Quantcast
Delta and United join list of companies to cut ties with the NRA - maybe this truly is the end of gun rights in the US?

Forums - Politics Discussion - Delta and United join list of companies to cut ties with the NRA - maybe this truly is the end of gun rights in the US?

CosmicSex said:

You are crazy.  There is no way, your  guns are going to protect  us from China.  They have nukes.   Just sit down.  Why do all of your paths lead in our death.  How to people even survive in other countries.  Has Russia taken over all other countries?  When did that happen? You can't do a damn thing to 'protect us from China'... you going over there to attack another countries for your own beliefs?  Just so you know thats why no one wants you to have a gun lol. 

China just made Xi it's Emperor.

Is that what you want the future of the world to be like? Under one Emperor?

During the Cold War it was the USA vs. Soviet Union. We could've let the Soviets take over Western Europe but we didn't. You should thank us every day for your freedom.



Around the Network
Puppyroach said:
McDonaldsGuy said:

There are 2 major differences:

1. Once again, if you blame the NRA or all gun owners on a mass shooting then I can blame all drinkers on drunk driving kills. Not to mention almost the majority of gun violence is due to alcohol. Most crime in America has an alcoholic component. Want to save lives? Then get rid of alcohol. (And yes, I know prohibition is a mess which is why I think instead of prohibition we need tougher anti-drunk laws).

2.  "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

1. Where did I blame the NRA or all gun owners for mass shootings? I blame the availability of guns and ease of access for people to get guns. Would the number of gunrelated alcoholinduced homicides go down if there were less guns available? Ofcourse, which is evident in every country that has heavier weapon laws than the US. It always fascinates me how so many people who seem so suspicious of the government that having alot of weaponry somehow would make them feel safer, at the same time live in one of the unsafest country within the OECD. It doesn´t seem to help very much.

2. Exactly, and the text right there opens up for massive regulation of guns. The 2nd amendment doesn´t guarantee availability to all types of weaponry, the government could, if they wished, regulate so that you are only allowed to own up to two hunting rifles for example. They would still follow the 2nd amendment in that case since they don´t infringe on your right to bear arms, just the amount and types of arms. This has also been validated by the supreme court.

1. Yeah you're right, mass murders NEVER happen in Western Europe. Aside from Manchester, Paris, Nice, London, the German airplane dude, Norway, etc. etc.

Oh look - rape in London has increased 20% in just one year: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/rape-london-reports-met-police-rise-crime-sexual-assault-a8225821.html

In the UK, 2 10 year olds raped and beat a 2 year old (named James Burglar) for HOURS if not DAYS. They were both released under new names. Guess what? One of the murderers has been convicted of having child pornography. His sentence? 40 months. He only got 40 months!

Yeah, the UK is "safe" because they don't charge dangerous people with actual crimes. It's what Broward County does to lower it's crime rate - the crime rate is low when you don't charge people with crimes.

2. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Meaning they can't limit us to how much we own - the Supreme Court already ruled on stuff like this in 2008.



Getting a gun should be like getting a drivers license.

You need a permit, and then take a formal test to get your license. You then need to renew your license every 2 or 3yrs. You need good eye vision to drive, if you have bad eye vision then maybe you shouldn't be shooting a gun. You need insurance, and regular maintenance checks. Gasoline is taxed, and you can't buy gasoline online, so they should do that for bullets as well.

Last edited by deskpro2k3 - on 26 February 2018

deskpro2k3 said:

Getting a gun should be like getting a drivers license.

You need a permit, and then take a formal test to get your license. You then need to renew your license every 2 or 3yrs. You need good eye vision to drive, if you have bad eye vision then maybe you shouldn't be shooting a gun. You need insurance, and regular maintenance checks. Gasoline is taxed, and you can't buy gasoline online, so they should do that for bullets as well.

Not acceptable.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."



