YAY!! Walmart steps up!

Rich2018 · Nov 10, 2019

VanceMack said:
If I see a guy with gun either slung or holstered, Im truly not concerned. if I see that guy take his gun and load a magazine...Im concerned.

Aren't citizens allowed to open carry a loaded gun in condition 1 ?

...when I am standing behind you in a line at the bank or on a bus, how do you know Im not a threat? DO you think that just because you cant see the weapon doesnt mean there is potentially a weapon there?

No, I would imagine many victims of an active shooter never know there's a threat near them

...when a mass shooter starts...you damn sure do know. They arent people walking around casually constitutionally carrying. So its rather telling that while we agree...they are douchebags and dont need to be doing it, you spend a WHOLE lot of your time invested in panicking over scenarios that dont happen.

An active shooter can only be helped if he's allowed to carry his gun into an area.

How do you know an active shooter isn't going to walk into Walmart with a gun strapped to him only to swing it into his shoulder in the blink of an eye ?

VanceMack · Nov 10, 2019

Rich2018 said:
Excuse 2.2

so ban guns so the active shooter doesn't have one.

Where would you rather be, a place that prohibits guns or one that allows open and concealed carry.

I would rather be in a country that respects the Constitution. Open and/or concealed carry does not frighten me. "Gun Free Zones" have proven repeatedly to be target rich environments. Your mindset is embarrassing. You are the same type of person that thinks a woman is safe because she has a restraining order against a violent partner.

Nah...I'd rather be in a place that allows responsible citizens to be responsible citizens. You can do whatever the **** you want. And if you are ever unfortunate enough to get caught up in one of those violent scenarios, you can bend over and kiss your ass goodbye while you count the 16-20 minutes or so that it takes law enforcement to respond to the scene and secure the place after the shooting has all stopped.

Rich2018 · Nov 11, 2019

VanceMack said:
I would rather be in a country that respects the Constitution...

So if the 2nd Amendment was repealed by a subsequent amendment that banned private ownership of gun, you'd 100% accept it and totally respect the Constitution ?

DebateChallenge · Nov 11, 2019

Rich2018 said:
So if the 2nd Amendment was repealed by a subsequent amendment that banned private ownership of gun, you'd 100% accept it and totally respect the Constitution ?

First the 2nd Article, yes its an article not an amendment, would have to be repealed. Just how do you suppose that could happen?

VanceMack · Nov 11, 2019

Rich2018 said:
So if the 2nd Amendment was repealed by a subsequent amendment that banned private ownership of gun, you'd 100% accept it and totally respect the Constitution ?

Did you accept the first 100 or so rulings against gay marriage or did you advocate continuing to fight against it til you got your way?

but sure...start there. Amend the Constitution and we'll talk. If we have reached a point where there are enough mindless ****s that would vote to kill the 2nd Amendment the country is pretty much ****ed anyway.

Rich2018 · Nov 11, 2019

DebateChallenge said:
First the 2nd Article, yes its an article not an amendment, would have to be repealed. Just how do you suppose that could happen?

By passing a subsequent amendment to the Constitution, repealing the 2nd Amendment.

Rich2018 · Nov 11, 2019

VanceMack said:
Did you accept the first 100 or so rulings against gay marriage or did you advocate continuing to fight against it til you got your way?

but sure...start there. Amend the Constitution and we'll talk. If we have reached a point where there are enough mindless ****s that would vote to kill the 2nd Amendment the country is pretty much ****ed anyway.

Never give up fighting for what you believe

DebateChallenge · Nov 11, 2019

Rich2018 said:
By passing a subsequent amendment to the Constitution, repealing the 2nd Amendment.

And how do you suppose you could get the government to do that?

Rich2018 · Nov 11, 2019

DebateChallenge said:
And how do you suppose you could get the government to do that?

By following the process as laid down by the US Constitution itself ?

DebateChallenge · Nov 11, 2019

Rich2018 said:
By following the process as laid down by the US Constitution itself ?

And such a process would involve getting enough people elected who would want to repeal the 2A.

Rich2018 · Nov 11, 2019

DebateChallenge said:
And such a process would involve getting enough people elected who would want to repeal the 2A.

Yes it would.

The abolition of slavery and expansion of civil rights to include voting also faced similar hurdles in getting sufficient support.

