Thoughts and Prayers

[St1ck]

46 minutes ago, Spirit said:

 

I'm not avoiding anything.  I'm one of the few on this board who says we should ban all guns.  There's been "numerous measures" to prevent gun deaths too, but they don't work.  The only way you'll stop them is by getting guns out of the population.

But, you keep getting your rocks off with the whole thoughts & prayers chant.

 

I'll gladly admit I'm if you provide proof that you have called for banning all guns. All I've ever seen from you is trying to minimize the problem by posting about random car accidents.

And no, that haven't been numerous measures to curve gun violence. There may have been local band, but that do shit when you can just cross state lines. Nothing of relevance has ever been done on a federal level.

 

[St1ck]

13 minutes ago, Lhalo said:

You guys start on that whole amending the Constitution thing yet?

You start getting information from places other than Facebook memes yet?

[Spirit]

On 5/18/2018 at 1:07 PM, Spirit said:

This is horrible.  It's time to ban all guns now!

 

yup

 

 

[St1ck]

2 minutes ago, Spirit said:

 

yup

 

 

Cant tell if that was sarcasm, or not.

[Lhalo]

56 minutes ago, st1ckboy said:

You start getting information from places other than Facebook memes yet?

I don’t go on Facebook. 

[Tank]

6 hours ago, Vladdylonglegs said:

I’m guessing you’ve never read the Old Testament. 

I'm guessing you haven't got a clue about what God was doing in the Old Testament.

[Lhalo]

Flooding the planet, writing 15 10 commandments and knocking down a big tower?

[Taylor]

6 hours ago, Lhalo said:

What’s the solution?

I honestly don't know. But I won't accept that there is no solution.

Also, it's intellectually dishonest to say that there's only one interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and that that interpretation is that there should be no restrictions on guns.

[Blarg]

25 minutes ago, Taylor said:

I honestly don't know. But I won't accept that there is no solution.

Also, it's intellectually dishonest to say that there's only one interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and that that interpretation is that there should be no restrictions on guns.

Obviously that's the interpretation that has been accepted as wrote law for over 200 years but has been modified with federal restrictions. 

[Taylor]

21 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Obviously that's the interpretation that has been accepted as wrote law for over 200 years but has been modified with federal restrictions. 

The Founding Fathers definitely envisioned automatic weapons when they wrote the Bill of Rights. Also, I guess they threw in the phrase "well-regulated" just for the lulz.

[Blarg]

Automatic weapons are not legally marketed to citizens. 

[arch stanton]

1 hour ago, Taylor said:

The Founding Fathers definitely envisioned automatic weapons when they wrote the Bill of Rights. Also, I guess they threw in the phrase "well-regulated" just for the lulz.

And pulled "shall not" right out of their ass

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

On 10/2/2017 at 1:03 PM, floplag said:

Or, not everyone sees it that way.  I for one do not.   Politics doesn't shape my life. 
Regardless this did not happen because of guns, it happened because a man decided to kill.   People are laser focused on HOW he did so and ignoring completely WHY because its fits their dialog and agenda.
Advocates of removal of freedoms should be uncomfortable most days, thats under far more duress today than anything else

it would have been a little difficult to kill and wound so many without a gun, regardless of the mental condition, or reason behind the person doing the shooting.

[Jason]

8 hours ago, Lhalo said:

Flooding the planet, writing 15 10 commandments and knocking down a big tower?

I love the reference 

[Jason]

7 hours ago, Taylor said:

The Founding Fathers definitely envisioned automatic weapons when they wrote the Bill of Rights. Also, I guess they threw in the phrase "well-regulated" just for the lulz.

Regulated wasn’t in regards to government control. In fact the entire Bill of Rights was to limit that 

[Make Angels Great Again]

8 hours ago, Taylor said:

The Founding Fathers definitely envisioned automatic weapons when they wrote the Bill of Rights. Also, I guess they threw in the phrase "well-regulated" just for the lulz.

 

"well-regulated" is in reference to a militia. Which is a supplemental military force comprised of citizens.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is a whole different statement. Those are two separate things specified as rights in the 2nd amendment.

