Mass Shooting Las Vegas...

[Sparko]

So you think rapid fire weapons should be legal? Please tell me I'm reading you wrong.

I think they ARE legal according to the 2nd amendment. And bazookas.

[One Bad Pig]

Yes which is why the gun control crowd should show some common sense and not push the issue. if you force people to follow the letter of the law you might not like what you get. not that liberals have any self awareness whatsoever. it's like the idiots demanding that you be forced to join a militia to be allowed to carry firearms. literally pushing for right wing death squads

Wasn't there of a town in Illinois which banned handguns, so people switched to shotguns for home defense, resulting in the death rate for home invaders going way up?

[Sea of red]

I think they ARE legal according to the 2nd amendment. And bazookas.

Why don't you go and buy one on the black market, and keep it in the back window of your car on the way home.

No seriously, the second amendment is no more absolute than any of the other amendments -- none of the constitution is. You have freedom of speech, but you don't have freedom to make libelous claims against another character. You have freedom of religion, but you're not allowed to harm people because your religious guides you to do so. You have the right to consume alcohol, but driving under the influence is prohibited.

Same thing with firearms. You can have firearms and you have the right to use them to protect yourself and hunt, but weapons that are a threat to public safety such as machine guns are controlled.

[Darth Executor]

You have freedom of speech, but you don't have freedom to make libelous claims against another character.

More like you are not allowed to damage someone's property, it's no different from not being able to use "free speech" as an excuse to hire a hitman and it has little to do with free speech being absolute or not.

[Sparko]

Why don't you go and buy one on the black market, and keep it in the back window of your car on the way home.

No seriously, the second amendment is no more absolute than any of the other amendments -- none of the constitution is. You have freedom of speech, but you don't have freedom to make libelous claims against another character. You have freedom of religion, but you don't get harm people because your religious guides to. You have the right to consume alcohol, but driving under the influence is prohibited.

Same thing with firearms. You can have firearms and you have the right to use them to protect yourself and hunt, but weapons that a pose a threat to public safety such as machine guns are controlled.

The second amendment is worded differently than those are. It is stated as recognizing a natural right and prohibiting the government from infringing upon it. It doesn't protect gun owners from the consequences of using the gun. Just like you are not protected from the consequences of using your free speech to libel someone. Or using your religion to murder someone.

So you can constitutionally own any firearm, the way I read it, but if you use it to harm someone illegally then you have to pay the consequences, just like if you misused your freedom of speech.

[firstfloor]

Do you have to work at trolling, or does it come naturally?

I’m not trolling, I’m educating Christians. It’s more difficult than it looks.

The thing about guns is that they are hatred amplifiers if people want to use them that way; and they do. Certainly they need a human operator but why would anyone, especially a Christian love a device that was so dangerous?

“It also bothers me because so much of the reason people want to have a gun comes down to fear and control. They want to have the say when they die, not some punk on the corner. They’re afraid for their safety. Often, they’re afraid of “the other.” And these are not traits that should be said of Christians. We don’t control our fate — we trust God that we will follow Him, live faithfully, and He will either protect us or bring us home. We don’t fear for our lives — we know death brings us to Christ and we know we’re protected by the sovereignty of God. And we don’t fear the other. We love them. We pray for them. We show them Christ, even if that means we lay down our right to take their lives.”

[Sparko]

oh an I can go out and buy a machine gun if I want.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...ide-full-auto/

[Darth Executor]

Wasn't there of a town in Illinois which banned handguns, so people switched to shotguns for home defense, resulting in the death rate for home invaders going way up?

Never heard of this, i'd think an outright ban on handguns would be unconstitutional (not that that ever stopped liberals from trying).

[Darth Executor]

I’m not trolling, I’m educating Christians. It’s more difficult than it looks.

The thing about guns is that they are hatred amplifiers if people want to use them that way; and they do. Certainly they need a human operator but why would anyone, especially a Christian love a device that was so dangerous?

“It also bothers me because so much of the reason people want to have a gun comes down to fear and control. They want to have the say when they die, not some punk on the corner. They’re afraid for their safety. Often, they’re afraid of “the other.” And these are not traits that should be said of Christians. We don’t control our fate — we trust God that we will follow Him, live faithfully, and He will either protect us or bring us home. We don’t fear for our lives — we know death brings us to Christ and we know we’re protected by the sovereignty of God. And we don’t fear the other. We love them. We pray for them. We show them Christ, even if that means we lay down our right to take their lives.”

Amazing how your definition of a good Christian is one that cannot possibly be any threat whatsoever to you and any of the evil you like to spread. Truly miraculous how fortuitous this coincidence is.

[One Bad Pig]

Never heard of this, i'd think an outright ban on handguns would be unconstitutional (not that that ever stopped liberals from trying).

It happened.

