[BREAKING] School Shooting in Conn. at Elementary School

The 2nd amendment was written because people had a great distrust of government not just because militia's that people on this thread keep on mentioning. They wanted a way to overthrow the government. So if we actually wanted to enforce the original reason for the 2nd amendment machine guns etc. would be allowed so that the people have chance to overthrow the government.

 

Exactly. This is what Svpernaut is unwilling to bite (even though it's abundantly clear).

 

Dude, save yourself the trouble. Svpernaut's game, whether he realizes it or not, is changing the game from post to post.

I would say he "moves the goalposts," but no, he changes the damn ball. You bring your team to the line of scrimmage for 2nd down, and he walks up with badminton racket.

F*ed up, and effectively (maybe not intentionally) just trolling. Shame b/c he seems pretty smart sometimes.

 

No, I said that I find it a compromise. To appease the anit-gun movement the government has put laws in place for me to follow, so I follow them.

It's like saying I'm happy with the speed limit being 65, but if they raise it to 75 I'll still drive 65.

I'm an American, so I'm happy to be a law abiding citizen until the time I feel those laws infringe upon my rights afforded by the Constitution. Personally, I'm fine with semi-automatic weapons because I can EASILY turn them in to automatic weapons if and when I'd ever have to.

 

Rifles and semiautomatic pistols can easily be modified to be fully automatic. That's a huge reason most gun people don't care about the semi-automatic laws. If and when the time came, they could modify them as needed.

 

No, I just find it laughable that he thinks he's going to change my mind or he thinks that I am trying to change his mind. Attacks like we've had this week just strengthens people's positions, regardless of which side of the argument they are on.

 

The problem is that my position has been well-justified, consistent and I've been willing to engage. You on the other hand, have dodged arguments and questions that challenges your philosophy, which tells me you're unable to justify your philosophy to yourself, let alone here. I know that publicly, ego gets in the way of admitting that maybe you have to reconsider what you've previously said (note: that doesn't mean you need to completely reverse your opinion), but I sincerely hope that privately you'll at least consider the contradictions and problems I've pointed out. If we were all a little more willing to be malleable when it comes to our beliefs, we'd be much better off. If you had pinned me down on a question like I did to you, I'd at least be willing to admit that either a) that's what I believe and I'm sticking to it or b) truthfully admit "I don't know, that's tough, I'll have to think about it".

Either way, I'm out for real this time for at least a while.

 

FOR THE 100TH TIME. I feel that I have the RIGHT to own guns, so I do. I feel I have a RIGHT to protect myself and my family, so I do with guns. I feel I can protect myself better with a hand gun. I've spent thousands of dollars on gun training as both a sport and self defense, I think I know what is best for me but you think you know what is best because you went to shotguns multiple times.

Meanwhile, you seem ignorant to the fact that you can have semi-automatic and automatic shotguns with drum magazines and slug rounds far more deadly than any rifle or pistol.

The difference is, this isn't a good enough reason for you... so I haven't met some sort of criteria proving why I need said rights. I don't need to prove anything, because I have them. I don't give up my freedoms easily, because they have been bought and defended by the blood of thousands of brave Americans.

You talk about being malleable to our own beliefs, but you can't even comprehend mine. So pot, the kettle is calling.

 

Yes, provided they joined a well-regulated militia.

 

I'm going to address several issues that have brought up in the last few pages, and the thread in general, rather than apply to specific post.

First off tobacco and alcohol are dangerous which is why they are heavily regulated. I would be perfectly fine with agreeing to regulate guns as much as we regulate tobacco, alcohol, and even cars. Svpernaut, Roxran and etc. since you have brought up those things would you agree to regulating guns as much as tobacco and alcohol?

Next regarding that if guns are more regulated determined people could get guns otherways such as using 3D printers. Yes people would but that is no argument for saying that we shouldn't put up legal barriers. This argument is like saying if if I really want to bomb the government center I could because bomb making ingredients are legal (although regulated). That ignores that there are legal barriers and that it takes a lot of work to build a bomb so the process of trying to overcome those hurdles makes it more likely I will be caught or the bomb want work. Consider how many of these wannabe terrorists fail at building lethal bombs. The argument that if people really want guns they will get them so we shouldn't regulate essentially undermines any regulatory regime. It would also mean we shouldn't regulate heroin since if people really want it they will get it. We shouldn't regulate plutonium since if people really want it they will get it. etc...

Next the argument regarding the second amendment. I am just going to quote myself here to save some typing.

Bottom line is yes the 2nd does guarantee private gun ownership but it doesn't limit regulation regarding, type, use, or registration.

Also regarding the wisdom of the Founding Fathers people should remember that those same Founding Fathers also crushed armed citizen led militias during the Shays' and Whiskey Rebellions. They were not deterred by the idea of armed citizens standing up against the government and that was a time when those private citizens possessed the same arms as the troops. It is a far different matter now when the military has drones, attack helicopters and tactical bombers at their disposal.

 

You think the answer to gun violence is to ban guns. I think the answer to gun violence is to decriminalize drugs, while providing treatment rather than prison (since most gun crimes are drug related). I also think that mental health issues should be at the forefront of society, and should be taught at all levels of society. We should also take a hard look at the pharmaceutical phenomenon without our country, with a CVS on every corner.

The difference between our philosophies is I think there are solutions to the problem without removing rights afforded to us by the Constitution.

 

Alcohol and tobacco are heavily regulated? No, they are regulated to generate tax revenue, not to stop people from getting them. If they were heavily regulated minors wouldn't be caught using them by the tens of millions every year.

 

I hate to break this to you but your dad broke the law and stole and sold illegally government property. His M16 wasn't his to keep but once he was rotated out of the combat zone he should've turned it back in.

 

Gun users suck, period. I don't care how many bad people there are in the country, the amount of trouble gun owners cause is worse than what those bad people can do.

 

The fundamental difference is that you keep saying you have "rights". The debate is defining those rights. You haven't engaged the nuance of what you have a right to through the constitution.

 

Except the fact that minors are caught using them shows that the usage and of them is regulated. Since if it wasn't regulated why would people bother catching minors using them?

 

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to rocketsjudoka again.

 

Let me get this straight you think we should reduce violence by decriminalizing drugs. Should we decriminalize drugs that are known to cause violent behavior such as cocaine and PCP's?

 

Actually, he paid for his M16, just as many military men and women pay for their own equipment now. He was stationed in Vietnam in 1967, when the M14 was still the weapon of choice. Ask a special forces soldier who paid for their Trijicon scope.

With that said, he was shot in the head and lost an eye. Even if he did "steal" it, he paid for it with his blood. But thanks for your concern.