Beto Thinks Americans Will Voluntarily Hand Over Firearms To The Government If Asked

This_person

Well-Known Member
So a lot more nonsense which equals I am a pussy and need a gun to feel safe from strangers and the big scary government
It's actually "facts showing your opinion is not founded on reality", but you continue to interpret it the way you like as you like :buddies:

None of those are reasons that hundreds of children nd innocent people should be slaughtered
I agree - slaughtering hundreds of children nd innocent people should be illegal. Making that illegal will be as useful to stopping it from happening as taking legal weapons away from law-abiding users.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
You should look up the definition of mass shooting. You might learn something none of those are consistent with the definition of a mass shooting
Anything is possible, but in this case your hypothetical is unfounded. They all meet your definition of mass shootings.
Oh so now you recognize texas as belonging to Mexico? and the Native Americans being the original occupants of the US. Careful there you re starting to make some sense and sound less racist
I've never said Texas wasn't once part of Mexico. It was also an independent country, separate from both Spain's controlled Mexico and from the United States.

It doesn't belong there NOW, but it did, at one point.

American Indians are descendants of the first immigrants to the United States. I've never denied that either.

There's nothing racist about knowing these things, and knowing that today the United States is not ruled by Mexico, Spain, or anyone else; that the American Indians and Mexicans were defeated to take their lands, just like they defeated others to have their lands previously, back until the first immigrants to the area.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Sapster, I noticed you never answered these:

So to use your bully example imagine your kid is hit with a rock at school by a bully. Are you gonna send them to school the next day with more rocks?
Would you tell the kid to be defenseless?

If you take away guns with the ability to shoot multiple rounds without reloading you drastically reduce the possibility of a mass shooting and greatly increase the amount of time a firs responder has to disarm the shooter. Its really that simple.
Which means, and there's just no getting around this, you make citizens far less able to defend themselves or their homeland against enemies, foreign and domestic.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
No. I would take the rocks away from the bully and speak to him about his behavior I wouldnt add more weapons to the situation.

A mass shooting is a shooting with more than 5 people shot

Yeah, your bully thats already using rocks? Pretty sure your words dont mean Jack Schitt to him.

According to who? The FBI uses four. With no "cooling off period", whatever that means. the wiki entry for Australia says the numbers of mass shottings vary between 3 and 5, per incident, so I'm not sure what that means. According to this, the rule used to be five, but in 2010, the FBI and DOJ decided that four was better. Wonder what role that shift had on the increase.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/ginarushton/darwin-shooting-weapon-expert
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
No. I would take the rocks away from the bully and speak to him about his behavior I wouldnt add more weapons to the situation.
So, here's the thing with your analogy - you have no ability to take the rocks from the bullies. People who have illegal firearms won't give them up. So long as there are firearms, there will be people with illegally-owned firearms.

So, you have ZERO capability of taking the rocks from the bully.

Your solution does not work.

Which means, you're only going to be taking firearms from people who are otherwise law-abiding citizens.

Which means, and there's just no getting around this, you make citizens far less able to defend themselves or their homeland against enemies, foreign and domestic.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
According to who? The FBI uses four. With no "cooling off period", whatever that means. the wiki entry for Australia says the numbers of mass shottings vary between 3 and 5, per incident, so I'm not sure what that means. According to this, the rule used to be five, but in 2010, the FBI and DOJ decided that four was better. Wonder what role that shift had on the increase.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/ginarushton/darwin-shooting-weapon-expert
His only point is that shootings are not a problem unless at least five people get shot, therefore he wasn't wrong if only four people got shot in Australia after the firearms law that would not pass constitutional muster in the United States.

Put more simply, Sapster went, "Oh for fux sake, i'm wrong again, so I'll have to come up with a misrepresentation to act like I'm not wrong. Again."
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
So, here's the thing with your analogy - you have no ability to take the rocks from the bullies. People who have illegal firearms won't give them up. So long as there are firearms, there will be people with illegally-owned firearms.

So, you have ZERO capability of taking the rocks from the bully.

Your solution does not work.

Which means, you're only going to be taking firearms from people who are otherwise law-abiding citizens.

Which means, and there's just no getting around this, you make citizens far less able to defend themselves or their homeland against enemies, foreign and domestic.

