Welcome to Thunderdome

Maybe we'll still have the freedom to ask the government if we can buy a gun before they decide we don't need one. At least that would be something.

Leisher wrote: Your reasoning here requires a MASSIVE stretching of the imagination where the military completely aligns with the government.

The dudes who wrote that down went through exactly that type of shit, and this was their attempt to make it possible for the populous to have a chance to resist. That line of reasoning died somewhere around WWI, leaving only the practical purposes. The funny part is that, in the baseball shooter's mind, he was probably exercising his 2nd amendment against governmental tyranny. Gee, I wonder where he got that crazy idea.

The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us.

Leisher wrote: Actually, YOU'RE a bigger threat to my family because you're a drinker. Shouldn't we ban all alcohol and drugs?

I'm pretty sure Herr Sessions would like to do damn near that, except the booze and tobacco suits that give him kickbacks. He just asked Congress for permission to have the federal pigs go after the medical marijuana industry. Furthermore, I do my drinking within walking distance, in my place, or right before leeching a ride from someone else.

However, back to the crazy and depressed kamikaze-loving motherfuckers of the world:
If they want to kill themselves, in general I'm not going to get in their way ... so yes, make all sorts of substances legal. If someone wants to pull a Belushi and do half a dozen speedballs on their way to oblivion while downing a bottle of Jack, I don't care as long as they don't drag anyone else with them. We need the suicide booths from "Futurama." They can't be that hard to make. I'm also well aware the sort of damage and murder someone who doesn't give a fuck can get away with if they are so inclined. Today, all you need is google plus a fucking email or Skype account to connect with any group of psychos you'd like to dedicate your death to. That said, I wouldn't allow any of the items previously mentioned here to someone in a fucked up mental state: chemicals, knives, cars, booze, guns, any of it. That does nothing to keep them from purchasing those things in a calmer state and stockpiling them for the next temper tantrum. However, even if that's all I'm forcing them to do, at least it means I'm weeding out the impatient morons -- a large segment of any insane demographic in this country.

Malcolm wrote: The dudes who wrote that down went through exactly that type of shit, and this was their attempt to make it possible for the populous to have a chance to resist. That line of reasoning died somewhere around WWI, leaving only the practical purposes.

Why did that reasoning die? How can you make that statement, and then in the very next sentence reference a guy, literally, trying to kill the government?

The funny part is that, in the baseball shooter's mind, he was probably exercising his 2nd amendment against governmental tyranny. Gee, I wonder where he got that crazy idea.

You should read the article Gordon linked above your post. It bitch slaps what you're trying to do here. By the way, that article is also why it's important to eliminate padded numbers in debates. Padded numbers are a scare tactic. Democrats spewing gun violence numbers = Republicans spewing Islamic terrorism numbers.

Malcolm wrote: I'm pretty sure Herr Sessions would like to do damn near that, except the booze and tobacco suits that give him kickbacks. He just asked Congress for permission to have the federal pigs go after the medical marijuana industry.

Yeah, the Republicans are "Nazis" who want to take away your weed and booze, but the Democrats are heroes who want to take away your money and guns.

Malcolm wrote: Furthermore, I do my drinking within walking distance, in my place, or right before leeching a ride from someone else.

That doesn't mean anything. It's been established that all guns need to go, even ones used for hunting and self defense, so your booze needs to go too. I don't care how safely you consume it.

Malcolm wrote: However, back to the crazy and depressed kamikaze-loving motherfuckers of the world:
If they want to kill themselves, in general I'm not going to get in their way ... so yes, make all sorts of substances legal. If someone wants to pull a Belushi and do half a dozen speedballs on their way to oblivion while downing a bottle of Jack, I don't care as long as they don't drag anyone else with them. We need the suicide booths from "Futurama." They can't be that hard to make. I'm also well aware the sort of damage and murder someone who doesn't give a fuck can get away with if they are so inclined. Today, all you need is google plus a fucking email or Skype account to connect with any group of psychos you'd like to dedicate your death to. That said, I wouldn't allow any of the items previously mentioned here to someone in a fucked up mental state: chemicals, knives, cars, booze, guns, any of it. That does nothing to keep them from purchasing those things in a calmer state and stockpiling them for the next temper tantrum. However, even if that's all I'm forcing them to do, at least it means I'm weeding out the impatient morons -- a large segment of any insane demographic in this country.

