The Great Gun Debate

[BigJim13]

So you would be fine with leaving the gun alone and limiting the mag capacity to 5-10 rds then?

No, I'm not ok with semi autos anymore either.

 

[BigJim13]

Running a car into a crowd of people is capable of inflicting a lot of damage.

I know, I know....cars aren't designed to kill...in the grand scheme does it matter? The end product is still dead people at the hands of a deranged criminal. The means is really irrelevant(except for people with hoplophobia), unless you somehow regard the lives of someone killed with a gun as worth more than those killed by a car. Which I'm sure you would agree isn't the case.

The point is, nobody is arguing that in the wrong hands guns aren't dangerous. Guns are dangerous, just like a lot of other things in this world. Falling back on 'guns are designed to kill'(which is still just an assumption as far as I'm concerned) is a sad excuse for not having a legitimate argument against this fact. I say this because if we changed the original designed purpose of a gun, it wouldn't change anything. We would still be in this same situation.

Kind of like falling back on "its my right".

 

[Wi-Golfer]

No, I'm not ok with semi autos anymore either.

How about revolvers? What about single actions?

 

[BigJim13]

How about revolvers? What about single actions?

if you're asking me what shoudl be banned and not, see my earlier posts.

I am now of the mind that all handguns should be banned along with any weapon that is semi auto, takes a magazine, clip, drum etc. I would not be ok with grandfathering anything, all of the weapons that meet the above criteria need to be turned in through some sort of buy back program.

 

[BigJim13]

In reality I know nothing like that will happen, so its just adding fuel to the fire of this debate. Stirring the pot so to speak.

 

[Wi-Golfer]

if you're asking me what shoudl be banned and not, see my earlier posts.

I am now of the mind that all handguns should be banned along with any weapon that is semi auto, takes a magazine, clip, drum etc. I would not be ok with grandfathering anything, all of the weapons that meet the above criteria need to be turned in through some sort of buy back program.

Ok i'm done here then, you are far too close minded and this is going nowhere. Have a great day & GO PACKERS!

 

[eclark53520]

Kind of like falling back on "its my right".

Really? You think that little of your rights? No wonder you feel the way you do.

Honestly that's a downright despicable post. The rights of the people are sacred, the original purpose of weapons hasn't even been cited from a respectable source yet. Even if it is, its still not on par with the peoples rights. Not even in the same universe.

 

[ejdahl21]

Have a great day & GO PACKERS!

If there is more gun legislation passed, will Aaron Rodgers still be able to set up in shotgun formation?

 

[BigJim13]

Ok i'm done here then, you are far too close minded and this is going nowhere. Have a great day & GO PACKERS!

I have been saying this for 2 weeks now, did you just now catch on?

And yes, go Niners!

 

[BigJim13]

Really? You think that little of your rights? No wonder you feel the way you do.

Honestly that's a downright despicable post. The rights of the people are sacred, the original purpose of weapons hasn't even been cited from a respectable source yet. Even if it is, its still not on par with the peoples rights. Not even in the same universe.

I don't see how its despicable, but call it what you will i was referencing your earlier posts.

 

[eclark53520]

I don't see how its despicable, but call it what you will i was referencing your earlier posts.

Its my right and guns were made to kill are not even close to the same level. I don't see how you can even begin to make that correlation.

 

[BigJim13]

Its my right and guns were made to kill are not even close to the same level. I don't see how you can even begin to make that correlation.

Again, referencing your earlier posts. You see "its my right" as a legitimate reason to own without lmits. I do not.

Let me put it another way. One guy tries to get on a plane with explosives in his shoes. Now nobody gets on a plane without taking off their shoes, we give up rights there. In Obama's presidency there have bee 4 mass shootings and nothing has changed. Why?

 

[eclark53520]

Again, referencing your earlier posts. You see "its my right" as a legitimate reason to own without lmits. I do not.

Let me put it another way. One guy tries to get on a plane with explosives in his shoes. Now nobody gets on a plane without taking off their shoes, we give up rights there. In Obama's presidency there have bee 4 mass shootings and nothing has changed. Why?

Tell me where getting on a plane is a right laid out in the constitution and ill debate that with you.

 

[BigJim13]

Tell me where getting on a plane is a right laid out in the constitution and ill debate that with you.

It involves your right to privacy as laid out by the first amendment, but forget it...

 

[eclark53520]

It involves your right to privacy as laid out by the first amendment, but forget it...

Uh...no, it doesn't. Your logic failed...that's why you won't debate it.

You choose to fly in an airplane, then you get to voluntarily submit to a search. You can refuse the search...which means you refuse to fly on the plane. Pretty simple and doesn't infringe on your rights at all.

This has absolutely no correlation to guns what so ever.