[quote]countingbeans wrote:
And lol at your sudden revelation that drugs don’t kill.
May not be a direct as a bullet, but we both know you’re full of shit on that one. [/quote]
I have some clorox wipes right near my desk here. I could die from eating the entire bottle of them I’m sure. Almost anything can be used to kill someone or can kill someone if used in an improper enough manner.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
Is it something that people selling firearms need to figure out? [/quote]
That’s like asking Pepsi to “figure out” why America is so fat… [/quote]
Well that’s why I’m thinking out loud, I have no clue who makes the distinction and how. If we put it in the hands of the federal government our rights may be taken away. If we let states do it the same thing could happen. If we let local government do it there you go again. Government’s not the solution for the reasons already mentioned on this issue, but I really don’t know what to do in those cases with the special circumstances especially if they don’t have good parents.
If you have good parents like my cousin does you don’t even need to worry about it because THEY can keep him and other people out of harms way by making sure he never has access to a firearm. Without those situations I’m not really sure what happens and who does it and how that goes down. Up for debate I’d guess. [/quote]
I agree with you. There are issues no matter who is responsible for, well control, of firearms. I would prefer that both the Federal and State governments keep their hands off. I would rather it be a personal issue, ie parents make the decisions until the individual is considered an adult. The problem is some parents just don’t care or aren’t even around. I think in a society 300 million+ it’s a difficult challenge to “not” address gun ownership with legislation when 100s of people die in most major cities each year from gun violence.
I would like to see more open carry/easier access to conceal carry in all states. Again though, that raises some issues. Namely, allowing gangs and thugs to open carry in the streets of Baltimore could easily escalate violence. Maybe it would have the reverse effect, I don’t know. [/quote]
I think with this issue we have a LOT we don’t know. I still haven’t seen a lot of consistent logical arguments for decreasing law abiding citizens rights to possess a firearm. I don’t think (as I’ve already said) we should have no limits, but the limits should be most based on making sure law abiding and good citizens have access to a firearm if they desire.
We want to talk about keeping guns out of the hands of known bad people I’m all ears for that. I just don’t want to see regulation that only accomplishes keeping guns out of the hands of good people. [/quote]
Ya, again I agree with you. In this area I’d prefer less regulation than more. There really should be none, in my opinion, based solely off the language of the constitution.
Even keeping guns out of “bad” peoples hands is such a grey area. Should Bernie Maddoff be allowed to own a gun (assuming could be let out)? How about an arsonist? How do we deal with outliers? How about Marines with PTSD? For some, not all, PTSD is a real mental condition, then again, these men and women have used weapons on our behalf. Why should someone like President Obama (not him specifically just an example) be able to tell Sgt ____ he can’t own a firearm because he suffers from PTSD due to fighting in a conflict/war I/we sent him to? [/quote]
Very true. I was including my cousin in the bad people category. He is not a “bad” person in any real sense of the word, but he is a bad person to ever have access to a firearm. He simply lacks the intelligence to realize the danger of a real weapon.
Special needs people are one of those cases where a lot of the “normal” rules can’t apply in a lot of different scenarios. I would never argue we should make our laws with people like my cousin always in mind, but it is something we need to be aware as we discuss/debate things. Those people who can’t fit the rules because they do not know how to fit them.
And quite obviously if just everyone had good parents the problem right there is automatically done. We just know that isn’t the case.
[quote]H factor wrote:
I have some clorox wipes right near my desk here. I could die from eating the entire bottle of them I’m sure. Almost anything can be used to kill someone or can kill someone if used in an improper enough manner. [/quote]
Yep, and that is what makes ever asking for a “preventative” law so ridiculous.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
And lol at your sudden revelation that drugs don’t kill.
May not be a direct as a bullet, but we both know you’re full of shit on that one. [/quote]
I have some clorox wipes right near my desk here. I could die from eating the entire bottle of them I’m sure. Almost anything can be used to kill someone or can kill someone if used in an improper enough manner. [/quote]
Correct.
Aside from the fact that shooting someone may kill them today, but selling them crack, that only takes a couple months before they are the walking dead, and I’ve had too many friends found dead the next day with needles in their arms to buy this “I don’t see the connection” bullshit.
But you know, in lefty land “lets make all drugs legal because some country smaller than NYC and less diverse than Westboro Baptist did it, and make all the guns illegal, because making things illegal works, that is why we need to make drugs legal so people stop doing them…”
[quote]H factor wrote:
Very true. I was including my cousin in the bad people category. He is not a “bad” person in any real sense of the word, but he is a bad person to ever have access to a firearm. He simply lacks the intelligence to realize the danger of a real weapon.
Special needs people are one of those cases where a lot of the “normal” rules can’t apply in a lot of different scenarios. I would never argue we should make our laws with people like my cousin always in mind, but it is something we need to be aware as we discuss/debate things. Those people who can’t fit the rules because they do not know how to fit them.
And quite obviously if just everyone had good parents the problem right there is automatically done. We just know that isn’t the case. [/quote]
Yep. The solutions we are left with are: euthanizing those who need to be restricted, violating the rights of all, accepting that dangerous freedom is far better than peaceful slavery.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Yes, let’s not have legislation or regulations and that 12 year old can save money by simply buying a gun legally. [/quote]
Your own post states the regulation and legislation doesn’t prevent it from happening.
Legislation doesn’t stop 12 year olds form banging heroin either…[/quote]
No, you are wrong. My post states that it will be even easier for kids to buy guns and they won’t even have to worry about keeping the fact they are armed a secret. Imagine if you were a teacher and you had a class full of armed 12 year olds. Imagine a school full of armed kids. [/quote]
Fear mongering lol.
