Cleveland Buck;1383524 wrote:

You are for some form of gun control. Go figure.... A tea bagging elitist.

Devils Advocate;1383625 wrote:You are for some form of gun control. Go figure.... A tea bagging elitist.

What? What form of gun control am I for?

Devils Advocate;1383625 wrote:You are for some form of gun control. Go figure.... A tea bagging elitist.

lol wut

Cleveland Buck;1383630 wrote:What? What form of gun control am I for?

Lets see...

Do you want felons to have guns?

Would you like a 12 year old to be able to walk into to KMart and buy a shot gun?

All gun control.

Welcome to the elite side.

Devils Advocate;1383766 wrote:Lets see...

Do you want felons to have guns?

Would you like a 12 year old to be able to walk into to KMart and buy a shot gun?

All gun control.

Welcome to the elite side.

I'm okay with felons having guns. Far too many felonies are nonviolent to make a sweeping generalization about them in regard to guns, though even the violent ones ...

As for a child buying a shotgun, I'm okay with a 12-year-old OWNING a shotgun, and I don't suppose I'd have as much trouble with a 12-year-old buying one as some. The problem I might see is a 12-year-old not being able to have legal responsibility for it.

So, I'm not against a 12-year-old buying a shotgun because of the gun. I would probably at least be hesitant because, in most states, a 12-year-old is not legally the responsible party of "his" property.

Let me ask you this: Are you okay with a 12-year-old buying a set of steak knives, a pocket knife, or even a crossbow?

Devils Advocate;1383766 wrote:Lets see...

Do you want felons to have guns?

Would you like a 12 year old to be able to walk into to KMart and buy a shot gun?

All gun control.

Welcome to the elite side.

I don't think the government should have any say in either of those. Felons still have the right to keep and bear arms. The parents of the 12 year old kid should decide if he or she should have a shotgun.

O-Trap;1383769 wrote:I'm okay with felons having guns. Far too many felonies are nonviolent to make a sweeping generalization about them in regard to guns, though even the violent ones ...

As for a child buying a shotgun, I'm okay with a 12-year-old OWNING a shotgun, and I don't suppose I'd have as much trouble with a 12-year-old buying one as some. The problem I might see is a 12-year-old not being able to have legal responsibility for it.

So, I'm not against a 12-year-old buying a shotgun because of the gun. I would probably at least be hesitant because, in most states, a 12-year-old is not legally the responsible party of "his" property.

Let me ask you this: Are you okay with a 12-year-old buying a set of steak knives, a pocket knife, or even a crossbow?

Knives ok, crossbow iffy.

The knife have most of their legitimate uses outside of killing

The crossbow is made to kill, but is mostly used to hunt. A teen cannot legally hunt in Ohio until they are 16, so no.

The majority of guns are made to kill people and need some regulation. I

The majority of guns are made to kill people

Cleveland Buck;1383779 wrote:I don't think the government should have any say in either of those. Felons still have the right to keep and bear arms. The parents of the 12 year old kid should decide if he or she should have a shotgun.[/QUOTThis is laughable.


Clerk : does youy parents know you are being this


Kid : sure! they gave me the money.


So where do you draw the line on what kis can buy?


Beer?......porn........liquor?????


Many aspEcts of society are dependent on retailers using good judgement on what to sell children.




Elitist teabagger........Yep.

Devils Advocate;1383852 wrote:

Cleveland Buck;1383779 wrote:I don't think the government should have any say in either of those. Felons still have the right to keep and bear arms. The parents of the 12 year old kid should decide if he or she should have a shotgun.[/QUOTThis is laughable.


Clerk : does youy parents know you are being this


Kid : sure! they gave me the money.


So where do you draw the line on what kis can buy?


Beer?......porn........liquor?????


Many aspEcts of society are dependent on retailers using good judgement on what to sell children.




Elitist teabagger........Yep.

Retailers should be able to decide what they want to sell and who they want to sell it to. I don't draw the line anywhere on what kids can buy. You are the one that wants to decide what some parent should allow their child to have.

