DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Gun Control

Cowards don't blast in the face with fist... Now curl up and suck your thumb Mr. Sniffles.

Big difference between mano y mano and twisting ankles lol. 40 the ankle twister! like a WWE masked villain... lmao

Yet you said it.

Oh and your fellow hate org Antifa endorses the LA Shootings.

Donny Tinyhands mugs them, 40 tags in to twist theirankles while the ring girl gets another round before flying her broom out of town.

Is that the best you can do, hate boi?

LA shootings? missed those. when? Do you mean the Vegas shootings? I didn't know Antifa said anything about that. Link?

I mean Las Vegas. On a tablet.

Really? that's some sick crap if they did. You got a link?

Google is your friend.

Stop oggling my friend and send me a link.

That requires me to do work. Its friday evening. I'm not doing work.

All I know it I saw reports that the Australia chapter of Antifa tweeted their support.

For whatever its worth.

No surprise to those of us who recognize their ongoing violence against American citizens and businesses for what it is.

Hah! Australian chapter... reminds me of stories I saw this week about all the groups Russian hackers created to sew divides, did you see that crap?

... I hope Russian Hackers stay far away from me..
.

No matter what kind of outfits they are "sewing" lol

The attempts to rationalize gun control to healthcare or abortion are silly and without real merit.

The real comparison is far more obvious, and there have been 4 constitutional amendments to address the rights of citizens.

Voting is what I am referring to. We have the 14th 19th 22nd and 26th amendments. More laws rules regulations and other legislative actions than you can list.

Apply the same logic to guns as voting. No registration, fine we don’t need voting registration.

With rights come responsibilities. It is that simple.

We could and should clarify the second amendment, but to the gun lobby, it has been cast in stone. Biblified in a matter of speaking. We have the ability to figure things out but lack the courage to do anything about it, except disagree about the meaning and intent.

No.

This thread has become ridiculous. It's much like almost every other thread in this forum. Forcing opinions down each other's throats w/very little honest debate.

I am not a huge gun guy. I have several, but nothing exotic. A couple of shotguns for hunting and a couple of handguns for protection. Nothing exotic.

But, even though I am not a big gun guy, I still want this question answered for those who want guns banned:

Do you really think that criminals will not be able to get guns if the government takes guns away from the law-abiding citizens?

Do you really think that most criminals are buying their guns legally right now? LOL

On the other side, who in the hell would need all these exotic guns that are actually meant for military purposes?

I believe in eliminating the extremes on both sides and using more common sense. That is something that appears to be seriously lacking on this board.

Your one word response is proof in of itself.

There are no guns sold to citizens which are meant for military purposes.

They are ordinary rifles with fancy plastic to make it look like a military weapon.

But none of the ability.

But thats all its is.

The las vegas shooter had a bump stock, which override the intended ability of the rifle. And which everybody agrees should be outlawed. Nobody wants citizens to have automatic weapons, even if the "automatic" is only simulated.

The criminals will be ecstatic! They dodn't follow the rules.

It may not change much at all.

Because we have established the right to bear arms, we must deal with the consequences.

Now, at one time, the NRA supported reasonable efforts to legislate guns. But it was taken over by ideology over pragmatism. If you adopt the farthest position then change of any type become impossible.

The video from Las Vegas is hard to accept. Newtown is hard to accept. The only thing that is plausible is to slow the carnage by limiting the frequency of fire, size of magazine and the speed that is can be changed.

There is a difference between a weapons of war, and personal protection. I saw a weapons of war used by a citizen and that is not right.

Sometimes in life, one word speaks volumes.

At one time the NRA was reasonable an gave an inch which the Left piled on and took a mile.
Never again.
No.

Are you ever tired of being a victim of the left?

The volume of the carnage in Vegas speaks louder.

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.

You could do nothing to prevent Vegas by gun restriction.
You can do nothing to keep it from happening again through gun restrictions.
Laws are only for the Law Abiding.

America is Guns.
Resistance is Futile.

Funny how literally no one else, who have banned guns, have problems with guns in their country. It's almost like if you take them off of the legal market, they'll be harder to find on the black market. I really don't know how that works, and need a conservative capitalist (or a crazy centrist) to explain it to me, but I think it involves pagan blood magic.

