xxxx wrote:
Foreign observer wrote:
The rest of the civilized world has also figured out how to provide universal healthcare to their citizens at half of the cost of the US. This is also quite simple, but, you know, America is special.
So exactly what medical innovations has your foreign country contributed to the world in the last 10 years?
Synthetic blood, courtesy of the NHS.
https://www.nhsbt.nhs.uk/media/news/major-breakthrough-in-the-manufacture-of-red-blood-cells/As Jeff and others have indicated the 2nd amendment does not put any limitation on the types of "arms" the government can restrict people from owning. I have established the parameters by which the government makes these types of decisions. Not one 2nd amendment guy can formulate any logical argument why people should be allowed to own AR 15 guns. Logic is avoided when discussing this.
its not that hard wrote:
Conundrum wrote:
Luv2Run,
I am singling you out because, although I strongly disagree with you, you seem to be the most rational of the 2nd amendment guys. I think my post would be wasted on John Utah and even he is much more reasonable then some of the other gun people. I intend to discuss this logically with you.
Let's start with a postulate of which we should both agree.
Society has an obligation to limit from general ownership certain items that present a significant danger to others and have no compensatory positive uses.
I think we both agree that we don't want dynamite, or certain poisons openly sold to anyone, right? Why because they are dangerous and don't have many positive mitigating aspects. We do allow some poisons with positive uses because they are used to kill insects or rodents. Are we both in agreement so far?
Assault style weapons are a danger to society. In the past 6 years 5 of the most deadly mass killings involved the use of the AR15. Those mass killings would not have been so deadly without the AR 15. Agreed? It is the weapon of choice for the mass killer because it is a very effective killing machine.
So what are the compensatory positive uses of the AR15 for private owners. Has one ever been used by private owner to save a life. Certainly people can practice with it but really when it is used for purpose by a private owner it's used to kill. Can you refute this?
So we have the weapon of choice by mass murders and it has no compensatory positive purpose.
Does society have an obligation to protect society and limit ownership of things dangerous to society such as certain poisons, dynamite, and assault like weapons (and that have no positive redeeming aspects)
The rational answer is yes. Agreed?
Read the constitution. The 2nd amendment says you are wrong.
It ain't that hard to understand.
Um, courts have said otherwise brah wrote:
Jeff Wigand wrote:
Where can I buy weapons grade plutonium? I need to be able to match the government's weapons to defend my property.
Jeff is correct about this bruh. The court rulings involving the 2A have been pretty consistent about allowing laws for limiting what types or weapons can be sold and who (as in age, other factors like prior convictions or placement on a watch list) can be sold weapons. The 2A does not say that you can by any type of weapon you want. There is wiggle room. Technically, the actual word in the document is “arms” which could be interpreted in many different ways.
This, of course, does not mean that people will not sue if laws are put in place to specifically ban certain types or guns or limit gun sales to cerntain people but my guess is that laws limiting access by age will stand and I think laws restricting access to certain types of guns could also stand if they are crafted carefully.
Correct!
It's been a very bad day here for the 2nd amendment and the trump supporters. The gun nuts have lost this thread and have cowered away. Same with trump people on The other thread. They have stopped posting too.
Bruh, yes all or none thinking doesn’t work wrote:
Bruh, yes all or none thinking doesn’t work wrote:
Bruh, I agree with the title of your thread and your post. Extremes on both sides (the small minority on the left calling to repeal the second amendment and the much larger—but still a minority on the far right opposing absolutely any change to access to guns) are wrong about this issue.
This truly is a mix of access to guns, school security, and mental health. Choosing to address just one of the topics from this list will be much less effective than addressing them all.
One point though, NOTHING—even addressing all three issues well—will ENTIRELY eliminate these incidents. But that should not stop us from acting. Murder is illegal and yet people still get murdered—does that mean we should eliminate all laws aimed at addressing murder?
One part of the solution to this is school security and your suggestion is a good one. Another part of the solution is absolutely banning assault style rifles, limiting magazine capacity, etc. and another is improving our mental health system.
If you don’t agree you are probably an extreme right wing or left wing nut.
Fixed my typos
Even the conservative second coming of Christ—Ronnie Raygun (RIP)—agreed with the above. What the hell is wrong with the GOP in 2018? They clearly have lost the ability to think rationally.
No John utah, or truthseakr, or man who knows or luv2run or gun nuts who change handles every post.
All the gun nuts and all the trump people need to grow a set and come back.
Your AR15 Will not prevent you from being destroyed in a discussion about gun control.
Trump winning the election doesn't prevent you from being a loser for voting for him. Just admit the con man made a fool out of you.
Reality and stupidity sucks.
Still no one.
Hypothesis: Maybe people who own a ton of guns are basically scared cowardly people.
They usually post so much crap but when know they are intellectually overmatched, they quit.
Well.....this wrote:
No John utah, or truthseakr, or man who knows or luv2run or gun nuts who change handles every post.
All the gun nuts and all the trump people need to grow a set and come back.
Your AR15 Will not prevent you from being destroyed in a discussion about gun control.
Trump winning the election doesn't prevent you from being a loser for voting for him. Just admit the con man made a fool out of you.
Reality and stupidity sucks.
Wow.....Still bitter about losing?
Well.....this wrote:
Still no one.
Hypothesis: Maybe people who own a ton of guns are basically scared cowardly people.
They usually post so much crap but when know they are intellectually overmatched, they quit.
Reality. Your post is just name calling.