DebateChallenge · Nov 11, 2019

Rich2018 said:
Yes it would.

The abolition of slavery and expansion of civil rights to include voting also faced similar hurdles in getting sufficient support.

Here's the difference, the abolition of slavery and the expansion of civil rights both sought to give people more rights, a movement to repeal the 2A seeks to take away people's rights.

Rich2018 · Nov 11, 2019

DebateChallenge said:
Here's the difference, the abolition of slavery and the expansion of civil rights both sought to give people more rights, a movement to repeal the 2A seeks to take away people's rights.

More rights, as does the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

The right to life, liberty and happiness...you know not to be shot.

The emancipation of the slaves and civil rights both seemed beyond reach at one point, but they were attained and laws were passed in the face of hostile opposition.

DebateChallenge · Nov 11, 2019

Rich2018 said:
More rights, as does the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

The right to life, liberty and happiness...you know not to be shot.

We have laws that prohibit murder and that includes murder by gunshot. Another words, we already have laws that say you can't shoot people except in certain situations such as when faced with a home intruder and so forth.

So there you have it, the right to life, liberty, and happiness is taken care of, at least in terms of not being shot.

Rich2018 said:
The emancipation of the slaves and civil rights both seemed beyond reach at one point, but they were attained and laws were passed in the face of hostile opposition.

Slavery and the oppression of people have always been highly controversial, ever since they first existed in the USA. The right to bear arms has not been highly controversial, not back when it was put in the constitution.

Rich2018 · Nov 11, 2019

DebateChallenge said:
...Another words, we already have laws that say you can't shoot people...

I think you mean "in other words"

How are existing laws at preventing gun crime and accidents.
How do laws help stop mass shooters who usually expect to be caught and generally kill themselves to end the shooting

...the right to life, liberty, and happiness is taken care of, at least in terms of not being shot....

And if you could, how would you explain US law and prevention of gun crime to the 10,000 homicide victims a year or the almost one pay day mass shooting or the 70,000 victims of accidental gun related injury per year ?

...slavery and the oppression of people have always been highly controversial, ever since they first existed in the USA. The right to bear arms has not been highly controversial, not back when it was put in the constitution.

Gun ownership has been a hot topic for more than a few years now.

Do you listen to what Democratic presidential candidates say about gun control or do you dismiss what they say out of hand ?

DebateChallenge · Nov 11, 2019

Rich2018 said:
I think you mean "in other words"

How are existing laws at preventing gun crime and accidents.

People who get caught committing gun crime are put away so they can't do it again.

Rich2018 said:
How do laws help stop mass shooters who usually expect to be caught and generally kill themselves to end the shooting

Unless we can somehow have the clairvoyance to see beforehand who will do a mass killing, yes I said mass killing of which a mass shooting is just one type of, there is no laws we can pass to stop mass killers, including mass shooters.

The only way to stop mass killers, including mass shooters, is to know who they are beforehand.

Rich2018 said:
And if you could, how would you explain US law and prevention of gun crime to the 10,000 homicide victims a year or the almost one pay day mass shooting or the 70,000 victims of accidental gun related injury per year ?

Poor enforcement and poor application of existing law.

Rich2018 said:
Gun ownership has been a hot topic for more than a few years now.

For a few years, yes. From the time the country got started, no. Two hundred years ago, even a hundred years ago, was gun ownership a hot topic back then? No. It was accepted back then that people had the right to own guns and it wasn't challenged.
There has never been any articles in the Constitution that back up or support slavery. There has never been any articles in the constitution that back up or support segregation. There is an article in the constitution that backs up and supports the right to keep and bear arms, the 2nd article.

Rich2018 said:
Do you listen to what Democratic presidential candidates say about gun control or do you dismiss what they say out of hand ?

As I said, the right to keep and bear arms was not a hot topic when the country got started, and for most of the country's history. Im not talking about current politicians.

Rich2018 · Nov 11, 2019

DebateChallenge said:
People who get caught committing gun crime are put away so they can't do it again....

Is once not enough ?

...unless we can somehow have the clairvoyance to see beforehand who will do a mass killing, yes I said mass killing of which a mass shooting is just one type of, there is no laws we can pass to stop mass killers, including mass shooters....

Bingo

...poor enforcement and poor application of existing law....

