Foxtrapper
.40 S&W
It'd be nice if they shut this crap down...
Jill Stein demands recount in 3 states
- Thread starter Arjuna
- Start date
It'd be nice if they shut this crap down...
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
It's like talking to a wall.
This is the not the last time I'll repeat myself however. My responses are to your quotes in red in the above post.
1. You keep saying the mentally ill shouldn't have guns because they can kill someone. If they cannot be trusted to NOT kill someone, they should be institutionalized so that they do NOT kill someone. Taking their guns away or legally preventing them from getting one does NOT take away their ability to kill someone.
2. No. I am not okay with a mentally ill person having a gun. See number 1 above. If they are mentally ill where they have the ability to kill someone, they should not be in public where they can do so by any means whether it be a gun or a knife.
3. Again. If they are dangerous, ...... See 1 and 2.
4. Yes I do want to lock them up where they can get help and not harm others. I do. You do not. You want them to remain amongst society taking prescription drugs like Lanza without the ability to get a gun (a feel good measure) as if they cannot steal one like Lanza did or use a knife or vehicle.
As far as normal children and the adult mentally challenged go, they are supposed to be supervised by their parents. Someone like an 8 year old child or a 30 year old male with down's syndrome is supposed to be supervised at all times either by a parent, guardian or an institution.
Why should a 40 year old man suffering from depression because his wife died have his guns taken from him if he's never had any history of violence in 40 years? It happens all the time.
Why should a kid or adult who has had history of committing violence or who says he or she wants to commit violence end up stay amongst people where he or she can actually commit this violence with a gun or a knife instead of being institutionalized to get help and prevent that violence from happening?
You have been using every liberal card in the playbook. Words like common sense and supported actions like restricting the rights of a few for the greater good have come from you.
This is the not the last time I'll repeat myself however. My responses are to your quotes in red in the above post.
1. You keep saying the mentally ill shouldn't have guns because they can kill someone. If they cannot be trusted to NOT kill someone, they should be institutionalized so that they do NOT kill someone. Taking their guns away or legally preventing them from getting one does NOT take away their ability to kill someone.
2. No. I am not okay with a mentally ill person having a gun. See number 1 above. If they are mentally ill where they have the ability to kill someone, they should not be in public where they can do so by any means whether it be a gun or a knife.
3. Again. If they are dangerous, ...... See 1 and 2.
4. Yes I do want to lock them up where they can get help and not harm others. I do. You do not. You want them to remain amongst society taking prescription drugs like Lanza without the ability to get a gun (a feel good measure) as if they cannot steal one like Lanza did or use a knife or vehicle.
As far as normal children and the adult mentally challenged go, they are supposed to be supervised by their parents. Someone like an 8 year old child or a 30 year old male with down's syndrome is supposed to be supervised at all times either by a parent, guardian or an institution.
Why should a 40 year old man suffering from depression because his wife died have his guns taken from him if he's never had any history of violence in 40 years? It happens all the time.
Why should a kid or adult who has had history of committing violence or who says he or she wants to commit violence end up stay amongst people where he or she can actually commit this violence with a gun or a knife instead of being institutionalized to get help and prevent that violence from happening?
You have been using every liberal card in the playbook. Words like common sense and supported actions like restricting the rights of a few for the greater good have come from you.
Last edited:
Foxtrapper
.40 S&W
"You have been using every liberal card in the playbook. Words like common sense and supported actions like restricting the rights of a few for the greater good have come from you."
Yeah whatever, like I said before, your the one who wants to lock people up because they can't be trusted with a gun. If the use of basic common sense is only a liberal thing, then must be i'm a liberal. And like I also said, I have zero say about anybody's rights but my own..
Yeah whatever, like I said before, your the one who wants to lock people up because they can't be trusted with a gun. If the use of basic common sense is only a liberal thing, then must be i'm a liberal. And like I also said, I have zero say about anybody's rights but my own..
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Your cards have been played and you've lost. You have no cards left so you play blind and keep saying that I want to lock people up who cannot be trusted with a gun after it had been explained to you over and over that they can still kill without one or get one anyway.
See the above posts again if you don't understand.
If you need furthered explanation on why a dangerous individual that can kill with a gun or without a gun again, I can go on forever. I'll be a .50 BMG before this is over.
I'm no quitter as you can plainly see. So go again and say or ask if any individual that cannot be trusted to NOT kill with a gun or any instrument should be locked up.
I will gladly explain to you again that you keep failing to omit that a gun will not stop them from killing if they want to.
I'll just copy and paste for you.
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
....Anyway, Jill Stein's a bitch.
Foxtrapper
.40 S&W
Lost? What really is there to lose? It's a difference of opinion. It's a difference of how one would act around people who shouldn't have or be allowed near a gun. You would probably leave a loaded gun laying around so a toddler could get a hold of it, or let a mentally ill person use one without supervision. So, if that's winning, congrats you won. Your entire premis started with what YOU would do with someone who couldn't be trusted with a gun. Which you defended, then said, well I didn't mean it the way your saying it, to accusing someone of being a liberal in order to shut down their views and shout down their arguments. The only one who needs futher explanation on anything is you, so off with you to your safe space with your safe puppy and blankee...
