loving guns more than children

DebateChallenge · Jan 15, 2019

zsu2357 said:
Seems I remember posts where he was vehemently opposed to guns period.

Being opposed to guns is understandable as people can be ignorant but being opposed to pea shooters? I do suppose pea shooters can be dangerous if not used properly since you could put an eye out which explains why some people might have an aversion to them as there are children's toys that can be dangerous such as lawn darts. I suppose pea shooters can fall in that same category.

DebateChallenge · Jan 15, 2019

calamity said:
Google

That's very broad. Just about anything can be found on Google. Be more specific.

RetiredUSN · Jan 15, 2019

calamity said:
lol...guns take away almost 40,000 lives a year.

Note the uptick since the Rightie nuts on SCOTUS removed all the restrictions.

You of all people, calling other people nuts.

DebateChallenge · Jan 15, 2019

calamity said:
Of course cars are dangerous. That’s why people need to have licenses and cops make sure they drive according to laws.

Yet in most states you can drive a car unsupervised at 16. To buy and own guns you have to be 18 or for handguns 21 in most cases.

AlphaOmega · Jan 15, 2019

lurchadams said:
That was pretty good! I'm serious! I laughed out loud at your comeback! I'm not kidding. I think you're, "getting it" man (or woman).

Are you willing to tell me your gender and state or country? If you post it here in this forum I promise not to tell anyone.

But seriously, will you tell us?

My background including my age, profession and town that I live in has been posted multiple times on lots of forums. Its all there. Have you not read any other forums?

lurchadams · Jan 15, 2019

AlphaOmega said:
My background including my age, profession and town that I live in has been posted multiple times on lots of forums. Its all there. Have you not read any other forums?

If I had seen your info I would not have asked you. You can tell me, you can refuse. It's your choice, just trying to learn more about you.

calamity · Jan 15, 2019

DebateChallenge said:
That's very broad. Just about anything can be found on Google. Be more specific.

Google:

Traffic Deaths US

Gun deaths US

The answers you seek will appear on the top of the page.

I cannot believe I have to explain this. But, then again, when I glance up and see which sub forum I am in, I believe.

calamity · Jan 15, 2019

RetiredUSN said:
You of all people, calling other people nuts.

Trouble reading the graph?

TurtleDude · Jan 15, 2019

calamity said:
Any idea on what the trigger pull length is on that S&W Bodyguard? And, can you feel a noticeable difference between the cocking action and the release?

if you want to find out (its longer than many pistols since its DA only) just pm me and we can meet at a range in Northern Cincinnati area and you can try all of them

DebateChallenge · Jan 15, 2019

calamity said:
Google:

Traffic Deaths US

Gun deaths US

The answers you seek will appear on the top of the page.

I cannot believe I have to explain this. But, then again, when I glance up and see which sub forum I am in, I believe.

Putting in such Google searches will bring about multiple results. So which results are you specifically referring to as your source for gun deaths vs car deaths?

zsu2357 · Jan 15, 2019

calamity said:
Only if you consider about two dozen murders, kidnapping, rape and sex trafficking violent. Other than that it’s a story about divorce, kink, redemption, love and friendship.

So basically it's porn?

zsu2357 · Jan 15, 2019

DebateChallenge said:
Being opposed to guns is understandable as people can be ignorant but being opposed to pea shooters? I do suppose pea shooters can be dangerous if not used properly since you could put an eye out which explains why some people might have an aversion to them as there are children's toys that can be dangerous such as lawn darts. I suppose pea shooters can fall in that same category.

When I see pea shooter I think poodle shooter or killer(M-16). Poodle shooter is just a misnomer.

Rich2018 · Jan 15, 2019

RetiredUSN said:
You of all people, calling other people nuts.

Yeah...it's hard to see how those kind of numbers can be seen as any kind of problem.

CFI302 · Jan 19, 2019

calamity said:
Here's an interesting op-ed to chew on.

