John Elway wants to take away your guns!!!!

[TonyR]

Really good read on attempts by many to tie Christianity with the gun lobby.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....-violence.html

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by TonyR

Really good read on attempts by many to tie Christianity with the gun lobby.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....-violence.html

What, you haven't heard of Delta Force Jesus?



Sullivan makes excellent points, but I'm afraid his argument is futile. In Humpty Dumpty World (ie. modern America), reason and reality are both besides the point. In fact, those who use reason and reality are considered suspicious characters, if not out of touch elitists. To the Right, everything, including god and religion, means whatever they want it to mean.

[Meck77]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

the next psycho

Now we are getting to the root of the problem. The psycho!

Now which one are we waiting on? The pscycho strangler? The pscyho rapest? The one with the knife? The one with the crossbow? The one with the out of control truck? The one who wants to molest our kids? The one who wants to kill us with a shotgun? The one with the 9 mm? The one with the AR15? The one with 44 mag? The one with the long range hunting rifle like the DC sniper?

It's the pyschos with the high scores that really get people excited and wanting to do something. Screw the single gal who was left dead in a ditch. Who cares!

The MEDIA isn't creating this high score challenge. Step right up and try your luck and be a winner!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

What, you haven't heard of Delta Force Jesus?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Meck77

Now which one are we waiting on? The pscycho strangler? The pscyho rapest?

Jesus, dude - buy a dictionary!

[errand]

Originally Posted by ZONA

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The right of the people supersedes anything else in the amendment....


This IMO would allow the people that are responsible gun owners to keep their and get the guns out of the hands of people that have no reason having one.

How do you propose to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and psychopaths bent on killing others before they kill themselves?

in bold

[errand]

Originally Posted by jhat01

That's the rub isn't it. All his outline would do is jack normal people around, and create hoops for law abiding citizens to jump through accomplishing absolutely nothing.

Exactly...these whack jobs cannot devise a real plan to eliminate criminals from getting weapons so they go after the people who are responsible and law abiding.....

that's like legislating the size or type of car or just plain taking away your car because some idiot 4 states away drove drunk and killed someone.

[errand]

Originally Posted by NUB

If the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to form a militia, then get rid of it. No militia has stood up to a modern military with only small firearms in nearly a hundred years. The trope of mountainmen scurrying about the Rockies to fight the government is a fantasy. To say the concept is outmoded is an understatement.

If the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to simply allow civilians to own firearms, fine. But does anyone really think the Founding Fathers would have OK'd all weapons? Their concern at the time were muskets with an effective firing range of about a hundred yards, one round a minute, with very low accuracy. Today, an AR-15 basically accumulates enough force multipliers (mobility, range, firing rate, power) to contest an 18th century regiment singlehandedly.

People seem to forget that the 2nd Amendment has a relationship with technology -- the only Amendment of its kind. It should be the Amendment we return to most for second looks. Who knows what kind of weaponry we'll be talking about in the future.

If AR-15's aren't protected by the 2nd amendment because they were invented after it was written, then it stands to reason following that kind of logic that the first amendment shouldn't protect any internet or televised news media invented after it was written.....

Again, my right to own a gun is what protects your right to tell me I can't

[errand]

Originally Posted by ZONA

The answer is not to put a gun in every hand of every American. Sorry, but this aint the rootem shootem wild west of 1880.

...who said that everyone in America should own a gun? See we don't care if you decide not to own one....but don't infringe on my right to own one. See how that works? Your rights and my rights are not infringed upon....isn't that the way it should be?

All I know is if you're ever the target of a home invasion, the first thing you're gonna do is call 911 so they can send someone with a gun over to hopefully save your life......and like they say, when seconds count the police are minutes away.....they'll show up to make a chalk outline of the dead person.....question is, will it be you or the criminal?

Since you think guns aren't necessary, guess we know whose body will be outlined.

[errand]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

You do realize the worst school massacre in US history didn't involve a single firearm, correct?

Exactly...

http://cnsnews.com/blog/pete-winn/wo...y-was-gun-free

[errand]

Originally Posted by lonestar

And you know this how? Did you get a secret handshake decoder ring that tells you that NRA members are willing to give up their firearms?

Ahahahahahaha progressives y'all do not have a clue.

Wanna watch his head explode? Tell him that the majority of union members don't side with their union leadership...

Why would they join the NRA if they don't care about the leadership of it or the message it speaks?

[errand]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Damn! I guess you're right. In that case, we should do nothing.

Nobody is saying something shouldn't be done, but punishing law abiding citizens isn't the answer.

what happens next? Heart disease and diabetes is killing too many people, so we'll limit caloric intake? No more sugar? Obese people are a burden on the health care system, so now you have to exercise as directed by a national regimen?

Again limiting the kind of gun a law abiding citizen can own because some nut job went bonkers and killed several people is akin to limiting the kind of car you can drive because a drunk driver killed a family of 5

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by errand

...who said that everyone in America should own a gun? See we don't care if you decide not to own one....but don't infringe on my right to own one. See how that works? Your rights and my rights are not infringed upon....isn't that the way it should be?

