[BREAKING] School Shooting in Conn. at Elementary School

So to be one hundred percent clear, you support the ability of people to own tanks, RPGs and grenades?

That's game folks. I'm out, no use arguing with somebody who is literally insane.

 

The first one happened when I was a kid. It didn't harm me, they weren't my parents. My cousins have had rough times as you can imagine, but life must go on. The location had nothing to do with the outcome. Two lived life in a downward spiral, and the other had depression issues like millions of Americans.

 

Never said that. I'm all for me owning them though. They'd be a blast. I didn't answer, because it is a r****ded question. I think I should be able to build my own space rocket too, now that would be sweet. People can own canons and gatling guns from the civil war, but they aren't running around blasting canon balls everywhere.

 

Dat well-regulated militia.

 

Why is it not okay to own a semi-auto/handgun but not okay to own an RPG then?

Take a position. If you can't take a position, you clearly can't even justify to yourself your own opinion.

 

I've justified my position countless times, just not to your liking.

 

People DO own RPGs. Do you know how many WWII and Vietnam vets came home with bazookas and RPGs? I know two people personally. My Dad came home with his fully automatic M16 from Vietnam and sold it for cash in the early 1980s.

 

Why won't you take a position on the question I've asked you? If my question is dumb, then it should be an easy answer for you.

 

You're still avoiding the question. Should you be able to legally purchase these weapons and should it be legal for gun stores to sell them?

 

People already own everything you say "should you be able to own." It isn't my fault you're ignorant to that fact.

 

That's not the question. Should manufacturers be able to produce and sell bombs, RPGs, tanks and grenades to individuals who want to purchase them?

 

I don't think he meant "do some people posses these items". Should the average joe be allowed to have these things legally, at will. I'd like to hear the answer to this.

 

It is an idiotic question, so why answer it?

Yeah, we should be able to own fighter jets too. I'm saving up for an aircraft carrier myself.

 

If it's idiotic your answer should be easy. Why won't you answer it? You've laid out your philosophy. Just sack up and take a position.

 

Idiotic questions don't deserve answers.

 

Then explain to me why it's idiotic? Because here's what I've heard.

1. Our second amendment rights are based off of our ability to a) defend ourselves from the government and b) our ability to defend ourselves from other individuals
2. Second amendment rights trump lives, since rights are rights and rights are absolute.

So your answer, based on your philosophy you've stated, should be yes, people should be allowed to purchase grenades, bombs, RPGs and tanks. Why won't you simply confirm that that is what you believe?

 

ROXAN and I have both stated the semi-automatic is a good dividing line, and it is currently the law anyway. I'm happy with that, others aren't but the law is the law. If I wanted a fully automatic I could obtain one legally as long as it is grandfathered in.

 

The same goes for suppressors and countless other "barely legal" items. You can get just about anything if you have the money, time and clear background.

 

So again, just to be completely transparent with your beliefs, you believe semi-autos are the brightline (for some unknown reason you haven't or are unable to elaborate on), and that we should not be able to obtain fully automatic guns, RPGs, tanks or bombs unless grandfathered in (which again, the significance of grandfathering you're either unwilling or unable to elaborate on), which thereby contradicts the philosophy you've laid out about the justification for the second amendment.

I just want to be clear that this is your position.

 

I have no doubt that these people were taking drugs since they were on pscyhiatric care. That said were they on drugs at the time of the shootings?

You are now changing your argument that even if they weren't actually on drugs at the time of the shooting they might've been suffering withdrawl symptoms. I admit I don't know much about these type of drugs as I have never taken anti-psychotic medicines but I do have a relative who is a schizophrenic and from what I've seen when she goes off her meds within a day or two she loses control quickly.

You might be right that the withdrawl symptoms cause big problems that said if they are taking them properly and and are monitored it seems like they control psychosis. In the case of James Holmes IIRC he had stopped treatment and logically it seems like someone with psychotic tendencies once they stop taking drugs to control that would become psychotic. It isn't the drugs causing them to become violent but the absence of the drugs.