Vegas and Automatic Weapons

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If you are concerned, then you don't know what I am doing, probably because I am not articulating it well.

you act as there are no gun laws and no 'restrictions' currently exist

I've repeatedly agreed that bumps stocks should go away...I think you just like saying "bump stock"

thoughtless, extremist slavery/child pornography defenders...that's an all time low


I feel like I'm talking to Nancy Pelosi

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by scottw

you act as there are no gun laws and no 'restrictions' currently exist

I've repeatedly agreed that bumps stocks should go away...I think you just like saying "bump stock"

thoughtless, extremist slavery/child pornography defenders...that's an all time low


I feel like I'm talking to Nancy Pelosi

You can fantasize about Pelosi. You just can’t own one
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

You can fantasize about Pelosi. You just can’t own one
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

[QUOTE=scottw;1129673][/QUOTE

I’m in love

https://goo.gl/images/ExV5jp
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

you act as there are no gun laws and no 'restrictions' currently exist

I've repeatedly agreed that bumps stocks should go away...I think you just like saying "bump stock"

thoughtless, extremist slavery/child pornography defenders...that's an all time low


I feel like I'm talking to Nancy Pelosi

I feel like I'm talking to a liberal too. You are claiming I am saying things, that bear no resemblance to anything I have ever said.

"you act as there are no gun laws"

In what way am I acting as if there are no laws? Of course there are laws. In my opinion, they can be improved. In fact, I am very confident they can be improve din a way which (1) saves a few lives (but doesn't eliminate 100% of gun violence, obviously), and (2) doesn't trample on the intent of the second amendment. That's all I am saying. I'm not saying the earth is flat...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I feel like I'm talking to a liberal too. You are claiming I am saying things, that bear no resemblance to anything I have ever said.

"you act as there are no gun laws"

If it's unconstitutional to impose restrictions to the second amendment for the sake of public safety, why is it considered not unconstitutional to impose restrictions to other amendments for the sake of public safety?


In what way am I acting as if there are no laws? Of course there are laws. In my opinion, they can be improved. In fact, I am very confident they can be improve din a way which (1) saves a few lives (but doesn't eliminate 100% of gun violence, obviously), and (2) doesn't trample on the intent of the second amendment. That's all I am saying. I'm not saying the earth is flat...

:kewl you seem upset that I'm not a hysterical as you

I agreed with regard to bump stocks....limit the number of guns?...he had a bunch but only used "two" I believe

restrictions "to the second amendment" can not stop people from doing evil acts...just as "restrictions to the 1st"...cannot stop someone from yelling fire in a theater(talk about tired arguments)

that is why Rights come with Responsibilities...not restrictions.....restrictions are a joke to someone lacking responsibility....restrictions mainly restrict those that are already responsible

Freedom is exercising your inalienable Rights with Responsibility....I think socialism might be exercising the rights they allow you *with restrictions

you have yet to offer any "restrictions" that would have prevented the shooting in Vegas...

can you identify a few restrictions to other amendments for the sake of public safety? I'm just curious

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

:can you identify a few restrictions to other amendments for the sake of public safety? I'm just curious

Really?

Freedom of speech - can't threaten someone, can't yell "fire" in a theater, can't possess or create kiddie porn.

Freedom of religion - no human sacrifices, no mutilating women's genitalia

2nd amendment - all kinds of things you can't buy

We agree that what happened is horrible, and we both hope it never happens again. we can leave it at that.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Really?

Freedom of speech - can't threaten someone, can't yell "fire" in a theater, can't possess or create kiddie porn.

Freedom of religion - no human sacrifices, no mutilating women's genitalia

2nd amendment - all kinds of things you can't buy

really?

every example you listed speech/religion would be an infringement on rights of others which is how you lose your rights and freedom


tell me how "all kinds of things you can't buy" infringes on the rights of others?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

really?

every example you listed speech/religion would be an infringement on rights of others which is how you lose your rights and freedom


tell me how "all kinds of things you can't buy" infringes on the rights of others?

Like you, I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone...

You asked for examples of restrictions of our freedoms. You didn't qualify your request. I answered the question that you asked.

"tell me how "all kinds of things you can't buy" infringes on the rights of others"

Our country has limited the types of weapons you can buy, for a long long time. We impose these limitations on ourselves, for the sake of public safety. You already know this, so I can't fathom why you are asking the things you are asking.

You say (repeatedly) that you are in favor of banning bump stocks, then you seem to be making the argument that we shouldn't be banning anything...you are the one who is all over the place.

Scott and Detbuch...there are all kinds of restrictions on our freedoms (our freedoms to do certain things, to say certain things, to possess certain things) that are imposed for the sake of public safety. Only an anarchist would state that we don't need any restrictions, or a staunch libertarian I suppose...

In the wake of some high profile mass murders, I happen to believe that public safety could be improved, with some additional restrictions.

If neither of you thinks that a billionaire should be able to buy a nuke on Amazon, then you both agree we need these restrictions. We just disagree on where to draw the line.

This has been surreal.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Like you, I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone...I don't

You asked for examples of restrictions of our freedoms. You didn't qualify your request. I answered the question that you asked.I'll give it to you, you came up with some real winners, i wasn't expecting mutilating genetalia

"tell me how "all kinds of things you can't buy" infringes on the rights of others"

Our country has limited the types of weapons you can buy, for a long long time. We impose these limitations on ourselves, for the sake of public safety. sounds like we don't trust ourselves You already know this, so I can't fathom why you are asking the things you are asking. you can't seem to answer the things without resorting to the ridiculous

You say (repeatedly) that you are in favor of banning bump stocks, then you seem to be making the argument that we shouldn't be banning anything...you are the one who is all over the place. I agreed because if you can't have automatic weapons, which is currently the case, I don't think modifying semi- automatic weapon to be nearly automatic is cool, whether I think citizens ought to be allowed to own automatic weapons is another matter... I'd actually like to just ban the words "bump stock"

Scott and Detbuch...there are all kinds of restrictions on our freedoms (our freedoms to do certain things, to say certain things, to possess certain things) that are imposed for the sake of public safety. Only an anarchist would state that we don't need any restrictions, or a staunch libertarian I suppose...

In the wake of some high profile mass murders, I happen to believe that public safety could be improved, with some additional restrictions. you still haven't been very clear as to how, the only way to stop high profile mass murders with guns as well as low profile murders with guns(there are a lot more of these) is to take away guns, if you say you want to ban bump stock to reduce the number injured you are really shortchanging those who would still be hurt ...don't you care about ALL of the victims?...do you only want to "possibly" reduce the suffering and injury? if that guy couldn't get a bump stock he still had a lot of weapons and time

If neither of you thinks that a billionaire should be able to buy a nuke on Amazon, then you both agree we need these restrictions. We just disagree on where to draw the line. this is dumb

This has been surreal.

you should listen to or watch the free speech debate I posted, you will recognize many similar arguments and sentiments