Charlie Hebdo might disagree with you
.

I can only address the pro gun side.
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms was mostly set up to fight in battle when the Nation called. Remember the Minutemen? Somebody would see British Naval Vessels and the word would go out. The Men would grab their weapon, join up with their Militia and go to war.

It was also considered a God given Right to be able to defend yourself from Indians, Thieves, Animals and Inner City Blacks. Early Americans were allowed the latest most technologically advanced weapons available. After all, you were fighting another Nations Army. You needed permission to have a cannon in some states.

So here we are, hundreds of years later, with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and stand in Battle, protect ourselves from Thieves, Animals and Inner City Blacks with the latest most technologically Advanced weapons available. If ever needed, as our Forefathers and Founders warned us, to overthrow a bad government, would you have us stand in battle with a shotgun and a pistol? That would be unAmerican!

We the People have already agreed to not have automatic weapons, cannons, tanks and rocket launchers. We gave up those things to be reasonable. What more would the Left have us give up?

The guy who died in one of the three mass shootings in France since 2012 would disagree with the fact France has better gun control? Do you know who Charlie Hedbo was? The US has had 7 mass shootings since 2017.

Look, I'm one of the biggest 2nd Amendment supporters on here and I have the guns to prove it. But it's nonsense to think that limiting the guns available to the market, doesn't have any effects on the market. Just pure nonsense.

Youre one of the biggest 2nd ammendment supporters on DT? Since when? Sure, and I'm one of the biggest supporters of big pharma and think they dont charge enough for meds.

Come, save us, CHS, from the liberal scum who want increased firearms laws.

Oh wait.

Check my post history. I've always been defending the second amendment on here.

It is pure nonsense to think limiting the market would not grow the Black Market. We the Law Abiding would then become instant Felons as we bought any weapon available on the planet.
We would only have to pay more than on an open market.

Same as Drugs son, what kind and how much would you like?
They are not available on the open market but the Black Market has them all.

Like I said. Charlie Hebdo. France is somebody.

In his defense, when I posted a comment on the fact that the 2nd Amendment was to keep citizens armed to protect themselves from a tyrannical government CHS (and I was surprised to see it) actually gave me an amen!

You can trust him on this one.

What? Weed is available on the open market in many countries and states. As a result, the purchase point for an ounce of marijauna is cheaper than it's ever been. It's also stronger weed than it's ever been. What you're saying is, this growth and distribution of weed should have never happened in the black market, because it's legal. But, in reality, legality just opens the door for more people to possibly interact with the black market. Your whole post is at odds with itself.

I've never seen it. But I am probably not gonna go searching for it either.But I can plainly see his comments in this thread are anti 2nd ammendment.

No, it's called a logical argument. Just because it's logical, doesn't mean I agree with it, or even validate its premise. Personally, I view the argument as a nonstarter. Ted was right, the 2nd amendment was created to protect citizens from their government. Now, maybe it doesn't always work, but it works much better than countries without guns. Those people are absolutely screwed when they are robbed of their ability to protect themselves. Firearm deaths that revolve around crimes, mainly theft and crimes of passion, won't be erased if we banned guns. Instead, we'd see more knife attacks and less casualties, but is worth getting rid of guns?

We have a lot of things that are inherently more dangerous than guns with a lot less regulations. Think driving, an activity which makes it far more likely that you'll die or kill someone than using a gun would. However, we don't really care about those effects of driving, or at least not enough to reduce our driving habits. We don't need to drive. It's extremely inconvenient to not drive. But, we don't *need* to drive. However, we don't even care about the causalities that arise from driving, which is a convenience thing so we can save a few hours each day, so I can't even fathom the faux moral outrage of the effects of a right that helps protect the community while ensuing equality.

Alright then. I can agree with that.

That's just false. Lots of countries that have banned guns have high firearm crime rates. I don't think any free country has completely banned guns, but if you mean countries with strict gun control laws, you have to also include nations like Brazil, Lebanon, Jamaica, Columbia and others with high murder rates. You just can't cite Canada, Australia and Western European countries to make your case.