And you'd offer your thoughts and prayers

How do gun laws apply in absence of foresight ?
Everyone is born an "honest citizen" and every felon or gun owner suffering an accident was good once

...two hundred years ago, even a hundred years ago, was gun ownership a hot topic back then? No. It was accepted back then that people had the right to own guns and it wasn't challenged....

It wasn't needed back then

There weren't any school or church shootings

...there has never been any articles in the Constitution that back up or support slavery....

But amendments were required to abolish it and then to ensure black people were given equality.

...there is an article in the constitution that backs up and supports the right to keep and bear arms, the 2nd article....

So what, that effective gun control legislation is hard to pass ? Yeah we know that
As you pointed out, in the 18th century there was little in the way of counter argument in the form of school mass shootings...hard to do with 18th century technology.
We're in the 21st century now and need 21st century laws.

As I said, the right to keep and bear arms was not a hot topic when the country got started, and for most of the country's history. Im not talking about current politicians.[/QUOTE]

DebateChallenge · Nov 11, 2019

Rich2018 said:
Is once not enough ?

People should be stopped and punished when they commit crime but there is no way to know beforehand who is going to do what. For every criminal there is always a first time but until then they're innocent, that's how its done in the USA.

Rich2018 said:
Bingo

So you finally see the light, congratulations.

Rich2018 said:
And you'd offer your thoughts and prayers

How do gun laws apply in absence of foresight ?
Everyone is born an "honest citizen" and every felon or gun owner suffering an accident was good once

We need better enforcement and application of the law.
And yes, everybody is born with a clean record in the USA. Here, you're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.

Rich2018 said:
It wasn't needed back then

There weren't any school or church shootings

And yet they had guns back then. So the fact that they did have guns back then and did not have school and church shootings just goes to prove my point that its not the guns.

Rich2018 said:
But amendments were required to abolish it and then to ensure black people were given equality.

But there were never any amendments that supported it, in the BOR or in the rest of the Constitution.

Rich2018 said:
So what, that effective gun control legislation is hard to pass ? Yeah we know that

Depends on what kind of "effective gun control legislation" you're talking about. Something as radical as abolishing an article in the BOR is not only highly unlikely, its practically impossible.

Rich2018 said:
As you pointed out, in the 18th century there was little in the way of counter argument in the form of school mass shootings...hard to do with 18th century technology.

In the 1800s they had repeating rifles, semi automatic handguns, and they even had the first machine-gun, the gatling gun.

Rich2018 said:
We're in the 21st century now and need 21st century laws.

Guns haven't changed much in the last 100 years, at least not in terms of functionality and effectiveness.

Rich2018 · Nov 11, 2019

DebateChallenge said:
People should be stopped and punished when they commit crime but there is no way to know beforehand who is going to do what...

Which is the rationale of banning all guns

...we need better enforcement and application of the law.
And yes, everybody is born with a clean record in the USA. Here, you're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty....

The USA has a proportionately bigger prison population than anywhere else in the Western world - how much more do you want ?

...and yet they had guns back then. So the fact that they did have guns back then and did not have school and church shootings just goes to prove my point that its not the guns....

There were no school shootings so it wasn't the guns
There are now so it is

Take away guns and you have no shootings - why can't you see that ?

...but there were never any amendments that supported it, in the BOR or in the rest of the Constitution....

So what ?

Are you saying that Constitutional amendments to free slaves and have them equal under the law and to establish civil rights were un-necessary ?

...depends on what kind of "effective gun control legislation" you're talking about....

Banning guns, anything less is a half measure

...in the 1800s they had repeating rifles, semi automatic handguns, and they even had the first machine-gun, the gatling gun....

The Gatling gun wasn't actually a true machine gun as it relied on human power.

You're misreading or misunderstanding the term. The 1800's were NOT part of the 18th century.

...guns haven't changed much in the last 100 years, at least not in terms of functionality and effectiveness.

BS

Talk to a gun smith before you spew more gun rubbish.

1919 versus 2019 gun technology.

Chillfolks · Nov 11, 2019

Rich2018 said:
BS

Talk to a gun smith before you spew more gun rubbish.

1919 versus 2019 gun technology.

