Gun Control: Is this a real fix?

emileh said:
I'm fully aware of what the right to bear arms means. However, the firearms at the time were muzzle loaded. I therefore stand by my statement.
Click to expand...
You can stand by your statement but your opinion doesn't matter. Hence why muzzle loaded weaponry hasn't mattered as a means to define weaponry or the right to bear arms.

All of this has been GREATLY defined in the court cases which you refuse to look at. Most recently as of 2010 in McDonald vs City of Chicago
emileh said:
Actually Scotland is doing pretty well. It has a fair and equally applied legal system, Our political system is based on proportional representation although not the best version unfortunately (we use the additional member system) for Scottish Government elections although we do use the infinitely superior and fair single transferable vote for local government. Our political system is progressive and at 16, I can vote in any Scottish election. So if the Government or our local authority are trying to exploit us we have the means to remove them peacefully. Pretty civilised really.

We have a health system that's free to all at the point of delivery and this includes dental care as well.

Your system, on the other hand, is in trouble and once again I stand by my previous statements on the matter.
Click to expand...
Come back when you stop comparing apples to oranges.
Find me a country with 330 million people and 400 million guns.
Pro tip: you can't because not even the top 25 countries combined with a population vastly exceeding exceeding USA by 10x fold will still only manage to have 400 million guns.
 
Bread. said:
You can stand by your statement but your opinion doesn't matter. Hence why muzzle loaded weaponry hasn't mattered as a means to define weaponry or the right to bear arms.

All of this has been GREATLY defined in the court cases which you refuse to look at. Most recently as of 2010 in McDonald vs City of Chicago

Come back when you stop comparing apples to oranges.
Find me a country with 330 million people and 400 million guns.
Pro tip: you can't because not even the top 25 countries combined with a population vastly exceeding exceeding USA by 10x fold will still only manage to have 400 million guns.
Click to expand...

That's a fatuous argument. Of course the fact that the amendment was written at the time of muzzle loaded weaponry and needs bringing into line with the current firearm technology. That means gun controls and strict licencing.

And there's your problem. The USA needs strict gun control. Oh, and that means strict licencing.

Your country is a political, social, and financial mess.
 
emileh said:
That's a fatuous argument. Of course the fact that the amendment was written at the time of muzzle loaded weaponry and needs bringing into line with the current firearm technology. That means gun controls and strict licencing.

And there's your problem. The USA needs strict gun control. Oh, and that means strict licencing.

Your country is a political, social, and financial mess.
Click to expand...
You can not talk with reason to idiots that's why you refuse to address any of the rebuttals or any questions directed at your comments.

As I've stated already
Inkandtatts said:
It’s no surprise that a massdebater who wants to own a teenager, whose posts show he has a total lack of understanding of basic concepts, who has the moral compass of a flea, is unable to understand that % of population comparisons are like for like but hey I’m just a Brit living in a society where there’s no fear of mass shootings.

I’ll let the massdebater continue arguing “give my guns because I have a small willy”…while I live in a much safer society where I have zero fear of being shot by anyone
Click to expand...
It's a basic concept called per capita.

Another idiot refusing to address how he plans on making 400 million+ guns disappear from A country founded on the right to own them.

all he ever talks about is "massdebating" and now small willies.

He has zero fear of being shot but he is fearful of Christian men who want to "infringe" on his right to have sex with men
 
Last edited:
Bread. said:
all he ever talks about is "massdebating" and now small willies.
Click to expand...
That’s because you’re a massedbater with small man syndrome who undeniably said he wanted to own me and wanted to own a teenager.

Bread. said:
He has zero fear of being shot but he is fearful of Christian men who want to "infringe" on his right to have sex with men
Click to expand...
I’m not fearful of Christian men at all. Many are decent people. Many are decent porn stars. Many are reasonably decent in bed.

But that isn’t the topic at hand

Neither is this really…
Bread. said:
Another idiot refusing to address how he plans on making 400 million+ guns disappear
Click to expand...
But again look at countries that have actually done it. It’s not that difficult for even you to comprehend that it’s possible.

You’re a waste of sperm Bread and I won’t engage with you further other then to correct your bullshit

——
Edits to correct typos
 
ok im off topic a bit, but we had a Royal Commission on Gun issues north of 49, and after millions of dollars and endless wrangling, the vast majority of Canadians agreed with this
Ness do me a solid and prune this if needed cnheers
 
Bread. said:
You can not talk with reason to idiots that's why you refuse to address any of the rebuttals or any questions directed at your comments.

As I've stated already

It's a basic concept called per capita.

Another idiot refusing to address how he plans on making 400 million+ guns disappear from A country founded on the right to own them.

all he ever talks about is "massdebating" and now small willies.

