Gun Control

[knapplc]

But if it really is a psychological problem (which I do think is apart of it since these people are mentally ill) then I think this is more of a product of our culture than anything else. And if that's the case then we're ignoring the real problem.

 

Again with the mental illness copout. Stop with this deflection of the actual problem. Crazy people exist the world over. The issue is the gun.

[NebraskaHarry]

What are you trying to get at?

 

Well, I've already explicitly stated it, but I will do so again.

 

The government already limits what kinds of arms an individual can have. Why would banning the AR-15 and other assault type weapons be "an all out assault on the 2nd amendment"?

Hey Harry, see you're fighting the good fight again today.

 

Junior, the devil is in the details. The list I saw circulated recently concerning banning "assault" weapons included a list of specific arms, PLUS the definition that it contain ONE of a long list of features, (which is the criteria to expand the list). A lawyer friend once explained to me that it would take an act of congress to create the list, but once created, would take only policy changes by a mindless bureaucrat to add to it.

 

I'm not a proponent of limiting the liberty of law abiding citizens, in a (futile) attempt to correct our societal failings.

 

 

I think you are onto something here. We could completely get rid of criminals if we made any and all activity legal!

 

Get rid of laws banning murder! I mean, talk about a futile attempt to correct for societal failings.

 

What about laws against rape? If the woman can't stop it herself, why should the man's liberty be limited?

Junior, don't start putting words in other people's mouths. No one is saying anything of the such of which you just mentioned.

[NebraskaHarry]

But if it really is a psychological problem (which I do think is apart of it since these people are mentally ill) then I think this is more of a product of our culture than anything else. And if that's the case then we're ignoring the real problem.

 

Again with the mental illness copout. Stop with this deflection of the actual problem. Crazy people exist the world over. The issue is the gun.

Not sure if serious.

[B1G Red]

What are you trying to get at?

 

Well, I've already explicitly stated it, but I will do so again.

 

The government already limits what kinds of arms an individual can have. Why would banning the AR-15 and other assault type weapons be "an all out assault on the 2nd amendment"?

Hey Harry, see you're fighting the good fight again today.

 

Junior, the devil is in the details. The list I saw circulated recently concerning banning "assault" weapons included a list of specific arms, PLUS the definition that it contain ONE of a long list of features, (which is the criteria to expand the list). A lawyer friend once explained to me that it would take an act of congress to create the list, but once created, would take only policy changes by a mindless bureaucrat to add to it.

 

I'm not a proponent of limiting the liberty of law abiding citizens, in a (futile) attempt to correct our societal failings.

 

 

I think you are onto something here. We could completely get rid of criminals if we made any and all activity legal!

 

Get rid of laws banning murder! I mean, talk about a futile attempt to correct for societal failings.

 

What about laws against rape? If the woman can't stop it herself, why should the man's liberty be limited?

Weak

[knapplc]

But if it really is a psychological problem (which I do think is apart of it since these people are mentally ill) then I think this is more of a product of our culture than anything else. And if that's the case then we're ignoring the real problem.

 

Again with the mental illness copout. Stop with this deflection of the actual problem. Crazy people exist the world over. The issue is the gun.

Not sure if serious.

 

100% serious. This whole "mental health care" tangent in relation to the gun control debate sprang up after Sandy Hook. There's always an excuse for why people use their guns to commit mass murder. You cannot identify and treat every single mentally ill person in America. The gun lobby is raising hell about gun registration - but instead of registering guns, they want to register the mentally ill. It's a deflection, and an obvious one at that.

[Junior]

What are you trying to get at?

 

Well, I've already explicitly stated it, but I will do so again.

 

The government already limits what kinds of arms an individual can have. Why would banning the AR-15 and other assault type weapons be "an all out assault on the 2nd amendment"?

Hey Harry, see you're fighting the good fight again today.

 

Junior, the devil is in the details. The list I saw circulated recently concerning banning "assault" weapons included a list of specific arms, PLUS the definition that it contain ONE of a long list of features, (which is the criteria to expand the list). A lawyer friend once explained to me that it would take an act of congress to create the list, but once created, would take only policy changes by a mindless bureaucrat to add to it.

 

I'm not a proponent of limiting the liberty of law abiding citizens, in a (futile) attempt to correct our societal failings.

 

 

I think you are onto something here. We could completely get rid of criminals if we made any and all activity legal!

 

Get rid of laws banning murder! I mean, talk about a futile attempt to correct for societal failings.

 

What about laws against rape? If the woman can't stop it herself, why should the man's liberty be limited?

Junior, don't start putting words in other people's mouths. No one is saying anything of the such of which you just mentioned.

 

Actually, that is exactly what he's saying. He doesn't truly believe it, because what he is suggesting is an anarchist society. But that is what he is suggesting. "You'll never stop the criminals, so why try?"

[NebraskaHarry]

But if it really is a psychological problem (which I do think is apart of it since these people are mentally ill) then I think this is more of a product of our culture than anything else. And if that's the case then we're ignoring the real problem.

 

Again with the mental illness copout. Stop with this deflection of the actual problem. Crazy people exist the world over. The issue is the gun.

