View Single Post
Old 02-17-2013, 10:34 AM   #88
Ring of Famer
mkporter's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,670


Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ View Post
1. All those incidents involved people who already broke the laws on the books. Again, you are talking about people who broke laws to carry out killings and crimes and again, you are now punishing all law abiding citizens for the acts of a few. We live in a country of 300m people and you just pointed out what, 5 incidents where some crazy nuts went ballistic on innocent people? Again, over and over and again, this is the act of insane people that broke multiple laws to perpetrate crimes.

If you are going to restrict gun rights for everyone based on the sick actions of a few sick people, then you better also put laws in the books about the violence Hollywood and the video game industry pump out to the masses. If you want to blame the violent incidents on the availability of guns and NOT on the individual's responsible for these horrific crimes then you have to point the finger at the entertainment and gaming industry for spewing out violent movies and games over the last 40 years that coincide with these incidents.

Yes?? You cannot argue with me on this point. I will only accept a YES from you on this. Otherwise we have nothing to discuss.
A few points:
a) I don't give a **** about what you are willing to accept from me on anything.
b) My comments were in response to your declaration that people were right to be paranoid about their guns because of Obama. You apparently started reading (or at least started highlighting) after I stated this point directly. I noted that Obama has shown absolutely no desire to do anything about gun control, despite many high profile gun related mass killings. I ask again, why should people be paranoid about Obama and their guns?
c) Again, please note, I didn't make the argument that restricting gun rights was the correct answer to the mass killings, only that the political pressure caused by these events makes gun control discussions inevitable and unavoidable. The response would pretty much have been the same with W. still in the white house.

2. There are already restrictions to the 2nd amendment. I can't own a fully automatic gun. I can't own a rocket launcher. I can't own plastic explosives and such. I can't own an armed tank nor an armed jet. I can't own an armed helicopter, etc., etc., etc.
Exactly. So a discussion of where the line should be should not be considered so radical. No one is suggesting we go and take everyone's guns away. Some people are just asking if a Bushmaster AR-15 with a 30 round magazine falls into the category of weapons you listed above.

3. See point 2. Nobody is asking for "unrestricted right to bear 'arms'".
Valid point. I was being a little hyperbolic to demonstrate a point, and I over stated.

4. You simply cannot predict the future. Just because the feds up to this point and time haveing invaded your home and put a gun to your head and forced you to do something you didn't want to do does not mean this won't happen in the future, even in the immediate future. You are banking on the past which limited government much more than today and the foreseeable future. I'll take my chances with an armed law abiding citizen any day of the week over trusting the federal government with my safety.
And here's where you lose me again. If the purpose of owning a weapon is to protect yourself from the federal government, then you're fighting a losing battle. You've already ceded the rights above to own firepower that might help you in anyway against the feds. A fed comes knocking, and you shoot him? You are finished. Plain and simple.

The protections against our government turning tyrannical are not contained in the second amendment. They are contained in the right to vote, the checks and balances in the three branches of government, civilian leadership of the military, the freedom of speech and assembly, and the due process of law. The second amendment was written at a time when we didn't have a strong national military, and external threats required that we had "well-regulated" militias.

I'd also like to point out that you've refused at every turn to discuss the math I presented on the bullet purchase (you know, your original outrage), and at this point, I will only accept a response from you on this. Otherwise we have nothing to discuss.
mkporter is offline   Reply With Quote