School shooting Florida

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Canadian laws seem pretty reasonable to me,,except I am not sure about universal licesing. For some weapons, yes, but having to get a licence to own a muzzle loader seems a bit much.
 
fagin said:
No. If you want one you can get one, cheaply and easily.

Most people don't really have an urge to shoot things, and those who do probably have one.

As has been mentioned upthread (probably numerous times, in this and other threads) shooting here is basically either hunting or sport. For that it's easy to get a firearm, either rifle or shotgun. What we don't need or particularly want, are pistols to shoot people. Because other people don't generally have pistols to shoot us.

It's a simple solution, and works pretty well.
Click to expand...

That is a de facto ban when hand guns are the primary weapon and the primary purpose is self defense. If US gun owners were an ethnic group, such laws would count as genocide.
 
I quit the NRA over 20 years ago because I thought LaPierre was a total nutcase.
And his speech today proves my point.
 
BobTheCoward said:
That is a de facto ban when hand guns are the primary weapon and the primary purpose is self defense. If US gun owners were an ethnic group, such laws would count as genocide.
Click to expand...

"Genocide" is word with an actual meaning. It doesn't mean "taking your toys away".
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Wayne LaPierre says the right to bear arms is "not bestowed by man but granted by God to all Americans as our American birthright."
Click to expand...

They have gone christian dominionist like most of the GOP. Not exactly a surprise. They have been on the CNN is fake news train for a while.

I expect them to start calling these shootings hoaxes pretty soon. But as they write most of the gun laws that can actually get passed like all those in florida they are the real representatives of american gun owners.
 
In my opinion, the argument of preserving the people's ability to overthrow a corrupt government is effectively dead. The US government today has tanks, bombs, innumerable military personnel, and way WAY bigger guns. Go ahead and try to shoot at a tank with a handgun. See what happens.

We're already screwed if the government decides to turn into an evil dictatorship. We might be able to delay the shift a little bit by picking off a few soldiers here and there, but in the end, we'd be crushed.

I'm sure someone(s) has already pointed that out in this thread, but it is moving fast.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Where?
Click to expand...

Taking away someone's means of defending themselves isn't genocide. Going on to attack and kill them when they're defenseless would be. That's the step you're ignoring. And see my previous post regarding how much "defense" the current system really offers anyway.

The word "genocide" really gets thrown around a lot these days.
 
isissxn said:
In my opinion, the argument of preserving the people's ability to overthrow a corrupt government is effectively dead. The US government today has tanks, bombs, innumerable military personnel, and way WAY bigger guns. Go ahead and try to shoot at a tank with a handgun. See what happens.

We're already screwed if the government decides to turn into an evil dictatorship. We might be able to delay the shift a little bit by picking off a few soldiers here and there, but in the end, we'd be crushed.

I'm sure someone(s) has already pointed that out in this thread, but it is moving fast.
Click to expand...

For purposes of what can be done under the second amendment, reasons are irrelevant
 
BobTheCoward said:
Which is why said if it were an ethnic group. Because they are just people who own something, they are not an ethnic group.
Click to expand...

Even if they were an ethnic group you're still talking absolute bollocks. Taking spears off the Maasai wouldn't in any court in the world be counted as genocide. Same with taking guns off Americans.
 
isissxn said:
Taking away someone's means of defending themselves isn't genocide. Going on to attack and kill them when they're defenseless would be. That's the step you're ignoring. And see my previous post regarding how much "defense" the current system really offers anyway.

The word "genocide" really gets thrown around a lot these days.
Click to expand...

That describes something that isn't an ethnic group. That is why I stated if they were an ethnic group.
 
BobTheCoward said:
For purposes of what can be done under the second amendment, reasons are irrelevant
Click to expand...

Word salad.

How come the 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct, but the 21st overturned the 18th with the ease of an old man sliding into a warm bath? I don't get "out" into other web-forums much, but do any of these constitutional purists fret about that violation of the document's integrity?

Is it just because the 2nd is part of the original Bill of Rights?
 
isissxn said:
Word salad.

How come the 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct, but the 21st overturned the 18th with the ease of an old man sliding into a warm bath? I don't get "out" into other web-forums much, but do any of these constitutional purists fret about that violation of the document's integrity?

Is it just because the 2nd is part of the original Bill of Rights?
Click to expand...

It's BTC. You waste your breath/bandwidth.
 
isissxn said:
Arth didn't say America has a ridiculous problem with guns and gun-murder that needs addressed, immediately and intensely. He said Americans have a disdain for human life. That is a sweeping generalization, untrue, and cruel.

I don't see how your numbers have a fig to do with what I posted.
Click to expand...

You don't see what homicide rates have to do with a society's value of human life? :confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom