Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
They say one way to spot a Russian troll is a fixation on all CAPS.
There are about 325 million people in the U.S. and 149.5 million of them do not have the right to own a gun, which leaves 175.5 million people who may have the right to own a gun.
Larry, does Bob get his bazooka or not?
That's the five time I've asked and you won't answer.
Next time, I'll supply your answer for you, since we all know what it is.
Simon,
if here in the united states they ban guns, the bad guys will still have them.. Do you really think a criminal will turn in his gun???? Terrorist want guns banned and so do criminals. That way every neighborhood will be a gun free zone (soft target) good luck with your gun ban
...people dying in car and plane accidents is a by- product (sadly) of their primary use as transport...guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is utter Bollox, people WITH GUNS kill people.
"Utter Bollox"?
People with knives also kill people...people with bombs kill people...people with bats kill people...people with hammers, poison, hatchets, pitchforks, bows and arrows, and primarily in the case of terrorists; planes, cars, trucks, STONES and a host of other things kill people. 'Matters not what their "primary use" might be.
A gun doesn't load itself, aim itself, or pull its own trigger. It just 'sits' wherever it's put. It'll sit there forever until it rusts away w/o ever having killed a soul unless a person picks it up, loads it, aims it, and pulls its trigger. PEOPLE kill people. And yet only the gun is blamed when one of them is used to do the dirty deed. There's never a big hue and cry to ban ANY of the other items mentioned when they are intentionally used to kill someone. Why not? Aren't the people they kill just as dead?
Oh, yeah...the "primary use" thing. 'Got it. Of course, no one ever stops to think that, were all guns to suddenly disappear from the face of the Earth, those "primary use" items would become the 'fall back' weapons of choice.
:chug:
WOW! Just wow! You just validated my whole argument.
You just don’t get it do you? A gun and a bomb are designed to KILL PEOPLE. Nothing else. I eat my dinner with a knife, play games with a bat, use a hammer to knock in a nail. To try and say “why not ban them” is just childish and (frankly) clutching at straws. I can’t quite believe you spat the “people kill people” line at me again.
Did I ever say guns should be banned from the face of the earth?
It worked here and in Australia. When someone gets shot over here it’s a big deal, it seems that for you guys it’s just another mother’s son, who gives a 5hit as long as I’ve got my guns.....
Sorry, but you should see it from over here, just the numbers of dead children are staggering and nobody seems to care.
So, so sad.
Simon
You just don’t get it do you? A gun and a bomb are designed to KILL PEOPLE. Nothing else.
I can’t quite believe you spat the “people kill people” line at me again.
Did I ever say guns should be banned from the face of the earth?
You owning a gun, especially as you age and get less proficient with it and ESPECIALLY since YOU DON'T STORE IT PROPERLY puts your WIFE AT GRAVE RISK...
Most Americans are smart enough to not have guns. They increase the risk of getting shot, primarily because of attitudes like yours -- that a gun fight with a guy trying to steal your VCR is worth risking your wife's life over.
Again Larry, defending of your right to have guns is the most important thing to you. You try to take apart my argument line by line, but not a word about the dead children and thousands of innocent victims. Still as long as you’ve got your guns, fu** em eh?
I’m done, you just can’t have a reasoned argument with some people.
Simon
Again Larry, defending of your right to have guns is the most important thing to you. You try to take apart my argument line by line, but not a word about the dead children and thousands of innocent victims. Still as long as you’ve got your guns, fu** em eh?
I’m done, you just can’t have a reasoned argument with some people.
Simon
Give me the wording of THEE law 'the consequences for violating which would be so horrific, so trauma inducing in the hearts and minds of crooks and loons everywhere that they dare not even think about violating it much less actually doing so...and would thereby end all mass shootings forever. I submit no such a law can be written. You've not said a word about that.
Proof? We already have a gadzillion laws on the books none of which prevented the mass shootings to which you referred.
As to my not having said a word "about the dead children and thousands of innocent victims" of those mass shootings - what can be said that hasn't already been said about the horror of all that? Answer: nothing. But, your having brought UP that subject wasn't solely out of concern for the victims, was it. No. Your main purpose was to get in a less-than-subtle accusation 'suggesting' that my opposition to so-called "gun control laws" somehow means/indicates I don't CARE about the lives lost, wasn't it ("as long as I have my guns, fu** em eh?")...which is a personal insult way beyond the pale...and a standard tactic used by the left on this side of the pond as well: "If you don't believe this or say that...if you're not for this or against that, then it proves you're a sociopathic sub-human and worse."
that.
