was created for.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Actually, if you go back and read the thread from last year afte that shooting, you'll find that most of us who hold CCWs stated quite clearly that we believed it would have done no good in that specific case.
Click to expand...

You may think that, but that is not how the discussion went on here.



I've seen most people arguing for armed cops in schools, which is the NRA's position. Armed teachers has not been the main point of discussion.
Click to expand...

You don't live in Texas



No one has claimed any such thing.
Click to expand...

Sure about that? EVER?
 
Seggy said:
Remember when a certain someone wanted to start a shooting club and the how the Canadian we both know reacted?
Click to expand...

Of course. And I think you remember how I reacted, as well, which was almost as angrily as the Canadian. But that's a separate issue. It's related to a labor union getting in bed with the NRA. Stop conflating issues.

They obviously have a ton of guns up there, but they view them differently as we do.
Click to expand...

Clearly. Canada's gun culture is largely centered around hunting, and they do a ton of hunting. If you tried to take away their hunting rifles, they'd go ape^&*%. And by the way, the AR-15 and most other "assault rifles" are allowed in Canada, and frequently used for hunting and competitive shooting.

It is the delusional gun culture of this country that you are doing a great job fostering that has swayed the discussion from what the 2nd Amendment was created for.
Click to expand...

Comical, since you've proven time and again that you don't have the slightest clue what the 2nd Amendment is all about.
 
Seggy said:
You have a bunch of people on here who think that just because they own a gun, they would have prevented the Colorado Theater Massacre (if they were there), would have stopped the shootings in Newton (only if teachers were armed), and would be able to stop ANY violent act against them no matter what the numbers would be against them, because they have their guns.

As I said, all I am hearing is group think, with everyone falling over each other to agree with one another. Wake up to reality and common sense.
Click to expand...

Not really fair to call out Hacker on that; he was arguing the exact opposite in the Aurora thread:

Hacker15e said:
I'm a proponent of CCW, but to think that this guy realistically could have been stopped by a concealed carrier is wishful.
Click to expand...

I hate the words "progun", "antigun", "assault weapon", and "gun control". They're extremely loaded words that *both* sides use to try to control the language of the debate.

In reality, you're not going to find any rational person who is truly opposed to gun control across the board and believes that any person should be able to own any weapon. Federal, state, and local governments don't believe that and the Supreme Court backs them up, so we're never going to live without gun control laws. Similarly, the 2nd amendment provides plenty of protection for firearm ownership, and I don't think that banning *all* guns is something a rational person would support...so that's not going to happen either.

I'm very much in favor of people with known criminal records and mental health issues being prevented from legally prevented from owning firearms, which to me means that there must be a better combination of background checks and enforcement than currently exists. I'm not in favor of arbitrarily banning guns because they "look scary", either. I don't know how I feel about limitations on "high" (?) capacity magazines...I know any limitation would be somewhat arbitrary, but I'm dubious of the current legal use of 100+ round magazines.

Also, I'm getting a absolutely gorgeous shotgun this weekend. So am I "pro gun control" or "progun"?
 
ATN_Pilot said:
You're either lying or deluding yourself. The thread is there for everyone to see, and your version of events is clearly not reality.
Click to expand...

No I have had a lot going on since then and remembered wrongly. Looks like I was wrong though and everyone did say responsible things in that regard.

zmiller4 said:
Not really fair to call out Hacker on that; he was arguing the exact opposite in the Aurora thread:
Click to expand...

See above, looks like I was wrong, which is a rarity :).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top