like_that;1860016 wrote:The problem is creating a legitimate standard. If it can be done, then I'm sure nobody would complain. So far the only suggestion I have seen is ban gun ownership to those on the no fly list, which is a severely flawed list. Not to mention a slippery slope considering the Government could place anyone on the list without notification.

I agree. It would be better if the standard was developed within the firearms industry and among firearm owners, enthusiasts, etc.

salto;1860017 wrote:Just like it's your right to be delusional.

Like I said, pick up a history book. I'm sorry you think history is a delusion.

like_that;1860041 wrote:Like I said, pick up a history book. I'm sorry you think history is a delusion.

I already recognized the history and do not believe in today's world it's still a viable option to prevent tyranny.

Hope this helps.

salto;1860057 wrote:I already recognized the history and do not believe in today's world it's still a viable option to prevent tyranny.

Hope this helps.

Not sure how your incorrect opinion helps, but thanks for sharing it.

salto;1860057 wrote:I already recognized the history and do not believe in today's world it's still a viable option to prevent tyranny.

Hope this helps.

It's mere existence is a pretty good deterrent of tyranny. That's the point. And like most defensive gun uses, not a single shot needs to be fired.

justincredible;1860059 wrote:It's mere existence is a pretty good deterrent of tyranny. That's the point. And like most defensive gun uses, not a single shot needs to be fired.

Which is exactly why I said he is taking the 2nd amendment for granted.

salto;1860057 wrote:I already recognized the history and do not believe in today's world it's still a viable option to prevent tyranny.

Hope this helps.

Considering the fact you used the mistletoe argument and you are blatantly ignoring real life examples in today's world, I am going to venture to say you don't recognize the history.

Hope this helps.

Like_that - do you have any info/material on what was going on in Venezuela leading up to the gun ban in 2012? I know that gun-related homicides were ridiculously high so it was an attempt to curb that. Just can't believe the population willingly agreed to it. I'm not trying to take the second amendment for granted and recognize it's important both in history and the future.

justincredible;1860059 wrote:It's mere existence is a pretty good deterrent of tyranny. That's the point. And like most defensive gun uses, not a single shot needs to be fired.

Wonder if this belief is why so many new "patriot" militia groups began popping up five or so years ago, along with the insane rise in gun/ammo sales.

like_that;1860060 wrote:Which is exactly why I said he is taking the 2nd amendment for granted.

If the "mere existence" is a "deterrent of tyranny" Who defines Tyrannical and when can citizens actually use their guns as force to protect? I still feel gun fanatics use a distorted interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to justify their wants.

Suppose it means I'm taking the 2nd amendment for granted because I believe it's outdated.

salto;1860092 wrote: Suppose it means I'm taking the 2nd amendment for granted because I believe it's outdated.

If so, there's a build-in process to handle that, called repeal. Until then, it means what it means per the text and per related Supreme Court decisions.

queencitybuckeye;1860093 wrote:If so, there's a build-in process to handle that, called repeal. Until then, it means what it means per the text and per related Supreme Court decisions.

No doubt but normally we only repeal real important stuff, like prohibition. No one will repeal the 2nd Amendment, it would cost them too many votes.

salto;1860095 wrote:No doubt but normally we only repeal real important stuff, like prohibition. No one will repeal the 2nd Amendment, it would cost them too many votes.

Good.

friendfromlowry;1860084 wrote: I know that gun-related homicides were ridiculously high so it was an attempt to curb that. Just can't believe the population willingly agreed to it.

Because only in the mind of a liberal does taking guns away from law-abiding citizens prevent criminals from murdering people.

gut;1860102 wrote:Because only in the mind of a liberal does taking guns away from law-abiding citizens prevent criminals from murdering people.

This. The mass murderers break hundreds or even thousands of laws and yet the politicians can convince the sheep that more legislation will fix things.

gut;1860102 wrote:Because only in the mind of a liberal does taking guns away from law-abiding citizens prevent criminals from murdering people.

Great tautology. The minds of conservatives are naive.

What you are saying is:
Law-abiding citizens obey the law
Criminals are lawbreakers and do not obey the law
Laws impost restrictions on the behavior of only those that follow them
Laws, there only hurt law-abiding citizens

We have laws against rape, murder and theft yet those laws are rarely followed by rapists, murderers and thieves. Point is, criminals exist in society and are the reason we need laws or regulations in the first place.

gut;1860102 wrote:Because only in the mind of a liberal does taking guns away from law-abiding citizens prevent criminals from murdering people.

Great tautology. The minds of conservatives are naive.

What you are saying is:
Law-abiding citizens obey the law
Criminals are lawbreakers and do not obey the law
Laws impost restrictions on the behavior of only those that follow them
Laws, therefor only hurt law-abiding citizens

We have laws against rape, murder and theft yet those laws are rarely followed by rapists, murderers and thieves. Point is, criminals exist in society and are the reason we need laws or regulations in the first place.

gut;1860102 wrote:Because only in the mind of a liberal does taking guns away from law-abiding citizens prevent criminals from murdering people.

