You know damn well I never said anything about shooting anything.
So, you think guns are important to keep around, despite the thousands that will continue to die…As paper weights.
Why are guns important enough to keep around, with thousands still being murdered. Mass shootings still being carried out, etc. Why? Stop trolling and actually put some skin in the game.
Not important, useful.
It’s a sad world we live in, isn’t it?
It is irrelevant to the constitutional question. It’s not a constitutional argument to say ‘cause of mass shootings’.
There is not going to be an amendment to the 2nd amendment and there doesn’t need to be.
The only issue is how to separate dangerous people from getting powerful weapons… In an nation chalked full of powerful weapons the answer is not to suddenly ban them. This is not a problem at the constitutional level, or even federal level.
Because they’re the only thing keeping the King of England from coming in and shoving us around.
I think you are trying to go somewhere that you think I’m going but you are going to find yourself there alone.
Which I wasn’t talking about.
Has anyone on this thread mentioned banning them?
We have no inherent right to them, we should all just surrender to brutal regimes because, hey, it’s friggen hopeless. They want to pop your son or daughter in the head for whatever reason, rebel? Hell nah. Hopeless. So, why not disarm the populace and save even more lives, Zecarlo? Raise the age limit? What, those murdered by 21, 35, 50, and 60 year old shooters, mass shootings or not, don’t matter? You don’t get to be snarky while making the primary reason the people should even be able to keep and bear arms at all despite the public dangers inherent to a citizenry armed at all. Reasonable? There are no ‘reasonable’ restrictions as there isn’t even a reasonable cause for gun ownership, having lampooned the 2nd (since it rests on the ability for the people to resist by force). What then is left to even justify any gun ownership.?
They’re fun.
1 Like
Ah, well, no need need for additional restrictions in that case.
Life is sometimes shitty and sometimes it’s great. Some people are worthless and others are valuable members of society. Trying to make the world less shitty by making it harder for worthless people to arm themselves is not a Quixotic task. Now, banning guns would be even if Don Quixote would have approved.
So, you trivialize the protectiveness of 2A folk, for its self stated reason, in the defense of country from enemies foreign or domestic. In cooperation with our regular military against a dire external threat, possibly. Or, in the worst case scenario, to fight against the very same military that carried out many of your brutal examples .
But you’ll keep around weapons which will still be used in all manners of shootings, including those of the mass nature, because they are fun. You don’t even have a noble reason why more should die.
At least their argument is that hope of defending liberty in a last ditch/desperate effort, if and when democratic avenues are closed down. And this, for them, justifies the trade off of some public security in relation to one another (gun homicide). Yours is that it’s fun. I’m done.
If I adopted the, “give up, it’s hopeless” line of thought, I’d actually favor banning ALL firearms. People needn’t die for nothing more than fun. And don’t start with home defense, it’s a miniscule event compared the amount of people killed by guns, including the ones in their own homes. "They’re fun. "
Backed up by a significant number of civilians.
I don’t think there is a noble reason for that.
No it’s not. It’s defending their guns. They could lose liberty and still have guns.
If you were facing an M2 or Mk 19 you would adopt that thought.
What about animals? Deer is tasty.
I won’t argue with your reasoning. If you’re going to ridicule the only legitimate reason for an armed populace, yet not call for complete disarming of the population because guns are fun, while going on about victims of mass shootings (because they are deader dead I guess)…Not interested. I’m done. Thanks for the discussion, seriously. But I’m just not going to argue that position.
I ridicule it because it isn’t legitimate.
And they are.
I know, going on and on about slaughtered children. It’s not that big of a deal.
It’s your position so I think you should be the one arguing it.
Now that’s bullshit. It’s just a holier-than-thou justification for a fun hobby.
People love shooting guns, period. People also love buying and hoarding all sorts of crap designed to suck in their disposable income - some people like to fork out thousands of dollar on a new bike, some buy every Apple product in existence, while others spend their money on stuff like this:
The only difference is that the first two groups (I hope) do not claim they’re doing it for freedom and 'Murica.
Shiiiiit, that’s pretty sweet.