I really don't think the people here in this discussion or on this website are in disagreement on the issue of making it difficult to obtain a gun. I shouldn't be able to walk into a store today and walk out with a weapon and enough ammo to fight a war in 20 minutes. I'm fine with a waiting period for ALL gun sales. Nobody goes hunting and says, "Shit! Forgot my gun, let me swing by the 7/11 and grab one." I believe we should have a national database that all law enforcement agencies share and it's a fucking joke that it doesn't already exist. People have, literally, died because one doesn't exist. Anyway, folks applying for weapons would be searched through this database. Got violent incidents in your past? Sorry, no gun for you! Mental issues? No gun for you! Etc.

The reason why there aren't stricter regulations is because everyone has forgotten how to compromise. The pro gun folks know that for every inch they give, the anti gun folks will want more until all guns are gone. If you offered to share your fries with me and I ate them all, you'd hesitate to ever share them with me again. Thus, those pro gun folks fight every single piece of legislation because they know that every inch they give up moves the "front line" of their war.

Anyway, back to your statement, there's an interesting point in there. Legalize everything because "If someone wants to pull a Belushi and do half a dozen speedballs on their way to oblivion while downing a bottle of Jack, I don't care as long as they don't drag anyone else with them." Interesting. Because booze is currently legal and it kills 10,000 annually on our roads. That doesn't include the number of people that get hurt in fights and domestics or those same accidents. It also doesn't count suicides or people who die from alcoholism. So why are those numbers important in the gun debate, but not a booze debate?

I don't know. I think logical, sane people could reach agreements on this issue and make things a lot safer, but they don't. Instead we're always standing around pointing fingers while demanding one extreme or the other.

Leisher wrote:Mental issues? No gun for you! Etc.

Eh... I'm a little concerned about what qualifies as "a mental issue". I went to AA and had counselling. Was on antidepressants for a few months. Do I qualify? Or to put some fear into the leftists (those that believe in the 2nd Amendment, anyway) what if they decide that any trans person that was seeing a therapist shouldn't own a gun? I agree that anyone with a real metal illness shouldn't be able to buy a gun. My concern is who gets to decide what a mental illness is.

Vince wrote: I went to AA and had counselling. Was on antidepressants for a few months. Do I qualify?

During that period? Yes.

Vince wrote: Or to put some fear into the leftists (those that believe in the 2nd Amendment, anyway) what if they decide that any trans person that was seeing a therapist shouldn't own a gun?

Yes. Suicide rate among trans people is ridiculously high. Plus, it is a known mental illness to want to cut off parts of your body...not sure why that doesn't also apply to your dick...

Your points are good ones though as a reminder that no issue is black and white (not even racism). There's always grey area where compromises must be made.

As long as I personally get to decide who is too mentally ill to own a gun, I have no problem with it.

When I become president I will make you the gun czar.

Leisher wrote:

Vince wrote: I went to AA and had counselling. Was on antidepressants for a few months. Do I qualify?

During that period? Yes.

Vince wrote: Or to put some fear into the leftists (those that believe in the 2nd Amendment, anyway) what if they decide that any trans person that was seeing a therapist shouldn't own a gun?

Yes. Suicide rate among trans people is ridiculously high. Plus, it is a known mental illness to want to cut off parts of your body...not sure why that doesn't also apply to your dick...

Your points are good ones though as a reminder that no issue is black and white (not even racism). There's always grey area where compromises must be made.

I guess my problem is I trust gun grabbers less than I trust the system the way it is now.

Vince wrote: I guess my problem is I trust gun grabbers less than I trust the system the way it is now.

I don't disagree. I just suggested where a line could be drawn, BUT I also specified several times that the reason why such a compromise can't be reached is because the other side wants to eliminate all guns.

Again, it's an issue where folks want it all.

Seriously, what the fuck ever happened to compromise?

Leisher wrote:Seriously, what the fuck ever happened to compromise?

Because there is no compromise to "no guns". It's like the Israel peace process and why it will never happen. As long as the goal of the Palestinians and other Arab nations is the destruction of the state of Israel, there really isn't much of a compromise to be had.

Vince wrote:

Leisher wrote:Seriously, what the fuck ever happened to compromise?

Because there is no compromise to "no guns". It's like the Israel peace process and why it will never happen. As long as the goal of the Palestinians and other Arab nations is the destruction of the state of Israel, there really isn't much of a compromise to be had.

Well yeah, that's my point.

Leisher wrote:

Vince wrote:

Leisher wrote:Seriously, what the fuck ever happened to compromise?

Because there is no compromise to "no guns". It's like the Israel peace process and why it will never happen. As long as the goal of the Palestinians and other Arab nations is the destruction of the state of Israel, there really isn't much of a compromise to be had.

Well yeah, that's my point.

Yeah, with you there.