What are the major differences you see between the functionality and effectiveness in that 100 year span? I can see there is a difference in materials and powder used, but those are not innovations to the functionality of the firearm. A semi auto firearm works mostly the same way it did 100 years ago.

Rich2018 · Nov 11, 2019

Chillfolks said:
What are the major differences you see between the functionality and effectiveness in that 100 year span? I can see there is a difference in materials and powder used, but those are not innovations to the functionality of the firearm. A semi auto firearm works mostly the same way it did 100 years ago.

Full auto on a hand held gun...and yes I know that in 1918 the Germans introduced the MP-18

Striker fired guns

Improvements in the quality and the design of ammunition

Lightweight construction

DebateChallenge · Nov 11, 2019

Rich2018 said:
Which is the rationale of banning all guns

Banning guns won't stop crime. You don't need guns to commit crime.

Rich2018 said:
The USA has a proportionately bigger prison population than anywhere else in the Western world - how much more do you want ?

I want a much smaller prison population, which is why we shouldn't put people in prison who don't deserve to be there. It should be reserved for criminals.

Rich2018 said:
There were no school shootings so it wasn't the guns
There are now so it is

Back then they were able to have guns and no school shootings, there is no reason why we can't do that today.

Rich2018 said:
Take away guns and you have no shootings - why can't you see that ?

Number one, you don't have to take away guns to have no shootings. You can have guns and no shootings.
Number two, good luck trying to take away the guns, there are more guns than there are people in the USA, you can't get toothpaste back in the tube.

Rich2018 said:
So what ?

Are you saying that Constitutional amendments to free slaves and have them equal under the law and to establish civil rights were un-necessary ?

I never said that. What Im saying is that was done to free slaves and establish civil rights can't be done to ban guns.

Rich2018 said:
Banning guns, anything less is a half measure

And as I said, that's practically impossible.

Rich2018 said:
The Gatling gun wasn't actually a true machine gun as it relied on human power.

The Maxim gun was not human powered, it was the first true machine gun and it was invented in 1884.

Rich2018 said:
You're misreading or misunderstanding the term. The 1800's were NOT part of the 18th century.

No duh.
The 1800s are the 19th century and we didn't have school and church shootings then either and gun control was not a hot topic then, but they did have repeating rifles, semi automatic handguns, and machine-guns as I stated above.

Rich2018 said:
BS

Talk to a gun smith before you spew more gun rubbish.

1919 versus 2019 gun technology.

The Colt 1911 is still a very popular handgun today and it was invented in the year 1911, hence its name. The .30-06 rifle round is a very popular rifle round to this day. Its a .30 caliber round and it came out in 1906, that's why its called the .30-06. A popular handgun caliber, the .38, came out in 1898 and the most popular handgun round to this day, the 9mm, came out in 1902.

Rich2018 · Nov 11, 2019

DebateChallenge said:
Banning guns won't stop crime....

Never said it would

Just gun crime...and accidents

...I want a much smaller prison population, which is why we shouldn't put people in prison who don't deserve to be there. It should be reserved for criminals....

Who in US prisons isn't regarded as a "criminal" ?

...back then they were able to have guns and no school shootings, there is no reason why we can't do that today....

Other that the desire of way too many people to commit mass shootings

...you don't have to take away guns to have no shootings. You can have guns and no shootings....

In the USA, please tell how

...number two, good luck trying to take away the guns...

Excuse # 3.1

...that was done to free slaves and establish civil rights can't be done to ban guns....

Yes it can, pass an amendment to repeal the 2nd amendment and ban guns.

...and as I said, that's practically impossible...

And as I replied excuse #3.1

...the Maxim gun was not human powered...

The Gatling gun, which was the gun you mentioned, not the maxim, was

...the 1800s are the 19th century...

Yes, so why mention guns that came into service in the later half of the 1800's as a response to a post about guns and law of the 18th century ?

...the Colt 1911 is still a very popular handgun today and it was invented in the year 1911...

No, that's when it was adopted by the US Army, not when it was invented.

DebateChallenge · Nov 12, 2019

Rich2018 said:
Who in US prisons isn't regarded as a "criminal" ?

Lots of people break the law out of ignorance, not because they're trying to commit crime. We have too many people in prison who do such stuff.

Rich2018 said:
Other that the desire of way too many people to commit mass shootings

That's why we need good security to stop the mass shooters, and the mass bombers, and the mass arsonists, you get the point, or maybe you don't.

