You've got a point, they are too passionate, some come off as unhinged about their precious guns . I've noticed that gun control advocates have developed a new tactic which is genius! Just genius! They are starting off every discusson by saying....I have a gun. Or my wife has a gun. Or I love to hunt. Or I believe in the second amendment but rational regulation is......... Those words knock the gun nuts off their game! Gun proponents are absolutists, they don't understand nuance and nuance is how we gun realists are going to legislate some sanity.
well I guess that would work but I believe in the constitution. Either we follow ALL of it or none of it. What game do the gun control turds want to play. Can't have it both ways.
Yeah. I can have it both ways. I can exericse my right to liberty while following the rule of law and so can you. New legislation can stop the manufacturing of high capacity ammo magazines... and require stricter background checks. NO more gun shows. And gun fetish weirdos will have to grow up and realize that they can't have everything they want in life if they want to live in a civil society with the rest of the grown ups
Sorry you cannot. It would take a change to the constitution. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon. The restrictions you mendtioned are infringing upon the rights of the people to keep and bear arms.
Its not the tool that is the problem. its the person using that tool. Do you blame the fork for you being fat? Do you blame the keyboard for typos. Do you blame the car for auto accidents? of course not. The constitution is the supreme law of the land, you cannot create laws that supersede the constitution.
The gun rights turds are going to claim the constitution gives them the right to arm themselves with drones next. Why not? What's the diff? IF these scaredy cats a$$wipes need firepower to feel safe in life, let's arm them up to the hilt! Forty round magazines, automatic loading, silencers, land to air missile launchers, and remote controled aerial weapons. Kneel down before the consitution that lets you rationalize your fears!
Sorry, Dsk. I received notification of a new comment and read the first comment so responded to the wrong one. I agree with you.
You noticed that too? Good I'm glad I'm not the only one
Yes, I´ve noticed that too.<br />
Disturbing and scary.
Brilliant point. Very True.
I am an advocate for gun ownership, but I try to be sane and respectful in my arguments. Alex Jones...That's a whole 'nother (very loud) story...
What I noticed is that the people that talk and advocate about gun control the most, know the least about the constitution and the laws of the USA. Funny how you see the same people wanting to ignore the constitution on the 2nd ammendment are the same crowd that goes ape-caca if any governmental institution does anything that is remotely connected to religion. Though it doesnt state in the constitution that there is freedom from religion. The seperation of church n state is not in the constitution. I just marvel at the hypocrisy of people. Either we follow all of it or none of it.
These two know a thing or two about a lot! http://youtu.be/zwTK_1j8pSU
and they have both forgotten what the meaning of the constitution is. the last words on the second. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Pretty simple. If we dont follow the supreme law of the land then we dont follow any of them and we sink into Anarchy.
They own guns. They believe the second amendment is the law of the land. They are also advocating for sensible gun regulation. We shall see, if the people legislate, even the gun manufacturers will have to follow the law.
Shall not be infringed. Pretty simple words. Those that don't can't or wont uphold the constitution are either misguided or are enemies of the constitution.
Ever notice how the strongest advocates of gun control sweep all reason aside and then use that insubstantial basis as a building block for sweeping generalizations?
Both gun owners. both advocates of the second amendment. Both starting a new organization to count high power gun lobbyists. http://youtu.be/zwTK_1j8pSU
Yup, as I said. Sweep all reason aside. 2 people, so, uh, would you consider that a viable argument for generalizing anything else?
Uh. Could you be much more specific and point out where you see a generalization so i know what the hell you are talking about?
As I said in my original response, "Ever notice how the strongest advocates of gun control sweep all reason aside and then use that insubstantial basis as a building block for sweeping generalizations" to which you responded, "-Both- gun owners. -both- advocates of the second amendment. -Both-." Unless you are trying to prove my original point wrong(the one about generalizations), I don't understand why you replied the way you did.
lets look at the facts
1 person in 317,000,000 takes a gun shoots and kills 6 people that is .00000189 % of the population. and you want to restrict 100 % of the 320,000,000 guns in the USA? That is insanity.
I agree coldwarrior.
I am not a writer....by "both" I was referring to the example of two reasonable people interviewed in the link I provided...I should have provided the link first. You can't say " they sweep ALL reason aside" without being specific about what you perceive the reasonable arguement to be and which specific people you are targeting in your complaint....your accusation is in itself a broad sweeping generalization! Can't you see that?
Sweeping all reason aside refers to, "this one guy does it, thus, 'strongest advocates for gun ownership are persons who should least have guns'" which is pretty much sweeping all reason aside. Then to counter, you do the exact same thing, providing an example of two people to support a generalization.
Actually my sweeping generalization, aside from being intentionally ironic, has been proven true thus far by both you and the original poster of the question.
Oh. Go shoot at some cans in the back yard and be happy. No one wants your guns. We just don't want you to be able to kill forty people in two minutes. I'm sure you can live with that without hyperventilating every ten seconds.
And when has that happened? Er...yeah, that's impossible. What do you think most guns are, miniguns?
@ lilannie, please explain what " SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON" means to you please?
snark alert: It means you can have a musket and provide for your winter lauder.... It means you can own a weapon for sport.or to protect your family from intruders or to muster your neighbors to form a militia. It does not mean you can own an asault rifle capable of killing 30 people in ten minutes.
ASSAULT RIFLES ARE ILLEGAL IN CONNECTICUT
Yes. established precedent that, apparenty. you think infringes on your rights...
You're really hopping around here. My point is - guns are not the problem, people are. That guy was denied access to purchasing weapons. His mother purchased them and allowed the son she knew to be mentally ill to use them.
Your points aren't even related to your original argument. By the way, the er, "countless victims" are generally killed by illegal weapons. So yeah, my point remains.
I have not noticed this, no.
They know they'd be the first ones who need to give up their guns, while they fear everybody else to keep theirs.
Just an observation here, have you ever noticed that Piers Morgan, a foreigner, is making a lot of money bashing a country and culture that he knows nothing about. Have you ever noticed some of Morgan's liberal guests?? They are unwitting evidence for mercy killings.
There's room for debate on how "informed" he is. And, most TV interviewers have staff, interns who do the research and provide basic questions. I didn't say that all of his guests are liberal. I said to take a look at the liberal guests.. many are not exactly stable logical thinkers.
Also, he belittles many of the guests who do not agree with him. He believes that the culture that he grew up in is appropriate for the US. He doesn't understand anything other than liberal idealism and he throws it at his viewers.