McDonaldsGuy said:
deskpro2k3 said:

Getting a gun should be like getting a drivers license.

You need a permit, and then take a formal test to get your license. You then need to renew your license every 2 or 3yrs. You need good eye vision to drive, if you have bad eye vision then maybe you shouldn't be shooting a gun. You need insurance, and regular maintenance checks. Gasoline is taxed, and you can't buy gasoline online, so they should do that for bullets as well.

Not acceptable.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The statement you quote says "a well regulated militia." Why is that part not important?



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

Around the Network
RolStoppable said:
McDonaldsGuy said:

Not acceptable.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The statement you quote says "a well regulated militia." Why is that part not important?

It's explaining the reason we need the amendment.

It is saying that the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, because a well regulated militia is necessary for a free state.

Let me give you a recent example: literally this week China has just declared that Xi can be the President of China for a lifetime. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/emperor-xi-china-gambles-on-return-to-lifetime-rule-9991724

China doesn't have the right to bear arms, so this is their defense against a rogue state:

(Jeff Widener, Associated Press)

The second amendment has NOTHING to do with self defense or hunting. It has EVERYTHING to do with defending ourselves from a possible rogue government.



McDonaldsGuy said:
RolStoppable said:

The statement you quote says "a well regulated militia." Why is that part not important?

It's explaining the reason we need the amendment.

It is saying that the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, because a well regulated militia is necessary for a free state.

Let me give you a recent example: literally this week China has just declared that Xi can be the President of China for a lifetime. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/emperor-xi-china-gambles-on-return-to-lifetime-rule-9991724

China doesn't have the right to bear arms, so this is their defense against a rogue state:

(Associated Press)

The second amendment has NOTHING to do with self defense or hunting. It has EVERYTHING to do with defending ourselves from a possible rogue government.

I understand that you need to bear arms, but if you truly believe in the validity of the second amendment, you need to live by "a well regulated militia" as well instead of dismissing it as unimportant. "Well regulated" means basic things like, "That guy is an idiot and cannot be trusted, so he shouldn't be allowed to own a gun. Because if push comes to shove, chances are good that he will hurt one of us instead of the enemy."



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

WolfpackN64 said:
irstupid said:

More of the whole slippery slope. Each new shooting we ban one more gun, or one more gun accessory. Fox News is told in court they are not real news cause of all the opinion stuff. The way other news sites are like CNN these days, I can see others lose that. Trump mentions a gov't run news station to prevent bias. Protesters constantly preventing people they don't agree with from speaking at public places like universities. Mentions of banning certain words due to their hatefulness.  ECT.

In say 100 years, is it unfathomable to imagine a US that all weapons are banned, all news is government run and you can be jailed for speaking out in public on something people don't agree with?

But lets talk only this one case. But as for your bolded. Lets say their are better rules for gun ownership. Tell me how that would have prevented this event? The only people surprised by the school shooting and didn't see it coming where his guardians who are coincidentally trying to now get his $800,000.00 inheritance. At least two people contacted the FBI and warned them about this person doing a school shooting. The police had been to his house like 30+ times. He was expelled from school. He had photos of animals he killed and such on facebook. What did anyone do to prevent him from his mass murder? NOTHING. Whether he used a gun or not, he would have done something and it was apparent to everyone, except the people trying to get his money. Yet what was done? NOTHING.

Can you structure your argument more clearly? I don't see the point you're trying to make.

I have two points.

1. This school schooting was 100% the fault of the police, FBI, ect for not doing anything. They all seemed to know this kid was messed up and trouble and yet nothing was done. His method of killing is not the problem, the problem was knowing a killing would happen and ignoring it.

2. The slippery slope is what a slippery slope always is. Think of DLC/microtransactions. In the start they were little things and slowly it has become worse and worse. Even when you have huge outcry like EA battlefront, they still sell millions and micros are not going away. Same with laws. Think of gun laws. Lets say their is a shooting and they ban automatic weapons. Then next shooting they ban silencers. Then next shooting they ban semi-auto's. then next shooting they ban shotguns, ect. It's a common thing to do. you know you can't ban something or implement something all at once, so you take baby steps.