Cleveland Buck;1383878 wrote:
Retailers should be able to decide what they want to sell and who they want to sell it to. I don't draw the line anywhere on what kids can buy. You are the one that wants to decide what some parent should allow their child to have.

Bro. It's not the job of a parent to raise their child. It's the government's job.

Devils Advocate;1383848 wrote:Knives ok, crossbow iffy.

The knife have most of their legitimate uses outside of killing

The crossbow is made to kill, but is mostly used to hunt. A teen cannot legally hunt in Ohio until they are 16, so no.

The majority of guns are made to kill people and need some regulation. I

The majority of guns are made to kill people

A 12-year-old will most likely not have the need for a hunting knife, or even a set of steak knives. While they might have their purpose, would you not be highly suspicious of a friggin' 12-year-old buying knives?

As for the crossbow or even the gun, why shouldn't the kid be able to buy it for his dad for a present, or even to use himself to keep groundhogs away from their crops, should he be a farm child? I don't know the law on shooting a groundhog on your property, but I'd be surprised you'd legally have to be 16 to do it.

As for your distinction between guns and crossbows, it's just silly. Both are made primarily to shoot a projectile in a straight path. You can argue their USE, but you have zero substantiation to suggest anything about their creator's motivations (except maybe to profit). Gun manufacturers don't make guns so you can kill each other. They make guns so you can hit what you're shooting at. Could be trap, targets, a deer, or a person. However, guns (like crossbows) are merely made to allow their operator to hit what they're aiming at. No more or less can be stated with any shred of legitimate reasoning.

Now, you can make an argument about how most guns are USED, but I'm pretty sure you'd be hard-pressed to find any stat that shows that the majority of guns owned by civilians are even used to do anything but hunting or recreational shooting.

Wow.....just fucking wow.

Devils Advocate;1384155 wrote:Wow.....just fucking wow.

Do you not like that answer? Is there something I said to which you object? Have you any logical justification for doing so?

O-Trap;1384363 wrote:Do you not like that answer? Is there something I said to which you object? Have you any logical justification for doing so?

His programming went haywire. It happens to many when they first hear truth.

And just to keep with the other two posts:

Otrap, we are arguing over semantics.

As you had stated in your first post, a 12 year old is not deemed responsible for hir or her behavior.

We discriminat at mant levels for the under aged. Drivers licenses, alcohol, and voting. Car ownership and compulsory school to name a few.

All I am saying is that some form conrol is needed. How much is what we are debating. Extreme positions on this and others is why verbal intercourse and agreement cannot take place.


I have decent collection of firearms, and I own and use them responsibly.

I am also CCW because I thought it was meet to do so. But when I do feel the need to carry, I usually do so open and obvious, as I have done for many years before CCW was obtainable for me in Ohio. I have been making large cash and check deposits for years and rarely get a secon look when I walk into the bank with a glock on my hip.


My point is that ffierarms do need regulated to some extent.

Damn IPhones suck.

QuakerOats;1383367 wrote:If that were true, why would this thread exist.

Some of us value all human life, and are willing to protect it --- from the insane, from the liberal convenience generation, and from government tyrants.

The blood is not on my hands, nor of most conservatives.

Because, despite the general decrease in crime that has occurred in wealthy countries over the last several decades...the United States is still a vary glaring outlier with regard gun violence.

This country is more religious as a whole than countries with less gun violence.

Countries with less gun violence watch the same violent television and cinema produced in our liberal "Hollyweird"

Other countries with less violence regulate abortion far less than we do.

YET, we are the ones with the gun violence problem??? What is the societal difference??? They are all worse than we are as far as becoming liberal hell-holes with abortion, gays, violent and ostentatious media and secularism....What they don't have is 300 million guns.

Devils Advocate;1384428 wrote:Otrap, we are arguing over semantics.

I don't think we are, or if we are, they are being communicated as such that it doesn't appear to be that way.

Devils Advocate;1384428 wrote:As you had stated in your first post, a 12 year old is not deemed responsible for hir or her behavior.