Imagine a school full of kids with heroin, weed, beer, knifes, meth, crack & phama…[/quote]
Other than the knives I don’t think anyone has to worry about getting murdered by drugs. I don’t really see a connection. [/quote]
People are murdered by fists and baseball bats, cars, ovens, gas leaks and even the Sun gives you cancer.
You can keep playing dumb here, but we both know you aren’t.
You’re pushing a bullshit slippery slope fallacy. You know this, I know this, we all know this. And until you actually make a valid point, I will continue to use ridiculous examples to blow holes in your fear mongering. [/quote]
So you don’t have a problem with 12 year olds walking around armed with guns?
The problem with your position is that you have zero proof to back it up. If guns are a non-factor then in modern countries where gun ownership is severely restricted they should have murder rates somewhat close to ours but with knives, bats, fists, etc., but they don’t. Why is that? To deny that the ease of killing with a gun factors into someone’s decision to kill is to deny reality. Cervantes (and Ariosto before him), a few hundred years ago, recognized the role of firearms when it came to changing the dynamics of killing. And that was well before guns had actually become as commonplace as they are now.
People say that of someone is determined to kill they will kill with whatever method they have available. Maybe, but what about those who are not that determined? A gun makes it a lot easier. And when you talk about kids, as I am so don’t start up with references to adults, you are talking about humans whose brains lack the ability to make sound judgements and think about consequences. I really don’t like the idea of an armed teenage girl finding out her boyfriend cheated on her.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
And lol at your sudden revelation that drugs don’t kill.
May not be a direct as a bullet, but we both know you’re full of shit on that one. [/quote]
Yes, I suppose someone can get beaten to death by a bag of pot. Do you have a point?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Aside from the fact that shooting someone may kill them today, but selling them crack, that only takes a couple months before they are the walking dead, and I’ve had too many friends found dead the next day with needles in their arms to buy this “I don’t see the connection” bullshit.
[/quote]
Aside from the fact that one chooses to buy crack but doesn’t choose to get shot I think you still have no point.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Why is that? [/quote]
-Because a killing must be unlawful to be considered murder, and the people of a country don’t get to decide what is and isn’t lawful.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Why is that? [/quote]
-Because a killing must be unlawful to be considered murder.
Does that have something to do with 12 year olds carrying guns?
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Why is that? [/quote]
-Because a killing must be unlawful to be considered murder.
Does that have something to do with 12 year olds carrying guns? [/quote]
It has to do with a question you asked countingbeans.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
And lol at your sudden revelation that drugs don’t kill.
May not be a direct as a bullet, but we both know you’re full of shit on that one. [/quote]
Yes, I suppose someone can get beaten to death by a bag of pot. Do you have a point? [/quote]
this is moronic.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
And lol at your sudden revelation that drugs don’t kill.
May not be a direct as a bullet, but we both know you’re full of shit on that one. [/quote]
Yes, I suppose someone can get beaten to death by a bag of pot. Do you have a point? [/quote]
this is moronic. [/quote]
Yes, I’m glad you see that. Think next time.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Does that have something to do with 12 year olds carrying guns? [/quote]
It has to do with a question you asked countingbeans.
[/quote]
So I’m supposed to watch an hour long video to get an answer?
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
So you don’t have a problem with 12 year olds walking around armed with guns?
[/quote]
You just want to ride this fucking fail train all day dont’ you.
12 year olds CAN get guns NOW. You’re idiotic assertion is that a) people actually want to take away the age restrictions and b) that would suddenly lead to exponentially more gun deaths because some moronic “classroom full of students with a gun” scenario that we all know will not happen, even if there were zero restrictions on firearms.
Just keep playing dumb with the drug similarities, you sound like every other lefty.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
So you don’t have a problem with 12 year olds walking around armed with guns?
[/quote]
Not that long ago this was perfectly okay. Why is it all of a sudden (relatively) damn near teenagers are incapable of being responsible with a weapon?
Regardless, even if 12 year old’s were legally allowed to buy guns the vast majority still wouldn’t. For one, they cost money.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
And lol at your sudden revelation that drugs don’t kill.
May not be a direct as a bullet, but we both know you’re full of shit on that one. [/quote]
Yes, I suppose someone can get beaten to death by a bag of pot. Do you have a point? [/quote]
this is moronic. [/quote]
Yes, I’m glad you see that. Think next time. [/quote]
How about you actually come up with a coherent non-fallacious argument for your point?
ANd for the record, I was calling your continued ignorance moronic.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
So I’m supposed to watch an hour long video to get an answer? [/quote]
Governments kill people. Lots of people. Remember hearing about a fellow named Adolph Hitler, and a few million people he killed? Government. Remember hearing about a fellow named Joseph Stalin, and the many millions he killed? Yep, government. I imagine that the number of murders pales in comparison to the number of state killings throughout history.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Aside from the fact that shooting someone may kill them today, but selling them crack, that only takes a couple months before they are the walking dead, and I’ve had too many friends found dead the next day with needles in their arms to buy this “I don’t see the connection” bullshit.
[/quote]
Aside from the fact that one chooses to buy crack but doesn’t choose to get shot I think you still have no point. [/quote]
Jesus h Christ. Did pittttbul get ahold of your login keys?
You destroy your own points here:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
And when you talk about kids, as I am so don’t start up with references to adults, you are talking about humans whose brains lack the ability to make sound judgements and think about consequences. [/quote]
Therefore by your own assessment the person selling them the drugs is in fact killing them, just takes longer than if they shot them…
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Not that long ago this was perfectly okay. Why is it all of a sudden (relatively) damn near teenagers are incapable of being responsible with a weapon?
Regardless, even if 12 year old’s were legally allowed to buy guns the vast majority still wouldn’t. For one, they cost money. [/quote]
Yep! When Barefoot Boys Carried BB Guns - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com