All I know is if you're ever the target of a home invasion, the first thing you're gonna do is call 911 so they can send someone with a gun over to hopefully save your life......and like they say, when seconds count the police are minutes away.....they'll show up to make a chalk outline of the dead person.....question is, will it be you or the criminal?

Since you think guns aren't necessary, guess we know whose body will be outlined.

Who's infringing? Your paranoid delusions about the gov. Coming to take your guns has no basis in reality.
SCOTUS has already ruled it constitutional to regulate firearms,so no, an AR ban infringes on no ones rights.

[errand]

Originally Posted by NUB

I was a little confused. The post started with Japan, but ended with Brazil. Furthermore, I don't think comparing the U.S. to Brazil and third world banana republics is what I would call a good argument.

As of January 18th the city of chicago which has very tough gun laws had endured 23 murders and 80 people wounded in gun violence.

Again instead of trying to limit what kind of weapon I can have as a law abiding citizen, tell me - how you intend to disarm the criminal element in america?

[errand]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

Who's infringing? Your paranoid delusions about the gov. Coming to take your guns has no basis in reality.
SCOTUS has already ruled it constitutional to regulate firearms,so no, an AR ban infringes on no ones rights.

you really think it'll stop there? Now you're the one being delusional....

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by errand

you really think it'll stop there? Now you're the one being delusional....

Well it isn't like this would be the first time there was a AR ban.
They didn't come for your guns then.

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

Who's infringing? Your paranoid delusions about the gov. Coming to take your guns has no basis in reality.
SCOTUS has already ruled it constitutional to regulate firearms,so no, an AR ban infringes on no ones rights.

Would you say you agree with every ruling the SC has ever made? You don't think they occasionally get one wrong?

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

Well it isn't like this would be the first time there was a AR ban.
They didn't come for your guns then.

Once they find out that an AR ban won't solve the problem, wouldn't the logical conclusion be that they'll try to find what more can be done? The last AR ban didn't occur as a response to a string of murderous rampages, did it?

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by That One Guy

Once they find out that an AR ban won't solve the problem, wouldn't the logical conclusion be that they'll try to find what more can be done? The last AR ban didn't occur as a response to a string of murderous rampages, did it?

The slippery slope argument. No evidence to support it.
Also they,Obama & supporters,never said it would bring an end to all gun violence. No one is making that claim.

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

The slippery slope argument. No evidence to support it.
Also they,Obama & supporters,never said it would bring an end to all gun violence. No one is making that claim.

So in one sentence you tell me there's no evidence to support it being a slippery slope (We'll ignore logical conclusions for the time being) then in the next you tell me that no one expects it to end gun violence. Are you under the impression that Obama will just throw his hands in the air if ever questioned about gun violence after an AR ban and say "we banned ARs, there's nothing more we can do"?

An AR ban can't be the end-state because as you said, it won't solve the problems. If it's not the end state, it must be merely a stepping stone.

To be honest, this is why I hate the WRP. You dance in circles with no one being allowed to rely solely on logic. Your two statements are contradictory but since neither is concretely proven, you refuse to acknowledge either. Do you really enjoy such discourse?

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by That One Guy

So in one sentence you tell me there's no evidence to support it being a slippery slope (We'll ignore logical conclusions for the time being) then in the next you tell me that no one expects it to end gun violence. Are you under the impression that Obama will just throw his hands in the air if ever questioned about gun violence after an AR ban and say "we banned ARs, there's nothing more we can do"?

An AR ban can't be the end-state because as you said, it won't solve the problems. If it's not the end state, it must be merely a stepping stone.

To be honest, this is why I hate the WRP. You dance in circles with no one being allowed to rely solely on logic. Your two statements are contradictory but since neither is concretely proven, you refuse to acknowledge either. Do you really enjoy such discourse?

You seem to be under the impression that they will keep going until all guns are gone. We have the death penalty,does that stop all murders? No. But it decreases the amt of murders that happen. Do we stop using the death penalty since people still get killed.
In order for the gov to ever come after your guns they will first have to remove the 2nd amendment which will never happen.

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

You seem to be under the impression that they will keep going until all guns are gone. We have the death penalty,does that stop all murders? No. But it decreases the amt of murders that happen. Do we stop using the death penalty since people still get killed.
In order for the gov to ever come after your guns they will first have to remove the 2nd amendment which will never happen.

The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere because it cannot be done. They could never get the numbers needed to repeal it.

They could, however, incrementally make it such a hassle that law-abiding citizens could not have guns. Look at their current ideas: AR bans, licensing every gun, background checks for all guns, background checks for ammo, etc.

They can easily destroy the law-abiding gun owners and never even utter the words "2nd amendment".

[errand]

when they take away one right, what's to stop them from taking other rights?

[errand]

Originally Posted by That One Guy

The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere because it cannot be done. They could never get the numbers needed to repeal it.

They could, however, incrementally make it such a hassle that law-abiding citizens could not have guns. Look at their current ideas: AR bans, licensing every gun, background checks for all guns, background checks for ammo, etc.

They can easily destroy the law-abiding gun owners and never even utter the words "2nd amendment".

and because they'll do so under the guise of protecting everyone many on here won't even realize it until its too late

[ant1999e]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

Well it isn't like this would be the first time there was a AR ban.
They didn't come for your guns then.

But they wanted to...