[Don]

I'm not sure we should take the blabbering of 250+ year old drunks that were just starting to learn about crop rotation and thought blood letting was a pretty sweet medical treatment for just about everything as gospel that we have to strictly adhere to when tackling modern problems.

[Jason]

21 minutes ago, Don said:

I'm not sure we should take the blabbering of 250+ year old drunks that were just starting to learn about crop rotation and thought blood letting was a pretty sweet medical treatment for just about everything as gospel that we have to strictly adhere to when tackling modern problems.

Yeah their views on limited government are still valid 250 years later 

[Lhalo]

22 minutes ago, Don said:

I'm not sure we should take the blabbering of 250+ year old drunks that were just starting to learn about crop rotation and thought blood letting was a pretty sweet medical treatment for just about everything as gospel that we have to strictly adhere to when tackling modern problems.

Those drunks defeated the most powerful military force in the world and created a limited government which allowed its citizens to flourish. Twisting the Constitution and giving the state more power will be the downfall of this country but you feel free to marginalize them and their actions Mr. modern day faceless keyboard warrior. 

[floplag]

6 hours ago, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

it would have been a little difficult to kill and wound so many without a gun, regardless of the mental condition, or reason behind the person doing the shooting.

Can you absolutely 100% without any question prove that?   Ill save you the trouble we both know you cant.   People are making bombs out of fertilizer... there is no logical reason to assume one way or the other.
Its wishful thinking at its ostrich worst to assume that removing LEGAL guns from the equation has the affect you want, its a false equivalency. 

[Don]

1 minute ago, Lhalo said:

Those drunks defeated the most powerful military force in the world and created a limited government which allowed its citizens to flourish. Twisting the Constitution and giving the state more power will be the downfall of this country but you feel free to marginalize them and their actions Mr. modern day faceless keyboard warrior. 

All true as to their accomplishments. And they should be lauded for that. But they were human beings and not gods. The idea that every single word they wrote needs to be taken literally and be considered infallible is intellectually lazy in my opinion. That's what I was getting at. As time marches on and our world changes in any number of ways, strict adherence to the words of men from that long ago becomes restrictive in terms of our collective ability to respond to all sorts of issues.

Oh, and btw, my actual face was my avatar for years up until like ten days ago.

[Taylor]

1 hour ago, Make Angels Great Again said:

 

"well-regulated" is in reference to a militia. Which is a supplemental military force comprised of citizens.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is a whole different statement. Those are two separate things specified as rights in the 2nd amendment.

I just read it again. You're right. 

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

2 hours ago, floplag said:

Can you absolutely 100% without any question prove that?   Ill save you the trouble we both know you cant.   People are making bombs out of fertilizer... there is no logical reason to assume one way or the other.
Its wishful thinking at its ostrich worst to assume that removing LEGAL guns from the equation has the affect you want, its a false equivalency. 

How would someone kill 58 people and wounded 413 with a knife before being stopped. I suppose a bomb would work, but a gun seems to be the weapon of choice for these mass murders. 

Guns are legal and much more available without much training required to conduct a massacre, while bombs are illegal and require a least some training or research to pull off.

Edited December 31, 2019 by Ace-Of-Diamonds

[floplag]

14 minutes ago, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

How would someone kill 58 people and wounded 413 with a knife before being stopped. I suppose a bomb would work, but a gun seems to be the weapon of choice for these mass murders. 

Guns are legal and much more available without much training required to conduct a massacre, while bombs are illegal and require a least some training or research to pull off.

AS you say, he wouldnt with a knife but if his goal is to kill many why would you assume thats what he would bring?  That for me is the part of the anti gun position that makes it so illogical.  The point of these attacks int to hurt one person, its to hurt many, so the assumption that they would bring less deadly weapons is just so nonsensical to me.
If they set thier mind to perpetrate these acts, they will do whatever is necessary to make them happen, weve seen it too many times. 

[St1ck]

3 hours ago, floplag said:

Can you absolutely 100% without any question prove that?   Ill save you the trouble we both know you cant.   People are making bombs out of fertilizer... there is no logical reason to assume one way or the other.
Its wishful thinking at its ostrich worst to assume that removing LEGAL guns from the equation has the affect you want, its a false equivalency. 

Outside of OKC, how many fertilizer bomb killings have there been in the US?