Shooting at First Baptist Church in Texas

Tambora

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Nihilo said:
It would add a complication to a private sale to visit an FFL to run a criminal background check on the buyer when selling a gun privately, but it would introduce a criminal background check into the transaction. I'm not for registration in any case.
Click to expand...

Guns have been purchased for a loooooooong time before registration.
And when each of those gun owners died, their guns didn't just disappear, they went to family members.
There are lots of guns out there that have never been registered.
Not to mention all the swapping going on.
And add to that all the guns bought in recent years that are registered can easily be traded, thus you no longer have any gun registered to you.
And one could easily claim that the gun they used to have that was registered to them was lost or stolen.

And the least likely to follow any rules will be the criminals.
So the rules are not curbing criminals at all.

The only gun law that can realistically be enforced is to make it criminal to use a gun irresponsibly, as with any other object you use irresponsibly.
 
Nihilo

Nihilo

BANNED
Banned
Tambora said:
I am a woman.
And as tough as I think I might be, I have no delusions that pound per pound a man could not take me down easily.
I could punch my husband in the face as hard as I could and it might even be hard enough to at least stun him for a moment.
But if he were to hit me in the face as hard as he could it could kill me, or at least land me in the hospital.
Click to expand...
That's called truth-smacking. :up:

To follow this idiotic train of thought ITT being put forth by Watchman to its logical end, we ought to just lock up all men, because it's true that most men could kill with their bare hands most women.
 
Tambora

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Nihilo said:
That's called truth-smacking. :up:

To follow this idiotic train of thought ITT being put forth by Watchman to its logical end, we ought to just lock up all men, because it's true that most men could kill with their bare hands most women.
Click to expand...
That's because they mistakenly blame the object used rather than the person using it.
It's a dumb argument from the get-go.
 
J

jsanford108

New member
WatchmanOnTheWall said:
I never said abolish. I said; "as I have already said in this thread the US government should have amended the second amendment after there was no longer a threat from the British, and I will clarify this further by adding that more amendments could have and should have been made to reflect the changing threats to the country and to the individuals within the country but instead the US have gone on for over 300 years with the same stock ruling which is just madness."
Click to expand...
You are right; you did not say "abolish." What you said was, "The second amendment was because of the threat posed by the British and then to a much much lesser degree the native Americans (although I personally would argue that point) but after this the 2nd amendment should have been amended again to only include the army and state sheriff's etc, not everyone," which implies taking guns away from civilians. The purpose of the second amendment is to keep the citizens armed. So, by taking away that right, that is "abolishing" the second amendment.

You are still holding onto what the leaders of the US said over 300 years ago. But this ignores any subsequent leadership since then that has disagreed. It's the proportion of US citizens who reverence the second amendment as holy scripture who have not understood that the best way to run a country is for the laws that govern the country can be challenged and changed, as with most other countries around the world.
Click to expand...
Then what is the point of having a Constitution if the laws could be changed on the whim of whoever is in power? That doesn't make sense. That would lead to mob rule.

The second amendment should not be regarded as "holy" in any capacity. All it is is the assurance of the continued right of the citizens of the US to be able to protect their life and freedoms.

The stats prove that countries with tighter gun control have less deaths. That is fact. To agruee against this is madness.
Click to expand...
This is not fact. Just saying it doesn't make it true. Actual statistics do. Such as these:
Turkey: established gun control laws in 1911. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians exterminated. They had no guns to protect themselves or form a militia.

Soviet Union: established gun control laws in 1929. 20 million dissidents rounded up and exterminated. No guns to protect themselves or form a militia. (This also shows restrictions on free speech, another leftist agenda)

Germany: established gun control laws in 1938. From 1948 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others exterminated. Once again, no guns to protect themselves or form a militia.

China: established gun control laws in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents exterminated. Once again, no guns to protect themselves or form a militia (also, free speech restrictions).

Guatemala: established gun control laws in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians exterminated. Once again, no guns to protect themselves or form a militia.

Uganda: established gun control laws in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians exterminated. Once again, no guns to protect themselves or form a militia.


We can see a direct correlation and causation effect from disarming citizens leading to tyranny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top