I just think it is funny that there are Americans that are more than fine with the government being able to strip away Constitutionally protected Rights from the people.
Maybe those people are correct, the hell with it, mentally challenged people should lose all of their guaranteed rights. The government will protect them.
Maybe those people are correct, the hell with it, mentally challenged people should lose all of their guaranteed rights. The government will protect them.
Playing Devil's advocate here...
Did Lanza ever show violent tendencies before the murders he committed? To my knowledge, he did some pretty graphic writing in school classes and loved playing first person shooter games. The writing is a little odd, but it's not always a precursor to murder.
Did Lanza actually ever commit any violent acts before the murders? I don't believe he did.
Knowing that he didn't actually commit any violent acts, what would be the reason for institutionalizing him?
Foxtrapper
.40 S&W
Do people really "lose" their rights? If those people who are around the mentally ill or anyone else the government deems not capable of owning a weapon allows them to have one, do they really lose their rights? I believe it only boils down to what others allow them to do, this is what Lanza'a mother did, allowed him access to weapons. So if you feel comfortable around a mentally ill person carrying unsupervised why not let them. I mean really, the government can't be all places at all times so that leaves it to the people in their lives to enforce any loss of rights. So if you feel so strongly about everyone having the right to carry, then maybe you should start reaching out to those in your life that you know shouldn't carry, and let them do it around you, and your family. As for me, I will continue to allow common sense to dictate who I allow to be armed around me and mine..
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
If you read my first post regarding this matter, I said "As far as the right to bear arms go, that's a different matter as far as ID goes. I do not believe an ID should be required to have the right to bear arms. If you are not in prison and incarcerated, there is no need to identify yourself for the sole act of bearing arms so an ID should not required for just carrying that arm. If you are ineligible to carry an arm, you should be in prison."
It was on response to not needing an ID for the right to bear arms. The words before the last sentence that you quote over and over clearly say what I mean. They explain that all Americans shouldn't need an ID for the right to bear arms because they aren't in criminals in prison.
You took the last sentence and ran with it and totally ignored the words that preceded it. Then you added children to the mix.
It's clear what was said but you only focus on the last sentence which I have even apologized for using the wrong choice of words and the words "too dangerous" should have been used instead.
What happened here is that you did not agree that Americans shouldn't need ID to keep and bear arms so you started arguing on just solely the last paragraph since you had nothing else to go on.
Any logical person reading that paragraph can interpret what I meant being that an ID shouldn't be required if you are a free man NOT incarcerated.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
That's the way the cookie crumbles. You cannot prevent when a person like Lanza snaps unless you know the signs and do something about getting that person help and you cannot prevent someone normal like you and I who carries everyday and goes nuts because their wife cheated on them. Even psychologically vetted cops have been known to behave like this.
That's just how it is and the only method of dealing with that is preparation to use an equal amount of force. Which is why every American who wants to do so should be able to carry to protect him or herself.
Either that or banning any object that can kill.
Last edited:
Foxtrapper
.40 S&W
And what you continue to miss is that last statement stands by it's self. It is a conclusion that you have come to. It is saying that regardless of who you are, what your circumstances are or what abilities you may or may not have, that, if you are ineligible to carry a gun, you should be in prison. You can shout all you want about how I'm focusing on only that, and taking it out of context ect,ect, ect..you still made that statement. And that statement is what makes you wrong. You yap about how some people agree with other's being stripped of their right to carry, while you agree with stripping their right to freedom. I find that much worse. At this point, we will agree to disagree on the intent of your statement. But, you should if nothing else understand that how things are phrased is as important as the idea you are trying to convay...
spat
.700 Nitro Express
If you can't trust them with a gun, how can you trust them not to get one illegally ?
Gunner57
.223 Rem
Anyways, Jill Stein is still a bitch!
Foxtrapper
.40 S&W
Well, that's just it, you can't. But on the other hand you can't lock them all up either, it's just not feasible to do so. Even if you only locked up the ones you were sure would reoffend, we don't have the money or the resources to do so. The only sure way is to kill them, and you know how hard that is to do in a timely fashion..
spat
.700 Nitro Express
If you let them free they can kill someone with a myriad of other weapons, or just illegally obtain a gun. You saying "It's illegal for them to have a gun" is just as effective as you saying "It's illegal for you to shoot someone". If you can't trust them to follow the latter,you can't trust them to follow the former either. The two things are exactly the same. That is why *any* law forbidding the possession of arms is ridiculous.
Oooppss *RIPS UP TRUMP VOTE* That is how these filthy dumbacrats are going to win..
Foxtrapper
.40 S&W
I totally agree. But, you still can't lock everyone up who shouldn't have a gun.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Not everyone who shouldn't have one, everyone who should be prevented from having one.