I don't own a gun but they are legal and people are free to own them even if they just like to look at them.
NotPC wrote:
Well.....this wrote:
Still no one.
Hypothesis: Maybe people who own a ton of guns are basically scared cowardly people.
They usually post so much crap but when know they are intellectually overmatched, they quit.
Reality. Your post is just name calling.
I don't own a gun but they are legal and people are free to own them even if they just like to look at them.
Huh? Yes they are legal, but The whole discussion is whether they should be legal or not. If all people did with AR15 guns was to look at them that would be fine.
But their only use is by mass murders to kill people rapidly.
You are OK with that?
You don't want to inconvenience the potential mass murder, is that your point?
Because there is no other use for an AR15!
Bobby1
For those who want to ban guns, I have one question. How well has banning drugs worked?
++++++++++++
The logic doesn't work there--then why have any laws whatsoever? Because they don't 100% eliminate a problem?
NotPC wrote:
Well.....this wrote:
Still no one.
Hypothesis: Maybe people who own a ton of guns are basically scared cowardly people.
They usually post so much crap but when know they are intellectually overmatched, they quit.
Reality. Your post is just name calling.
I don't own a gun but they are legal and people are free to own them even if they just like to look at them.
Or, most people are in favor of sensible gun laws. The problem is that both sides are so worried about getting "everything" that no one is willing to accept a partial victory.
truthseakr wrote:
Well.....this wrote:
No John utah, or truthseakr, or man who knows or luv2run or gun nuts who change handles every post.
All the gun nuts and all the trump people need to grow a set and come back.
Your AR15 Will not prevent you from being destroyed in a discussion about gun control.
Trump winning the election doesn't prevent you from being a loser for voting for him. Just admit the con man made a fool out of you.
Reality and stupidity sucks.
Wow.....Still bitter about losing?
I am going to give you props for self effacing humor!
Hmmm..... wrote:
NotPC wrote:
Reality. Your post is just name calling.
I don't own a gun but they are legal and people are free to own them even if they just like to look at them.
Or, most people are in favor of sensible gun laws. The problem is that both sides are so worried about getting "everything" that no one is willing to accept a partial victory.
No this is actually not true at all.
Most 2nd amendment people don't want limitations on purchases of weapons such as the AR15, don't want greater limitations on the use of concealed weapons, don't want an increase in age to buy weapons, don't want a longer wait period or greater review of backgroundchecks, don't want any places were guns are prohibited, don't want any registry of guns owned.
I don't want to take all guns from people.
Conundrum wrote:
Hmmm..... wrote:
Or, most people are in favor of sensible gun laws. The problem is that both sides are so worried about getting "everything" that no one is willing to accept a partial victory.
No this is actually not true at all.
Most 2nd amendment people don't want limitations on purchases of weapons such as the AR15, don't want greater limitations on the use of concealed weapons, don't want an increase in age to buy weapons, don't want a longer wait period or greater review of backgroundchecks, don't want any places were guns are prohibited, don't want any registry of guns owned.
I don't want to take all guns from people.
No they want all guns to be taken. They are extreme ones.
Truth b told wrote:
Conundrum wrote:
No this is actually not true at all.
Most 2nd amendment people don't want limitations on purchases of weapons such as the AR15, don't want greater limitations on the use of concealed weapons, don't want an increase in age to buy weapons, don't want a longer wait period or greater review of backgroundchecks, don't want any places were guns are prohibited, don't want any registry of guns owned.
I don't want to take all guns from people.
No they want all guns to be taken. They are extreme ones.
Nope
Nope nopington wrote:
Truth b told wrote:
No they want all guns to be taken. They are extreme ones.
Nope
Hmm......... falls into the trying to sound reasonable trap by looking for mid ground. "The both sides have their equally good points" fallacy. Although this is sometimes this is a worthwhile endeavor often it masks and diverts from discovering the truth. Examples of this fallacy include teaching creationism and evolution in science class, global warming equal pro and cons, and gun control.
Easy access to guns like the AR15 make no sense.
Conundrum wrote:
Nope nopington wrote:
Nope
Hmm......... falls into the trying to sound reasonable trap by looking for mid ground. "The both sides have their equally good points" fallacy. Although this is sometimes this is a worthwhile endeavor often it masks and diverts from discovering the truth. Examples of this fallacy include teaching creationism and evolution in science class, global warming equal pro and cons, and gun control.
Easy access to guns like the AR15 make no sense.
Agree. ^Accurate, reality based post above.
Luv2Run wrote:
There is no ONE solution to this problem.
It is interesting what the secret service found back in 2002 when it looked at school shootings.
https://scientificamerican.com/article/if-you-want-to-know-how-to-stop-school-shootings-ask-the-secret-service/A key here is that several people warned the authorities so that part has improved (that is people telling).
Great read. Thanks for posting.
red herring wrote:
vdfbdfbb wrote:
The gun problem extends beyond school shootings.
that, in of itself, doesn't mean his suggestions are bad
But his suggestions are bad.
Colin Sahlman runs 1:45 and Nico Young runs 1:47 in the 800m tonight at the Desert Heat Classic
Molly Seidel Fails To Debut As An Ultra Runner After Running A Road Marathon The Week Before
Megan Keith (14:43) DESTROYS Parker Valby's 5000 PB in Shanghai
Hallowed sub-16 barrier finally falls - 3 teams led by Villanova's 15:51.91 do it at Penn Relays!!!
Need female opinions: I’m dating a woman that is very sexual with me in public. Any tips/insight?