Stop the Slaughter of Our Children With These Weapons of War

[Rich2018]

I've got no problem owning guns as I am not suicidal nor am I involved with gangs.

Neither was anyone suicidal or a gang member before they developed suicidal feelings or joined a gang respectively.

 

[Samwise]

Neither was anyone suicidal or a gang member before they developed suicidal feelings or joined a gang respectively.

You should cut off their hands so there is no way that they can use a gun.

Right?

 

[Rich2018]

You should cut off their hands so there is no way that they can use a gun.

Right?

Did you not see my earlier reply?

Do you know the origin of the British "V" sign ?


Hint: It goes back way before Churchill.

 

[Chillfolks]

Did you not see my earlier reply?

Do you know the origin of the British "V" sign ?


Hint: It goes back way before Churchill.

The story I always heard was it waa about archers showing it as a big FU showing they still had the fingers nessecary to use a bow.

 

[calamity]

The ability to kill a bad guy is freedom, its freedom from being robbed, raped, murdered, etc and/or having such stuff happen to your family when you kill the bad guy who would do such stuff.

That is such bull****. Statistics show the person least likely to be killed by a gun in the home is a “bad guy.”

 

[DebateChallenge]

That is such bull****. Statistics show the person least likely to be killed by a gun in the home is a “bad guy.”

Show me the statistics.

 

[Rich2018]

The story I always heard was it waa about archers showing it as a big FU showing they still had the fingers nessecary to use a bow.

That's right

According to the legend, the French cut off the middle and fore fingers from captured Englishmen so they couldn't draw a bowstring

The famous "V" sign was to show the French that they still had their fingers.

 

[calamity]

Show me the statistics.

Again?

 

[Rich2018]

Again?

I think he's showing AADD symptoms again.

 

[TurtleDude]

Again?

you've never proven that claim of yours

 

[CLAX1911]

It's not an assault weapon.

Neither's this:


View attachment 67261824

Assault weapon is a term attached to rifles with features that don't make it and deadlier. So it's rhetorical.

 

[CLAX1911]

Did you not see my earlier reply?

Do you know the origin of the British "V" sign ?


Hint: It goes back way before Churchill.

Well if you didn't have hands you would have far less success committing suicide or murder. Every argument you make against guns can be made against hands, and then some. Why don't you believe those killed by knife or bludgeon have the right to life?

 

[DebateChallenge]

Again?

You never did show the statistics.

 

[Rich2018]

Well if you didn't have hands you would have far less success committing suicide or murder. Every argument you make against guns can be made against hands, and then some. Why don't you believe those killed by knife or bludgeon have the right to life?

OK, make an argument for Sharia law (they cut off hands for some crimes)


I think you'll have trouble getting past the bit in the Constitution that forbids "cruel and unusual punishments"

 

[calamity]

you've never proven that claim of yours

Nonsense. Gun in home is more likely to kill a resident than a bad guy. Well established fact.

 

[CLAX1911]

OK, make an argument for Sharia law (they cut off hands for some crimes)

You are making that argument. You are arguing against liberty.

I think you'll have trouble getting past the bit in the Constitution that forbids "cruel and unusual punishments"

Your gun ban and confiscation will violate several amendments.

 

[Rich2018]

You are making that argument.

That is a lie

Please provide the post #

Your gun ban and confiscation will violate several amendments.

Apart from the 2nd, it won't

Please give other amendments how explain how a gun ban (authorized by a constitution amendment necessary to repeal the 2nd amendment) violates it/them.

 

[CLAX1911]

That is a lie

Please provide the post #

true you're not making that argument but the logic follows your argument. If people didn't have guns they couldn't kill people with guns. If people didn't have hands they couldn't kill people with hands.
Those two sentences are exactly the same except for the subject so the logic is equal. One is just slightly more extreme.

Apart from the 2nd, it won't

No you would also have to repeal the 4th sorry

In order to search and seize without a warrant you will have to remove the forth amendment. In order to get a warrant you have to have probable cause. If you remove the necessity for probable cause you have repealed the 4th amendment.

 

[Rich2018]

...if people didn't have guns they couldn't kill people with guns....

Largely true I'd say

If people didn't have hands they couldn't kill people with hands.

Never heard of prosthetic limbs ?

Those two sentences are exactly the same except for the subject so the logic is equal.

No they're not and so no it's not.

No you would also have to repeal the 4th sorry

In order to search and seize without a warrant you will have to remove the forth amendment. In order to get a warrant you have to have probable cause. If you remove the necessity for probable cause you have repealed the 4th amendment.

Nope there's nothing in the 4th amendment that prevents a ban on guns

You would search and seize WITH a warrant
Why do you think any search for illegal guns and their seizure if found would be done without a warrant ?

Why do you think getting probable cause would be a problem ?

 

[CLAX1911]

Largely true I'd say




Never heard of prosthetic limbs ?




No they're not and so no it's not.





Nope there's nothing in the 4th amendment that prevents a ban on guns

You would search and seize WITH a warrant
Why do you think any search for illegal guns and their seizure if found would be done without a warrant ?

Why do you think getting probable cause would be a problem ?

The Fourth Amendment states that you must have a warrant to do a search and that you must have probable cause to get a warrant. The possibility that you might have guns is not probable cause.

 

[Rich2018]

The Fourth Amendment states that you must have a warrant to do a search and that you must have probable cause to get a warrant. The possibility that you might have guns is not probable cause.

See my post above:


"You would search and seize WITH a warrant
Why do you think any search for illegal guns and their seizure if found would be done without a warrant ?

Why do you think getting probable cause would be a problem ?


I bolded it so you could see it.

 

[Samwise]

See my post above:


"You would search and seize WITH a warrant
Why do you think any search for illegal guns and their seizure if found would be done without a warrant ?

Why do you think getting probable cause would be a problem ?


I bolded it so you could see it.

Per the general welfare clause, it would probably be best simply to cut off everyone's hands. Then there would be no way they could shoot anyone.

 

[CLAX1911]

See my post above:


"You would search and seize WITH a warrant
Why do you think any search for illegal guns and their seizure if found would be done without a warrant ?

Why do you think getting probable cause would be a problem ?


I bolded it so you could see it.

How would you get probable cause that someone has a gun?

 

[Rich2018]

Per the general welfare clause, it would probably be best simply to cut off everyone's hands. Then there would be no way they could shoot anyone.

Would that not be an example of "common" welfare

Can you explain the difference and give examples of both ?

 

[Samwise]

Would that not be an example of "common" welfare

Can you explain the difference and give examples of both ?

Yes it would be. cut off all their hands because of general welfare.

Right?