Not sure if serious.

 

100% serious. This whole "mental health care" tangent in relation to the gun control debate sprang up after Sandy Hook. There's always an excuse for why people use their guns to commit mass murder. You cannot identify and treat every single mentally ill person in America. The gun lobby is raising hell about gun registration - but instead of registering guns, they want to register the mentally ill. It's a deflection, and an obvious one at that.

I agree to a certain point. But I also think there is a certain amount of recognition that can be made regarding someone with a mental condition on whether they may cause harm to someone else. In the case of the Sandy Hook and Aurora movie theater shootings. It should have been noticed. IMO.

[knapplc]

But what do you do if you notice it? That's the boondoggle - you can't pull people from society because they don't act the "right way" or however the gun lobby is trying to define those who should fall under their "better mental healthcare" mantra.

[Junior]

But what do you do if you notice it? That's the boondoggle - you can't pull people from society because they don't act the "right way" or however the gun lobby is trying to define those who should fall under their "better mental healthcare" mantra.

 

Not to mention the implications of this all on doctor/patient confidentiality. How many people do you think will be honest with their doctors about their problems if they know that their doctor could severely limit what they can do after they walk out of the office visit? I would hazard a guess, that more people would go untreated for mental illness than before.

[NebraskaHarry]

But what do you do if you notice it? That's the boondoggle - you can't pull people from society because they don't act the "right way" or however the gun lobby is trying to define those who should fall under their "better mental healthcare" mantra.

I agree. But if that's the case, in order to prevent any shooting you would have to ban all guns. Not just "assault weapons".

[Junior]

What are you trying to get at?

 

Well, I've already explicitly stated it, but I will do so again.

 

The government already limits what kinds of arms an individual can have. Why would banning the AR-15 and other assault type weapons be "an all out assault on the 2nd amendment"?

Hey Harry, see you're fighting the good fight again today.

 

Junior, the devil is in the details. The list I saw circulated recently concerning banning "assault" weapons included a list of specific arms, PLUS the definition that it contain ONE of a long list of features, (which is the criteria to expand the list). A lawyer friend once explained to me that it would take an act of congress to create the list, but once created, would take only policy changes by a mindless bureaucrat to add to it.

 

I'm not a proponent of limiting the liberty of law abiding citizens, in a (futile) attempt to correct our societal failings.

 

 

I think you are onto something here. We could completely get rid of criminals if we made any and all activity legal!

 

Get rid of laws banning murder! I mean, talk about a futile attempt to correct for societal failings.

 

What about laws against rape? If the woman can't stop it herself, why should the man's liberty be limited?

Weak

 

Perhaps, then, you can tell me why limiting the availability of an AR-15 is an assault on the 2nd Amendment, but limiting pipebombs isn't.

[knapplc]

Because a well-armed militia would never use pipe bombs.

[Junior]

But what do you do if you notice it? That's the boondoggle - you can't pull people from society because they don't act the "right way" or however the gun lobby is trying to define those who should fall under their "better mental healthcare" mantra.

I agree. But if that's the case, in order to prevent any shooting you would have to ban all guns. Not just "assault weapons".

 

 

True, if you want to prevent any and all shootings, you could do so with a complete ban on all guns. However, Australia has managed to effectively end mass shootings and decrease the overall homicide rate by 59% by banning automatic and semi-automatic weapons. No complete ban, and a massive decrease in gun death.

[Junior]

Because a well-armed militia would never use pipe bombs.

 

This is probably true. Though I think a well placed homemade bomb would be far more effective against an invading tank than an AR-15...

[B1G Red]

What are you trying to get at?

 

Well, I've already explicitly stated it, but I will do so again.

 

The government already limits what kinds of arms an individual can have. Why would banning the AR-15 and other assault type weapons be "an all out assault on the 2nd amendment"?

Hey Harry, see you're fighting the good fight again today.

 

Junior, the devil is in the details. The list I saw circulated recently concerning banning "assault" weapons included a list of specific arms, PLUS the definition that it contain ONE of a long list of features, (which is the criteria to expand the list). A lawyer friend once explained to me that it would take an act of congress to create the list, but once created, would take only policy changes by a mindless bureaucrat to add to it.

 

I'm not a proponent of limiting the liberty of law abiding citizens, in a (futile) attempt to correct our societal failings.

 

 

I think you are onto something here. We could completely get rid of criminals if we made any and all activity legal!

 

Get rid of laws banning murder! I mean, talk about a futile attempt to correct for societal failings.

 

What about laws against rape? If the woman can't stop it herself, why should the man's liberty be limited?

Weak

Wow, you are stupid enough to continue this quote after I tried to dismiss you with a one word reply, your ignorance and insensitivity towards victims of sexual assult?

 

Maybe I should have used the word pathetic. or disgusting. or ask the mods to move this to the woodshed so I can tell you exactly what kind of a man you aren't. So ok, I will capitulate, I shouldn't be allowed to have a gun, but your cavalier attitude towards sexual assault say you shouldn't be allowed to have a penis.

 

Please excuse if from now on I don't acknowledge your presence with a reply, you don't deserve it.