I said responsible for his or her PROPERTY. Not behavior.

Devils Advocate;1384428 wrote:We discriminat at mant levels for the under aged. Drivers licenses, alcohol, and voting. Car ownership and compulsory school to name a few.

We do indeed. That doesn't necessarily establish that it is justified, though. It merely establishes that we do it.

Devils Advocate;1384428 wrote:All I am saying is that some form conrol is needed. How much is what we are debating. Extreme positions on this and others is why verbal intercourse and agreement cannot take place.

Extreme positions are no different in their discussion, provided everyone keeps calm, doesn't resort to logical fallacy, and explains themselves as well as possible.

Devils Advocate;1384428 wrote:I have decent collection of firearms, and I own and use them responsibly.

I am also CCW because I thought it was meet to do so. But when I do feel the need to carry, I usually do so open and obvious, as I have done for many years before CCW was obtainable for me in Ohio. I have been making large cash and check deposits for years and rarely get a secon look when I walk into the bank with a glock on my hip.

Inasmuch as this is true, I think you establish yourself as someone who doesn't even need the governmental gun control we have now, let alone more.

It's the adult and baby eating a steak thing, and personal (or parental, as the case may be) responsibility ... as well as COMMUNITY responsibility ... will go much further than a one-size-fits-all nationwide regulation, including the ones we have now.

Devils Advocate;138442 wrote:My point is that ffierarms do need regulated to some extent.

And I just don't see why. To someone not as familiar with them as yourself, I suppose they might be scary, but on the whole, they themselves pose no threat, and even historically have not been a huge risk to society, based on the numbers, anyway.

I just don't see any kind of control or regulation that is (a) justified, and (b) enforceable. I would have no problem with cities and towns making their own laws on guns to fit their specific constituency. However, I daresay that would be difficult to enforce across jurisdictional lines.


Oh, and lol at "verbal intercourse." I couldn't be a member of this site and not say something infantile about that.

Devils Advocate;1384428 wrote:Extreme positions on this and others is why verbal intercourse and agreement cannot take place.

When you have a group of people who want to ban guns from the public entirely but then decide they can't so they just want to ban the "scary" guns for now and they admit they will try to ban more guns in the future, that is when I dig my heels in. Their goal is banning all guns and they try to frame the argument in such a way that they just want what they call "common sense" measures in place and anyone who opposes them must be nuts. It is propaganda at its finest!

WebFire;1383350 wrote:So what is the criteria? Speed of death?

I think, efficiency/speed of killing is a reasonable criteria.

The Second Amendment has proven largely false. Well regulated militias are not necessary for the security of a free state. There are countries all over the world that have large amounts of economic freedom who do not have them and they are not overrun by tyrannical despots.

But, a strong case can be made that you need individual arms as insurance against private coercion from criminals and that is where most of the fervor would come from over repealing the second amendment. And that's most of the arguments people have been making since Newtown i.e. "A Cop is 20 minutes away!"

So, if you can find weapons that people could still adequately defend themselves with and their homes and families but would not be able to kill as many innocents in the event that person went mad, went from being a "good guy with a gun" to becoming a "bad guy with a gun", or from a "law abiding gun owner" to an outlaw with a gun, the best we might be able to hope for is that we could limit the carnage they could do.

QuakerOats;1383367 wrote:Some of us value all human life, and are willing to protect it ...

Those convicted of murder?

QuakerOats;1383375 wrote:When a government tyrant kills millions of people, is that not more horrific than a crazed lone gunmen shooting 20 people?

Should we disarm the millions, and still not be able to protect the 20?

Does rational, cogent thinking, ever enter the mind of a liberal? Or is liberalism truly a mental illness?

Are the Japanese under an imminent threat of tyranny from Shinzo Abe? Has there been a modern industrialized country that has collapsed into despotism in the post-WWII era with NATO and the U.N.

Where is the evidence that we are under legitimate threats of tyranny or that countries with disarmed populaces are at a legitimate risk of being overrun by tyranny??