Yes that is obvious but the less guns available the less guns that might be used to kill someone.

You ahem to start somewhere.

This would take out of the equation accidental killings of children who find their parents guns , guns taken from a legal owner to use illegally such as a kid using their parents guns to commit murder or guns taken during robberies or home invasions.

This approach along with, increased background checks, mandatory training and registration and tracking would certainly decrease the number of gun deaths in this country.

I dont want to take all guns.

I want common sense solutions..
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Yes that is obvious but the less guns available the less guns that might be used to kill someone.

You ahem to start somewhere.

This would take out of the equation accidental killings of children who find their parents guns , guns taken from a legal owner to use illegally such as a kid using their parents guns to commit murder or guns taken during robberies or home invasions.

This approach along with, increased background checks, mandatory training and registration and tracking would certainly decrease the number of gun deaths in this country.

I dont want to take all guns.

I want common sense solutions..
it's not common sense to make American citizens far closer to defenseless against their enemies, foreign and domestic.

That's contrary to common sense. I mean, are mass shootings done in firing ranges or gun-free zones? You refuse to answer that because it goes against your "sense".

less guns do not make us safer, they make those of us without guns far less safe from those with guns. you reduce the number of people who will use guns legally and wisely, and do nothing to the number of people who use guns improperly.

You asked previously how many accidental gun deaths there were, and I linked you to the most recent data which was a couple of hundred in 2017. out of 300,000,000 guns, a few hundred accidents seems like a REALLY good safety record. you're trying to fix the wrong problem.
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
it's not common sense to make American citizens far closer to defenseless against their enemies, foreign and domestic.

That's contrary to common sense. I mean, are mass shootings done in firing ranges or gun-free zones? You refuse to answer that because it goes against your "sense".

less guns do not make us safer, they make those of us without guns far less safe from those with guns. you reduce the number of people who will use guns legally and wisely, and do nothing to the number of people who use guns improperly.

You asked previously how many accidental gun deaths there were, and I linked you to the most recent data which was a couple of hundred in 2017. out of 300,000,000 guns, a few hundred accidents seems like a REALLY good safety record. you're trying to fix the wrong problem.

Whawha wha I am a pussy who needs a gun to feel safe.

How did more guns at Parkland help save innocent lives?

Why do you think its ok for hundreds of people to be shot and killed because you are a wimp who cant defend themselves or sleep at night without a gun?
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
Sure you do. You just want to start with the legal ones. Get folks used to giving up freedon for securtity.

I do love secure titty.

Weapon's of war capable of killing dozens in seconds should be banned. Handguns and rifles should be tracked to the individual purchaser, background checks should be required for all sales and training on proper handling, storage and security should be should be mandatory
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Whatever moron I have on ignore that posted this:
If you take away guns with the ability to shoot multiple rounds without reloading
I hope they enjoy the fact that banning such firearms in this country is a 100% absolute impossiblity.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Why do you think its ok for hundreds of people to be shot and killed because you are a wimp who cant defend themselves or sleep at night without a gun?
I don't think it's ok. I think that should be illegal. Making that illegal will be as useful as making certain guns illegal - 'cuz we all know once something is illegal it stops.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Weapon's of war capable of killing dozens in seconds should be banned.
So, you'd ban gasoline? Fertilizer?

Handguns and rifles should be tracked to the individual purchaser, background checks should be required for all sales and training on proper handling, storage and security should be should be mandatory
That's a great opinion, just not supported by the Constitution.
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
I don't think it's ok. I think that should be illegal. Making that illegal will be as useful as making certain guns illegal - 'cuz we all know once something is illegal it stops.
So, you'd ban gasoline? Fertilizer?



That's a great opinion, just not supported by the Constitution.
No be we have systems that track large purchasers of fertilizer.

Where does the constitution say that is forbidden?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
No be we have systems that track large purchasers of fertilizer.

Where does the constitution say that is forbidden?
U.S. Constitution - Amendment 2
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms
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.
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
U.S. Constitution - Amendment 2
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms
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.
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on

How does registration or training infringe on your rights?

If anything it enhances them
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on

How does registration or training infringe on your rights?

If anything it enhances them
If one needs to jump through hoops to obtain a “right”, it’s not a right.

If I have to have training before I can exercise my right, it’s being infringed upon.
 
Top