He has zero fear of being shot but he is fearful of Christian men who want to "infringe" on his right to have sex with men
Click to expand...
Ah argumentum ad hominem again. As I've already said, the last resort of the ineffective debater.

I addressed all of your points over my posts. To summarise, your country is far too permissive with gun legislation. The fact that it can vary so drastically from state to state makes a mockery of the concept. Your country needs strong control and licencing at a federal level.

You can read the rest by scrolling back.

Now, do you have a proper argument to put forward or is this just another of your pet agendas?
 
emileh said:
Ah argumentum ad hominem again. As I've already said, the last resort of the ineffective debater.

I addressed all of your points over my posts. To summarise, your country is far too permissive with gun legislation. The fact that it can vary so drastically from state to state makes a mockery of the concept. Your country needs strong control and licencing at a federal level.

You can read the rest by scrolling back.

Now, do you have a proper argument to put forward or is this just another of your pet agendas?
Click to expand...

You haven't.

You haven't even looked at the court cases defining the right to bear arms but your only debate here is now saying "I can not argue" further.

As is seen on exhibit A you avoid the rebuttals by responding with rhetoric.
I7Jvs1k.png



Even when rebuttals are clarified and described Barney style, with specific questions highlighted in BOLD
You still respond with jargon.
oz8liAw.png

7Y6nGnq.png


The takeaway from someone not responding to your rebuttals is that they can not argue against it or find common ground. Yet this is the person trying to call someone an ineffective debater

Shark Tank Lol GIF by ABC Network
 
Inkandtatts said:
That’s because you’re a massedbater with small man syndrome who undeniably said he wanted to own me and wanted to own a teenager.


I’m not fearful of Christian men at all. Many are decent people. Many are decent porn stars. Many are reasonably decent in bed.

But that isn’t the topic at hand

Neither is this really…

But again look at countries that have actually done it. It’s not that difficult for even you to comprehend that it’s possible.

You’re a waste of sperm Bread and I won’t engage with you further other then to correct your bullshit

——
Edits to correct typos
Click to expand...
what is a massbater
 
Inkandtatts said:
That’s because you’re a massedbater with small man syndrome who undeniably said he wanted to own me and wanted to own a teenager.


I’m not fearful of Christian men at all. Many are decent people. Many are decent porn stars. Many are reasonably decent in bed.

But that isn’t the topic at hand

Neither is this really…

But again look at countries that have actually done it. It’s not that difficult for even you to comprehend that it’s possible.

You’re a waste of sperm Bread and I won’t engage with you further other then to correct your bullshit

——
Edits to correct typos
Click to expand...
Oh but of course, Infringing on a citizens rght to bear arms is like totally not the same as infringing on your right to have sex with and marry men.

Its not like they're both ...rights

The 2nd amendment is like totally not the same as the 1st 5th and 14th amendments of the US constitution that protect LGBT people from discrimination

Yet everytime someone makes a thread about LGBT all you do is cry and throw a fit
The only person's rights that matter are apparently your own.

Now this person wishes to "not want to engage further in a debate"

This is a sign of someone that can't defend their statements. Someone with
zero factual arguments to fight their case or cause.

This is also the sign of someone who is agitated and lives in a bubble. Someone that will never really give a chance to properly uderstand where their own ideas or beliefs might be flawed.

Someone dogmatically holding an idea in their mind is downright disgraceful to a debate because they will justify becoming angry or ignoring others by saying the other person's "ideas" are so obvisouly wrong that the person must be racist/homophobe etc.
 
emileh said:
Pots/Kettles, Bread. You cannot deny that you use what should be proper debate threads to promote and push your own dogma based views that are usually intended to promote some form of bigotry. It's usually intended to cause argument rather than debate. You're actually a troll and not a very good one either.

When you're actually engaged by someone giving a reasoned counter argument, you rely on the Trumpian system of repeating your dogma over and over in the vain hope that it will be accepted as truth. Everyone that posts on these threads knows what you are.

You cannot hold a reasoned debate. That's a simple fact. As for your first statement in that quote, you've stopped debating with me several times because you couldn't hold your own side up. You end up, as always resorting to argumentum ad hominem. You're actually a bit of a hypocrite on that point.

Your comment under that about the person being agitated and "living in a bubble" whatever that's supposed to mean, is a good example of argumentum ad hominem.

You're really not very good at this.
Click to expand...
and this is why i have him ignored
 
emileh said:
Pots/Kettles, Bread. You cannot deny that you use what should be proper debate threads to promote and push your own dogma based views that are usually intended to promote some form of bigotry. It's usually intended to cause argument rather than debate. You're actually a troll and not a very good one either.