Do we love our guns more than our children?

Yes, folks. Europe has something we do not. Sanity. And, the key to our insanity is made of steel and was designed to spit out lead.

Invalid argument to claim those of us that are law abiding citizens exercising our RIGHT to own guns hate children because we do.

Based on your mindset, those that support abortion hate children because one is killed every time an abortion takes place.

calamity · Jan 19, 2019

Rich2018 said:
Yeah...it's hard to see how those kind of numbers can be seen as any kind of problem.

My guess is they can't read the numbers. No surprise, really. Is it?

Rucker61 · Jan 19, 2019

calamity said:
My guess is they can't read the numbers. No surprise, really. Is it?

We have different solutions.

What's your proposal for the 28,000 K-12 kids killed in car wrecks since 1999? Do those lives matter?

Maccabee · Jan 19, 2019

Rich2018 said:
Since there is no militia anymore (and yes I know there's a bunch of guys in Texas who parade around a bit)....it's a bit of a moot point.

There is no longer an active militia

QED: There is no longer a need for the 2nd amendment.

Actually, militias do exist and the 2nd amendment isn't reliant of the existance of militias. Alaska, Texas, and several other states have state guards (different from the national guard) that answrrs solely to the governor. Florida has a provision to create a state gaurd if they need to.

zsu2357 · Jan 19, 2019

Maccabee said:
Actually, militias do exist and the 2nd amendment isn't reliant of the existance of militias. Alaska, Texas, and several other states have state guards (different from the national guard) that answrrs solely to the governor. Florida has a provision to create a state gaurd if they need to.

Even OR. has one unless Brown ditched it.

Rich2018 · Jan 20, 2019

Maccabee said:
Actually, militias do exist and the 2nd amendment isn't reliant of the existance of militias. Alaska, Texas, and several other states have state guards (different from the national guard) that answrrs solely to the governor. Florida has a provision to create a state gaurd if they need to.

So what ?

What is the need for a militia when there is the National Guard and the regular army ?

The USA is as well protected as any country on earth. Mexico to the South, Canada to the North and fish to the East and West.

Not much threat of invasion there.

Maccabee · Jan 20, 2019

Rich2018 said:
So what ?

It disproves your point about militias no longer existing.

What is the need for a militia when there is the National Guard and the regular army ?

Moving the goalposts I see. Your original comment did not said that militias are no longer needed, but rather that they no longer exist. But, to answer the question, states use their state guards to supplement their national guard in a major conflict or national disaster since national guardsmen are deployable and answer to both the govornor and the president. State guards only answer to the governor. While Florida disbanded their state guard (however leaving a provision to reinstate it if necessary), they were active in WW2 and were disbanded shortly after

The USA is as well protected as any country on earth. Mexico to the South, Canada to the North and fish to the East and West.

Not much threat of invasion there.

Your point? The allies and treaties we have now may not be the same allies and treaties we have 10 years from now. Plus, state guards serve more than to ward off an invasion. The Texas State Guard was active as recent as Hurricane Harvey.

https://tmd.texas.gov/state-guard

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_State_Guard

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_State_Guard

Rich2018 · Jan 20, 2019

Maccabee said:
It disproves your point about militias no longer existing...

I didn't say they didn't exist...I said they are no longer necessary and exist for ceremonial reasons more than anything.

What good do they do ?

Nothing is the answer.

Do read.

...moving the goalposts I see....

Oh really...how is that

There is no need for a militia when the USA has the world's most powerful military

Just exactly what do you think the role of the militia is ?

...your original comment did not said that militias are no longer needed, but rather that they no longer exist....

Nope, they are no longer needed...I admitted that they do exist but are totally useless in any practical sense

... states use their state guards to supplement their national guard in a major conflict or national disaster since national guardsmen are deployable and answer to both the govornor and the president. State guards only answer to the governor. While Florida disbanded their state guard (however leaving a provision to reinstate it if necessary), they were active in WW2 and were disbanded shortly after...