Rich2018 said:
In the USA, please tell how

Go to Front Sight in Pahrump, Nevada. Over there, everybody's got guns, and the only shootings there are the ones done at the paper targets.

Rich2018 said:
Excuse # 3.1

Exactly what is excuse # 3.1 and why is it by your definition an excuse?

Rich2018 said:
Yes it can, pass an amendment to repeal the 2nd amendment and ban guns.

Before I even get into the backlash that that would cause not to mention the fact that it would be illegal to do that since unlike the rest of the Constitution the BOR is not to be messed with or altered by the government and that includes adding further amendments that would render the BOR null and void let me say that first you would have to have two thirds of both houses of Congress to pass such an amendment and then get three fourths of the state legislatures to ratify it, just how do you intend to get them to do that?

Rich2018 said:
And as I replied excuse #3.1

See above

Rich2018 said:
The Gatling gun, which was the gun you mentioned, not the maxim, was

Both are examples of rapid fire weapons, but the point is that there were not school and church shootings when the maxim was invented and used, and it is a fully automatic machine-gun.

Rich2018 said:
Yes, so why mention guns that came into service in the later half of the 1800's as a response to a post about guns and law of the 18th century ?

Because mass shootings were not a problem then either, and gun control was not a hot topic back then either.

Rich2018 said:
No, that's when it was adopted by the US Army, not when it was invented.

The point is, there were guns that were used 100+ years ago that are still in common use today, the 1911 is just one example.

Rich2018 · Nov 12, 2019

DebateChallenge said:
Lots of people break the law out of ignorance, not because they're trying to commit crime. We have too many people in prison who do such stuff...

Whilst ignorance of the law is no defense, are you aware of a single case where someone has been imprisoned for breaking a law they didn't know they were breaking - or did you invent that stat out of thin air ?

...that's why we need good security to stop the mass shooters...

The USA has good security, it's found it's not effective at preventing mass shootings
Only banning guns can do that.

...go to Front Sight in Pahrump, Nevada. Over there, everybody's got guns, and the only shootings there are the ones done at the paper targets

Low population, low crime rate

Are you saying there are no mass shootings in places with lots of guns because you'd be wrong

Go to anywhere in the UK, there are no mass shootings and NO-ONE has a gun

...what is excuse # 3.1 and why is it by your definition an excuse?

Anti-Gun Control Excuses:

1. Gun ownership is a right superseding any law or constitution

2. Guns are needed because:
2.1 Some people live to far away from a store to buy meat and need guns to feed themselves
2.2 Without guns to defend themselves, they'd be dead/robbed/raped in a day/week/month/year

3. Gun Control is Impractical because:
3.1 There are way too many guns who even a country as powerful as the USA to collect/confiscate
3.2 No law enforcement official would obey an order to disarm a fellow citizen anyway (Constitutional or not).

All are excuses and have been thoroughly debunked

...it would be illegal to do that since unlike the rest of the Constitution the BOR is not to be messed with or altered by the government...

The ten amendments in the Bill of Rights can be repealed just like another other part of the Constitution.

...both are examples of rapid fire weapons, but the point is that there were not school and church shootings when the maxim was invented and used, and it is a fully automatic machine-gun....

You specifically mentioned the Gatling gun as a machine gun - it was not a true machine gun. The unmentioned Maxim gun was
You also stated the Gatling gun was available in the 1800's and it was, but we were talking about the 18th CENTURY not the 1800's which made up the 19th CENTURY (apart from the year 1800 itself)

...the point is, there were guns that were used 100+ years ago that are still in common use today, the 1911 is just one example.

But you erroneously made a statement that the M1911 is so called because it was invented then - it was not.

YAY!! Walmart steps up!

Rich2018

VanceMack

Less like the tiger...more like the lion.

Rich2018

DebateChallenge

VanceMack

Less like the tiger...more like the lion.

Rich2018

Rich2018

DebateChallenge

Rich2018

DebateChallenge

Rich2018

DebateChallenge

Rich2018

DebateChallenge

Rich2018

DebateChallenge

Rich2018

DebateChallenge

Rich2018

Chillfolks

Rich2018

DebateChallenge

Rich2018

DebateChallenge

Rich2018