Great tautology. The minds of conservatives are naive.


What you are saying is:
Law-abiding citizens obey the law
Criminals are lawbreakers and do not obey the law
Laws impost restrictions on the behavior of only those that follow them
Laws, therefor only hurt law-abiding citizens


We have laws against rape, murder and theft yet those laws are rarely followed by rapists, murderers and thieves. Point is, criminals exist in society and are the reason we need laws or regulations in the first place.

Not all gun owners are unstable. Guns are power symbols and nothing on the market accessorizes ones manly ego like an AR 15.

gut;1860102 wrote:Because only in the mind of a liberal does taking guns away from law-abiding citizens prevent criminals from murdering people.

Great tautology. The minds of conservatives are naive.

What you are saying is:
Law-abiding citizens obey the law
Criminals are lawbreakers and do not obey the law
Laws impost restrictions on the behavior of only those that follow them
Laws, therefore only hurt law-abiding citizens

We have laws against rape, murder and theft yet those laws are rarely followed by rapists, murderers and thieves. Point is, criminals exist in society and are the reason we need laws or regulations in the first place.

Not all gun owners are unstable. Guns are power symbols and nothing on the market accessorizes ones ego like an AR 15.

gut;1860102 wrote:Because only in the mind of a liberal does taking guns away from law-abiding citizens prevent criminals from murdering people.

Great tautology. The minds of conservatives are naive.

What you are saying is:
Law-abiding citizens obey the law
Criminals are lawbreakers and do not obey the law
Laws impost restrictions on the behavior of only those that follow them
Laws, therefore only hurt law-abiding citizens

We have laws against rape, murder and theft yet those laws are rarely followed by rapists, murderers and thieves. Point is, criminals exist in society and are the reason we need laws or regulations in the first place.

Not all gun owners are unstable. Guns are power symbols and nothing on the market accessorizes ones ego like an AR 15.

lol

salto;1860128 wrote:Great tautology. The minds of conservatives are naive.

What you are saying is:
Law-abiding citizens obey the law

Statistics show this is true, and that the leftist adage "everyone is a good guy until they become a bad guy" is provably untrue.

Criminals are lawbreakers and do not obey the law

By definition.

Laws impost restrictions on the behavior of only those that follow them

*impose. Partial credit. I'm not prone to stealing, so laws against it have no effect on me. They clearly have little deterrent effect on those disposed to break them. They punish people after the fact. The recidivism rates are clear evidence.

Laws, therefore only hurt law-abiding citizens

Laws can give the victims some degree of satisfaction that the bad guy has been punished, and can take said bad guy off the street for a period of time. Passing laws against gun ownership is what is naive. Why would anyone think that someone willing to commit crimes up to and including murder would care that the weapon they possess (likely stolen) is now illegal?

We have laws against rape, murder and theft yet those laws are rarely followed by rapists, murderers and thieves. Point is, criminals exist in society and are the reason we need laws or regulations in the first place.

See above. Laws are needed to punish actual aggression against others. Often, laws to prevent crimes are wholly ineffective (see "drugs, war on") and in and of themselves, can be an act of aggression by the government on the citizen.

Not all gun owners are unstable.

Nearly none. There are laws against the purchase of guns by people know to be so. Sadly, the enforcement rate is nearly zero.

Guns are power symbols and nothing on the market accessorizes ones ego like an AR 15.

Perhaps to some. My guns are for self-defense and target shooting for fun. Can't speak for the motives of others, other than to say almost none involve criminal activity.

salto;1860092 wrote: Who defines Tyrannical and when can citizens actually use their guns as force to protect?

^ Anyone have an answer to the one question queencitybuckeye didn't quote and reply to?

CenterBHSFan;1860131 wrote:lol

Strong rebuttal.

queencitybuckeye;1860140 wrote:

Passing laws against gun ownership is what is naive. .

Gun fanatics believe that its there right not to be bothered by regulations outweigh the thousands who die in absence of said regulation. Keep in mind more than half of the people who die from guns in this country die by suicide. Mental illness contributes to mass shootings, just like gun suicides.

salto;1860128 wrote: We have laws against rape, murder and theft yet those laws are rarely followed by rapists, murderers and thieves. Point is, criminals exist in society and are the reason we need laws or regulations in the first place.

AHHHHH, the classic non-sequitor wrapped in a straw man!

We ALREADY have thousands of gun laws. Criminals already have hundreds of thousands of guns - making guns illegal or more gun laws is not going to change that. No one is advocating no regulation or no laws. Sometimes you have laws so you can punish and lock-up the cirminals, not because said laws prevent the crime.