So in other words, they're totally useless

Disaster relief volunteers don't need guns.

...the allies and treaties we have now may not be the same allies and treaties we have 10 years from now. Plus, state guards serve more than to ward off an invasion. The Texas State Guard was active as recent as Hurricane Harvey....

And they needed their guns for what purpose exactly ?

The regular military and/or the National Guard could perform exactly the same job.

Maccabee · Jan 20, 2019

Rich2018 said:
I didn't say they didn't exist...I said they are no longer necessary and exist for ceremonial reasons more than anything.

So you didn't said this?

Rich2018 said:
Since there is no militia anymore (and yes I know there's a bunch of guys in Texas who parade around a bit)....it's a bit of a moot point.

There is no longer an active militia

QED: There is no longer a need for the 2nd amendment.

What good do they do ?

Nothing is the answer.

Do read.

Which again, you're wrong. As I said, several states have active state guards and they also have done recent operations vital to the sustainability of their respective states.

Oh really...how is that

You furst said that militias don't exist. Now you're saying that they don't do anything.

There is no need for a militia when the USA has the world's most powerful military

Alaska, Texas, and several other states disagree with you.

Just exactly what do you think the role of the militia is ?

Aside from warding off an invasion, they help in national disasters and supplement the state's needs in major conflicts when their national guardsmens are deployed or insufficient.

Nope, they are no longer needed...I admitted that they do exist but are totally useless in any practical sense

Then what is the Texas State Guard and why do they have ongiong current operations they are involved in?

So in other words, they're totally useless

Nope.

Disaster relief volunteers don't need guns.

Except to quell riots and looters.

And they needed their guns for what purpose exactly ?

Same reason why the national guard needs guns during disaster relief.

The regular military and/or the National Guard could perform exactly the same job.

First off, federal troops are rarely deployed to domestic national disasters. Second, the national guard can be overwhelmed or deployed overseas at the time the state needs aid. Let me remind you that you're the one arguing against established and operational procedures, not me.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force

Rich2018 · Jan 21, 2019

Maccabee said:
So you didn't said this?

"...Since there is no militia anymore (and yes I know there's a bunch of guys in Texas who parade around a bit)....it's a bit of a moot point.

There is no longer an active militia..."

Can you NOT read ????

The 2nd amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

Now where is there an ACTIVE militia whose purpose is the security of the state ?

There isn't one.

Rucker61 · Jan 21, 2019

Rich2018 said:
"...Since there is no militia anymore (and yes I know there's a bunch of guys in Texas who parade around a bit)....it's a bit of a moot point.

There is no longer an active militia..."

Can you NOT read ????

The 2nd amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

Now where is there an ACTIVE militia whose purpose is the security of the state ?

There isn't one.

Can you NOT read????

"The Supreme Court held:[47]

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms"

DC v Heller, 2008.

bongsaway · Jan 21, 2019

jamesrage said:
I find it amusing how anti-2nd amendment trash tell us that no one wants to ban guns, no one wants to take your guns away, the NRA/gun owners are just paranoid or some other similar nonsense. While at the same time these same anti-2nd amendment trash are praising the countries that have enacted severe restrictions and or bans on civilian firearms.

And I find it not so amusing when second amendment supporters call first amendment supports trash for voicing their opinion of the second amendment. A debate about guns on the internet is like talking to the dog I don't have.

loving guns more than children

DebateChallenge

DebateChallenge

RetiredUSN

DebateChallenge

AlphaOmega

lurchadams

Zoom Warrior

calamity

Privileged

calamity

Privileged

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

DebateChallenge

zsu2357

zsu2357

Rich2018

CFI302

calamity

Privileged

Rucker61

Maccabee

zsu2357

Rich2018

Maccabee

Rich2018

Maccabee

Rich2018

Rucker61

bongsaway