It can't be the deaths that bothers you because hundreds of thousands die by the means I mentioned before, and the gun homicides are trivial in amount by comparison. Death doesn't bother you, so it must control, as in firearms control. You Liberals are into control.
Simon I feel your pain and frustration, in my opinion you are right as you, I and many others have found to our cost. Again in my opinion, you are on a hiding to nothing from the pro-gun movement if you use logic or valid points in a debate on gun control in the US, they will be dismissed out of hand or worse you have to be prepared “to hear the truth you’ve spoken twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools”.
So where is my proof?
This one from Larry, or a similarly veined request to produce a gun control law, comes up at regular occasions, paraphrased:-
1 I gave Larry a law, his retort was it was against the 2nd amendment.
It came up again.
1 I gave him the law, his retort was it was against the 2nd amendment.
2 I said amend the 2nd amendment, his retort was this was unconstitutional.
3 I said the amendment is an amendment in its self just amend the bloody amendment.
4 He said that would be unconstitutional,
It came up again.
1 I said I posted a law before he didn’t like it, no point posting the same law again he has made up his mind, nothing I say will change it.
2 He said he didn’t recall ever seeing my law, and if he didn’t like it, it would be because it didn’t pass the 2nd amendment, please repost it.
3 I said he had replied several times to my posts so must have forgotten seeing it, I then posted a piece on how the amendment could be amended in US law as it was done for prohibition.
4. He said he knew all about the amendment process. That has nothing to do with what we're supposedly addressing. That info is simply obfuscation and redirection. So, he was left with the impression that the 'mystery gun law' to which I referred will remain just that...if it exists at all.
5 I said the law I gave him was there I did not have time to search for it as I was off to watch a rugby match in France. (We won)
6 He said, evidentially he automatically did have the time...right? and that repealing the 2nd Amendment wouldn't end gun crime any more than Prohibition ended the production, sale and consumption of booze.
I left it at this point feeling at least regarding my law, it had changed from “if it exists at all to, amending the 2nd amendment for guns would never work because it hadn’t worked for prohibition. :shrug:
The US has a "gadzillion" laws on the books against drug misuse, it does not prevent the mass use of drugs but they still enforce and increase them, should they stop doing that?.
Interesting one, I have lost count of the number of times I have been accused of tactics and rhetoric used by the “left” often leading to personal attacks and insults against me, when in fact the same tactics and rhetoric are used by the “right” just as much.
I appreciate many in the US do not believe in religion or God, and that is entirely their right, but, if only the millions of religious conservatives in the US who support Mr Trump and purport to follow God’s laws actually did so with the fervent zeal and arguments they use to support the 2nd amendment, instead of coming out with rhetoric diametrically opposed to God’s laws, perhaps a solution could be found.
I will agree with 2 accusations made against me in the past, one as a non US citizen it is not really any of my business. Two most likely nobody involved in this debate is going to change their minds.
I hope you can find a solution that gets your gun murders down to the levels we are so lucky to have in the UK around 50 to 60 annually, which is still 50 to 60 to many.
Google something like "process for amending or repealing the U.S. Constitution" and see for yourself. I'm tired of going back and forth on it.
l.
Question on US politics forum can the Constitution be amended.
Answer Yes, the constitution can be amended. In fact the second amendment is just that: an amendment. You can continue to add new amendments, even on existing amendments.
This has actually already happened. The 18th amendment established Prohibition. After a short time the 18th amendment was repealed by the 21st amendment. So it is entirely possible to create a new amendment that says.....
The process for this is defined by Article V of the constitution.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
In simple terms if 2/3rds of the Senate and Congress (or 2/3rds of the states) agree then they can propose an amendment. That amendment would then have to be ratified by 75% of the state legislatures. Then the proposal becomes an amendment to the US Constitution.
Those who want to see what I did or did not post 'IN FULL CONTEXT' can go back 2-3 pages and look for yourselves. I'm not ABOUT to go thru Nick's entire post above and deal with it line-by-line. Like I said - go look for yourselves. (I doubt anyone will bother. I know I sure wouldn't.)
.
Interesting, that is usually exactly what you do (pointed out in post #91 for example), I have drawn my own conclusions as to why you haven’t
3. Your law will never work, it didn't for prohabition (prohibition).
You will never know unless you try it. (oh, we ALREADY know!)
It may have occurred to you that NEVER is a very long time.
If the left were in full control, the 2nd Amendment could very well be rewritten or removed altogether.
.... but this branches into politics which needs to go to the Political thread...