There are lots of people who shouldn't have then, and you just have one trust them, or those caring for them (kids, nonviolent mentally ill, etc....). But anyone who the government *should* actually prevent from having a gun needs to be locked up, because that's the only way to actually prevent it.
What do you see as the difference between threatening someone with jail for shooting someone, or threatening them with jail for having the capacity to shoot someone ? The second offer no value whatsoever to society than the first. It makes no one any safer.
Can we agree that until the people you don't want to have guns actually break a law, that they have hurt no one merely by having them ?
That's pretty much how I view it. There is no way to entirely prevent people from going nuts and trying to commit mass murder. People have to be ready for it and prepared. This will sound harsh to some people (especially anti 2A people), but... I'm willing to accept that some people will die in exchange for people keeping their rights and remaining free.
If you can't be trusted with a gun, you can't be trusted with a driver's license, a vote, or alcohol. Those that can't act like adults should be legally teated as children, with no rights. Rehabilitate or eliminate. Everyone gets a true second chance, access to whatever they need to get back on track. Recidivists are euthanized, or are used in what ever capacity is needed that humans can not be ethically employed.
Foxtrapper
.40 S&W
If the government "should" prevent someone from having a gun, they should also have a duty to lock them up until such a time as they present no danger to those around them. I have no problem with that at all. Lose of freedom is a direct result of their danger to sociality..
I don't see how any good can come from threatening someone with incarceration because they have the capacity to shoot someone, that would in essence include all of us. Given the correct situation we could in fact shoot someone, without a doubt. There is however a difference in getting those types of people help, vs throwing them in jail. We used to have a mental health system, until the ACLU sued and won a federal lawsuit based on the wrongful incarceration of mental health patients. That action did our country a great disservice, as it gutted our mental health care system, which has never recovered..
I have no problem with anyone having a gun. But, having said that, I do not want anyone I deem is not safe with any weapon around me or my family. Like I said, the loss of rights really isn't something the government can enforce. It really has to be done by those who are in that person's life everyday. It is on them as to whether that person has access, and everything is good, until it's not...
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Ok, then I fail to see what the last several pages of argument were.
Everyone the government should have the legitimate authority to deny gun ownership to should be locked up.
Many other people shouldn't own guns, but the government shouldn't have any authority to enforce that.
I don't think anyone else here disagrees with either of those statements then ?
Foxtrapper
.40 S&W
There's a difference between authority and ability. I said they don't have the ability, but, I can assure you if pushed they damn well will enforce it. As I said, I don't have a problem with people who shouldn't carry doing so, as long as they aren't around me. But my opinion is certainly not the governments view.
The last several pages delt mostly with the opinion that expressed that if you couldn't be trusted with a gun you should be locked up. I took the opinion that you can't lock these people up based on that argument. Again, my opinion doesn't matter, it is the government's that does. And the government says there are people who can't be trusted to carry. And, you can't lock up that many people...
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
It does not stand by itself. Come on dude! Everyone here knows what I meant but you.
I've explained what I meant numerous times. The evidence is there in other posts. I've gotten likes and agreements from others. Everyone knew what I meant but you. You don't actually believe I and those who liked my post or quoted me to agree with me want to lock up children and some guy who has Down's Syndrome?
This is beyond ridiculous and clearly demonstrates your intent to continue arguing a point that clearly wasn't even intended.
Enough already. I know you are an intelligent guy. Stop acting like a child. I or anyone else who agreed with the statement does not want to randomly lock up babies both in mind and body because they may have access to a gun.
I can't believe you are still harping on this!
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
The last few pages was Foxtrapper arguing with me that I want to lock up children and adults with Down's Syndrome.
He got all that from this paragraph I posted below. I used the word "ineligible" instead of "too dangerous" and he ran with the notion that I wanted to lock everyone up who shouldn't be carrying a gun.
"As far as the right to bear arms go, that's a different matter as far as ID goes. I do not believe an ID should be required to have the right to bear arms. If you are not in prison and incarcerated, there is no need to identify yourself for the sole act of bearing arms so an ID should not required for just carrying that arm. If you are ineligible to carry an arm, you should be in prison."
Sorry for the derailment of the thread but I'm not going to let some clown misconstrue my point so that he can argue his that some people should have their 2A rights taken away because they scare him even if no violent crime was committed because it's "common sense" as he's has explained.
Last edited:
Dr. Evil
20×102mm Vulcan
pjzwtl
.308 Win
I like the old ways. If you want to contest the vote you should have to bitch slap your opponent and demand a duel. 
Foxtrapper
.40 S&W
I find people say what they mean, and mean what they say. If you are so stupid you can't properly phase your comments, maybe you shouldn't make them to begin with. You started out with your tough guy lock them up shit, and then back pedeled like the little bitch you are when called out on it. You then start your little baby game by shrilling oh that's not what I ment. You need to shut the fuck up and let the grown ups talk, cause you don't know shit...
You mean you've walked it back numerous times. Walking it back doesn't change it. It does nothing for your crediablity either.