Source: Gun Control

In 1981 the suburb of Morton Grove became the first municipality in the United States to ban the sale, transportation, and ownership of handguns. When a federal judge upheld the ban, the village attracted national attention.... In the fall of 1982, Evanston banned handguns. In 1984, Oak Park became the third municipality to ban handguns. The following year, Oak Park became a battlefield for national forces, as both the National Rifle Association and Handgun Control, Inc., poured resources into a referendum on repealing the ban, which failed narrowly. The impact of the Chicago freeze was felt far away, as Mayor Diane Feinstein of San Francisco began her own campaign for similar legislation. Highland Park began restricting handguns in 1989.

© Copyright Original Source

[Sea of red]

The second amendment is worded differently than those are. It is stated as recognizing a natural right and prohibiting the government from infringing upon it. It doesn't protect gun owners from the consequences of using the gun. Just like you are not protected from the consequences of using your free speech to libel someone. Or using your religion to murder someone.

So you can constitutionally own any firearm, the way I read it, but if you use it to harm someone illegally then you have to pay the consequences, just like if you misused your freedom of speech.

You do understand that the second amendment is a moot point, since it's purpose was to create a "well regulated" militia in place of a standing federal military, right?

[Jedidiah]

Since the 2nd Amendment acknowledges we have a natural right to have guns and prevents the government from infringing on that right, all arguments against us having guns are moot.

Not moot, but settled. Even if the 2nd were repealed that does not eliminate the right. Any infringement is still counter to the thrust of the Constitution. Of course the Constitution is now treated as though it were a "living document."

living document.jpg

The Constitution is not a living document, it can only be changed by an amendment. Liberal activist judges are unconstitutionally abusing the law in their actions.

[Adrift]

Fair enough. But you intended it to be an argument against Mountain Man's comment, "And think of how many lives we could save if we banned ladders!"

To which, you said, "I don't think that would be practical. Again, ladders are in far more common use than guns are," and then explained that you meant, "If we used guns as often as we used ladders, we'd likely see far FAR more gun deaths."

But now you are saying that what you meant was something like, "If we used guns as unsafely as ladders" or "If we used guns as often as we used ladders, but that that quantity of gun use did not include all the actual safe uses of guns such as at ranges and safe practices while hunting".

But then it's not clear how that is an argument against Mountain Man. The amount of lives actually saved/lost in each case would depend on how the things are actually being used. Which is why I interpreted your argument to be talking about that.

Ah, well, nope. I meant it in the same sense as ladders are generally used. As I've already stated a few times, we don't have controlled environments for ladders where safety gear is issued, and someone is monitoring their usage like a gun range. That being the case, we can discount how weapons are used in the controlled environment of the firing range. Now, if we used guns as often as we use ladders in the same sort of environment (and of course, guns are, in fact, used in non-controlled environments) then I think it's safe to say that guns are far more dangerous. If you're still not clear how that might be an argument, that's fine. We'll just have to go our separate ways on the point.

No, victimless "crimes" and the state trying to protect persons from themselves are not necessary to society with laws.

I'm not sure I understand this sentence. I don't know what you're labeling a victimless crime, and the state often attempts to protect people from themselves. It's just the way things are, and it's often for the greater good.

Do you have a more neutral term that I can substitute? It's inconvenient to say, every time, something like "the millions of people who have not committed and would not have committed the crime in question (e.g. murder) either way, but receive injury that is merely collateral to the goal".

Or what do you think they are guilty of?

I see little need for adjectives in a number of cases that you've used the phrase "innocent people". You could have simply said "people". If you really need an antonym for "criminal", how about "law-abiding"? Of course, if you're referring to people who will break the law in order to hold onto their weapons, then I suppose they'd be guilty of that.

I didn't say they are like each other except in the general sense of them both being human actions. (We might add that neither is an act of physically injuring anyone) Their being similar actions wasn't relevant. It is the uses of force against them that are of the same kind: they both consist primarily of collateral force (i.e. against non-terrorists and non-murderers) to try to reduce a small risk from a small number of bad guys (e.g. murderers or terrorists).

Eh, it's more than just human actions. In one case you're referring to banning humans themselves, in the other case you're referring to banning a tool that humans might use.

That's what everyone who proposes the use of force against people for humanitarian reasons thinks and/or claims. (it's really to help people. It's for the greater good) That was the reasoning used to justify the murder of millions in Russia. Isabel Paterson referred to this argument, in its logical conclusion, as the "Humanitarian with the Guillotine" (https://mises.org/library/humanitarian-guillotine ).

And similarly, the stated intent to ban/restrict Muslims isn't to hurt people, it's to save lives by reducing the risk of terrorist acts.

If you really think that banning/restricting Muslims will prevent people from being killed and harmed, you should speak out on that, and go with your heart. I'm not sure that's necessarily the case, though maybe there's something in it, but like I said, I think it's an apples and oranges comparison to begin with.

[Mountain Man]

...why would anyone, especially a Christian love a device that was so dangerous?

Jesus told his disciples to arm themselves with the state of art self-defense weapons available at the time. Luke 22:36

[Jedidiah]

We have other laws passed by congress that now regulates them.

Such laws are unconstitutional.