It's the classic situation where you don't care until they finally come after you. I'm sure you would laugh, scoff or get angry whenever someone comes out and tries to blame video games for violence. But that is what I'm talking about. They ban guns finally. You don't care cause you don't have any guns.  Violence still persists, so they ban knives. Again you don't care cause you don't have knives. Violence still persists, so they then ban violence on tv, movies and video games. Now you care and are complaining that they are coming after you and that video game and movies don't cause violence.

 

BTW, I do blame video games and movies more than guns for violence. Guns, bombs or weapons of any kind are just tools. It's a mental thing that makes one do violence. is that video games or movies? Sure for some. It could also be NRA meetings, church, parents, friends influence, facebook post, movie, book, ect. All those things and more influence a persons thinking, mentality, character, ect. A gun is just a tool. An effective tool, but a tool non the less. Think of Nuclear energy. It can be used to power a city, or it can be used to reduce it to ashes. It all depends on the person who is using it's motives. The splitting of atoms itself is not the enemy.



RolStoppable said:
McDonaldsGuy said:

It's explaining the reason we need the amendment.

It is saying that the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, because a well regulated militia is necessary for a free state.

Let me give you a recent example: literally this week China has just declared that Xi can be the President of China for a lifetime. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/emperor-xi-china-gambles-on-return-to-lifetime-rule-9991724

China doesn't have the right to bear arms, so this is their defense against a rogue state:

(Associated Press)

The second amendment has NOTHING to do with self defense or hunting. It has EVERYTHING to do with defending ourselves from a possible rogue government.

I understand that you need to bear arms, but if you truly believe in the validity of the second amendment, you need to live by "a well regulated militia" as well instead of dismissing it as unimportant. "Well regulated" means basic things like, "That guy is an idiot and cannot be trusted, so he shouldn't be allowed to own a gun. Because if push comes to shove, chances are good that he will hurt one of us instead of the enemy."

All well and good in theory, but how easy is it to imagine this scenario.

1. We have a school shooting in florida and dozens die. Shooter was mentally deranged and should have never had a gun. (this is true and what just happened)

2. We increase gun regulation to help further prevent unfit people from owning a gun. (Sounds great. Common sense)

3. School shooting involving a mentally deranged person that the system missed somehow. (Totally plausible. Hell the current situation, the FBI was told TWICE about this shooter and did nothing)

4. Due to the new provisions not working, more strict measure put into place such as banning certain guns. (Not all guns, but just one or two)

5. Go back to #1 and rinse and repeat until finally all guns are banned.

Many people would celebrate this happening. And as Star Wars put it so eloquently. So this is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause. Say what you want about the prequels, they do tell a somewhat compelling story of how a free republic can unknowingly and voluntarily turn itself into a dictatorship.



RolStoppable said:

I understand that you need to bear arms, but if you truly believe in the validity of the second amendment, you need to live by "a well regulated militia" as well instead of dismissing it as unimportant. "Well regulated" means basic things like, "That guy is an idiot and cannot be trusted, so he shouldn't be allowed to own a gun. Because if push comes to shove, chances are good that he will hurt one of us instead of the enemy."

The "well regulated" part is basically saying that a well regulated militia is necessary for a free state. It's explaining the reason we need the right to bear arms.

That guy may be an idiot and cannot be trusted, but we can't take away constitutional rights. Know what else we could do if we go down that path? We can chop off people's arms for stealing a loaf of bread, or throw someone in jail without charges indefinitely. But we don't because we need to protect ourselves against Government tyranny - and one of the reasons we are able to do is because of our rights to bear arms.

Now if someone is CONVICTED then sure, there can be restrictions as per 5th amendment.