When you're actually engaged by someone giving a reasoned counter argument, you rely on the Trumpian system of repeating your dogma over and over in the vain hope that it will be accepted as truth. Everyone that posts on these threads knows what you are.

You cannot hold a reasoned debate. That's a simple fact. As for your first statement in that quote, you've stopped debating with me several times because you couldn't hold your own side up. You end up, as always resorting to argumentum ad hominem. You're actually a bit of a hypocrite on that point.

Your comment under that about the person being agitated and "living in a bubble" whatever that's supposed to mean, is a good example of argumentum ad hominem.

You're really not very good at this.
Click to expand...
Speaking about dogma and you have yet to answer any of the points brought forth. All you say is "they're there"

This is the person trying to school me on a debate not even following proper debate etiquette or the rules of this forum.


" my opinion is you're not a good debater " -sally
nobody cares bfd GIF
 
Bread. said:
Speaking about dogma and you have yet to answer any of the points brought forth. All you say is "they're there"

This is the person trying to school me on a debate not even following proper debate etiquette or the rules of this forum.


" my opinion is you're not a good debater " -sally
nobody cares bfd GIF
Click to expand...
Well now, Everything I said in my last post is summed up in that little petulant outburst.

Bread, you're a second rate troll with many bigoted agendas and you honestly couldn't debate your way out of a soggy paper bag.

What you need is an actual life outside of your chat existence. As they say here, go touch grass.
 
emileh said:
All of Bread's 'debate' threads turn out pretty much the same lol.
Click to expand...

No doubt to people like you criticizing and making the thread about me and not debating the actual topic at hand

Is that not what you've been doing the last 10 posts?

Vox Nihil A+ debater

Harry Potter Lol GIF by Sky
 
The OP didn't really state what the fix is, just stated two opposing thoughts.

" gun control " should be nonexistent for the verbiage in the Second Amendment that mentions, " shall not be infringed upon ".
The founding fathers were not morons. They knew damn good and well that bad people in their time existed and in turn could have access to a firearm, and murder people. There was also the chance the military of the US Government, could go bad and turn those weapons of destruction against the people.

What no one today asks, is, what are the American people supposed to do if they no longer have the means to defend themselves from their own military, or the government if it unlawfully uses the military against the nation. It just isn't asked nor debated on a national level. Do you know what is also not debated? Should the USA have Nuclear Weapons to defend itself against other nations that have them, how strong should America's Nuclear Weapons be, and how many should the USA have. No one gives two rat turds about Nuclear Weapons. You do realize, if Iran ever gets a nuke, or North Korea, how extra fucked the USA and NATO would be. Because they are partners with China and Russia. Also, Iran will probably be more than eager to use a nuke or create a workable dirty bomb and give it to any terrorist that wants it and use those terrorists as a proxy to attack the USA.

One could easily argue that the US should get rid of all its Nuclear Weapons, and let the UN protect the USA in regards to Nuclear Weapons.

The debate of gun control is pointless, for the simple fact that no one in government wants to debate the Second Amendment and that " shall not be infringed upon " part, and if the founding fathers were wrong for putting that verbiage in there or if that verbiage should stay. Once that debate is answered on a governmental level by all three branches of government. That in turn leads to a solid decision and law. Maybe the Second Amendment stays as is, maybe it doesn't. But if those that want stricter gun control laws, for any reason, they have to address that much first, and why there is no government debate, let alone a vote to make changes to the Second Amendment when gun control advocates clearly want a national gun control law.

No matter how well-intentioned gun controls are and how beneficial they are, those laws are an infringement based on the simple dictionary definition of the word. If you look at the Second Amendment, it does not mention, can a mentally ill person own a firearm, can a criminal who was convicted of a crime, own a firearm after they get out. And guess what was around in society back then. Criminals, and the mentally ill, while not as prevalent as today, were out there in society.

there are parts of America where police are not going to get to you in time to help. There are going to be crime-ridden areas that the police just do not want to **** with, where innocent people are and need help. The Second Amendment is that stopgap.

It also would do everyone who is 100% Second Amendment, open carry, conceal carry, no permit ever( constitutional carry, which is fucking stupid to call it that, because that is the Second Amendment ) advocates and gun control advocates to look at their local, gun laws, which should include, the Castle Domain law, and the Duty to Retreat law, how those two laws intersect or don't, and the Stand ground your law, and how the Duty to Retreat Law may intersect or not.

Whatever the laws are regarding guns, just know this, if you shoot someone in the back, no matter who started it; you shoot someone in the back, you better have a great lawyer. Who can prove that the person was going to turn back around and shoot or attack you, or was shooting blindly over their shoulder at you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top