Jump to content

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, ToeBius said:

Hmmm.... Not me or millions of other firearm owners.  Maybe you should look at the evil individual, that you can't find.  Not the gun.  What do you want?  Everyone to be chained up and unable to cause any harm to other's?

 

I'm looking at both the individual, who's evidently someone bad (drop the 'evil', it's so theatrical, and not fitting), and at the people who give them the opportunity to get his hands on a tool that was designed to kill someone. 

 

The point is clear anyway: you have an issue with needing to prove that you are mentally able to own a gun. You're favorable for psychos to have the right to own a gun, regardless of if they're about to commit a murder with it. There's nothing else to argue after that.

 

19 minutes ago, ToeBius said:

And when you shoot someone, you have to know where to shoot them.  Just because you shoot someone it does not mean that they will die. It is not hard to stab someone, even to death.

 

You've more chances to kill someone with a gun, even if you don't know how to shoot it, than by stabbing someone. Be real now, it's getting ridiculous. To kill someone with a knife, you need to first, get up close, second, having the victim not being able to defend itself, third, either exactly knowing where to stab to kill someone quick, or to stab multiple times (which takes a lot longer than shooting someone down), fourth, to have the stamina (because yeah, stabbing someone takes strength, if you think you can just sink a knife into someone like into butter, you're sorely mistaken). To kill someone with a gun, you don't need to get up close, the victim cannot defend itself, and it takes just a second to take someone down, either through injury or fatally, and you need no stamina, just to have a fingertip to press the trigger. Saying that, because knives can kill, guns are worth having, is fallacy and a clear evidence that you've no argument to prove your point.

 

19 minutes ago, ToeBius said:

This whole topic is only an issue because of some middle class kids that got killed.  You would never publicly argue this case in my neighborhood, which on fact most people have guns in order to stop the criminals that wish to do harm to them.

 

I'd gladly discuss this in public, with you or anyone, regardless of the location, because it's not about confrontation, but defending your opinions. Don't assume what I would or would not discuss in public. You're blaming people for painting a color you're not, you're just doing the same right now.

 

19 minutes ago, ToeBius said:

And you don't need a permit to drink then get into a car and drive then run a stop light and kill people.  You have no argument.  You can kill people with just about anything and you cannot protect people from criminals.

 

Irrelevant to the topic. You don't need a permit to drink and then grab your gun for fun and shoot someone by accident either. Does it make sense regarding the discussion? No. Just like what you just said.

Edited by Hystery

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ToeBius said:

When no one gets caught and tried after they do a crime, then the law that was put in place to stop them did not work.  It is illegal to kill someone and yet people do it and get away with it everyday.  

 

That's an issue with investigation and trial, not with the law. You're mixing everything.

 

3 hours ago, ToeBius said:

And I said to subjugate an INDIVIDUAL, to live they way that YOU see fit, is on the same path as slavery.  Meaning that if you want me to do thing's in the manner that you want and I do not agree with it but still am forced to live by it, makes it slavery.

 

Until recently, it was forbidden for gay couples to marry legally. I'm gay. Meaning that until recently, you'd want me to do (or in this case, NOT do) things (marry) in the manner that you want, and I'd not agree with it, but still would be forced to live by it. Does that mean that I'd have been a slave for so long and never realized it until now? 🤔 Or maybe does that mean you make no sense with this and you're clearly overreacting? 🤔

 

EDIT: sorry for the double post, website has been acting up today.

Edited by Hystery

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2018 at 2:42 PM, Hystery said:

I'm looking at both the individual, who's evidently someone bad (drop the 'evil', it's so theatrical, and not fitting), and at the people who give them the opportunity to get his hands on a tool that was designed to kill someone. 

 

The point is clear anyway: you have an issue with needing to prove that you are mentally able to own a gun. You're favorable for psychos to have the right to own a gun, regardless of if they're about to commit a murder with it. There's nothing else to argue after that.

  Just because something is designed to kill someone is not an argument to restrict it.  Swords were designed to kill people and you don't argue against them.

 

 And I am not if favor or phychos having guns, but punishing me and forcing me to be evaluated, registered, and restricted will not stop anyone from doing anything bad.  Just because someone is ok one day does not mean that they are good another day.  If I am at a store and someone enters with the intent to shoot people and I use my firearm to stop them, how would that of stopped anything?  We live in a country with guns, and taking steps to restrict lawful people from owning guns will only empower the criminal.

On 5/23/2018 at 2:42 PM, Hystery said:

The point is clear anyway: you have an issue with needing to prove that you are mentally able to own a gun. 

  I have an issue with it because people would say that me thinking that I need a certain gun for self defense against other's is not a reason to own a gun.  And my distrust of my government could also be a reason to keep me from owning the guns that I want.  I have guns for self defence, from a Glock 19 to an AR15, and there are people that do not agree with me for having these guns.  There are many people that think I should be limited to a 5 shot pistol or a 10 round rifle magazine.  I don't, I feel that it is better to have more rounds and not use them, than to have less rounds and need more.

 

On 5/23/2018 at 2:42 PM, Hystery said:

You've more chances to kill someone with a gun, even if you don't know how to shoot it, than by stabbing someone. Be real now, it's getting ridiculous. To kill someone with a knife, you need to first, get up close, second, having the victim not being able to defend itself, third, either exactly knowing where to stab to kill someone quick, or to stab multiple times (which takes a lot longer than shooting someone down), fourth, to have the stamina (because yeah, stabbing someone takes strength, if you think you can just sink a knife into someone like into butter, you're sorely mistaken). To kill someone with a gun, you don't need to get up close, the victim cannot defend itself, and it takes just a second to take someone down, either through injury or fatally, and you need no stamina, just to have a fingertip to press the trigger. Saying that, because knives can kill, guns are worth having, is fallacy and a clear evidence that you've no argument to prove your point.

  Then why is it that people get stabbed and beat to death?  You are focusing on one tool that could be used by someone to kill someone.  The point still stands, if you want to inflict harm upon other's, you don't need a gun to do so.  9/11, Boston, and the recent bombings in Texas. Banning guns or requiring mental evaluations wouldn't stop it.  You have to be prepared for the worst and hope that you can react to it.

 

On 5/23/2018 at 2:42 PM, Hystery said:

I'd gladly discuss this in public, with you or anyone, regardless of the location, because it's not about confrontation, but defending your opinions. Don't assume what I would or would not discuss in public. You're blaming people for painting a color you're not, you're just doing the same right now.

  Then why do you do your battle cry when there is a school shooting? Why not when there are shootings, stabbings, or beatings?  Everyone cries when someone shoots up a school, church, base, etc.  No one brings up these issue's any other time.

 

On 5/23/2018 at 2:42 PM, Hystery said:

Irrelevant to the topic. You don't need a permit to drink and then grab your gun for fun and shoot someone by accident either. Does it make sense regarding the discussion? No. Just like what you just said.

  It is not irrelevant, you cannot expect to stop people from doing BAD thing's by registering a certain group of people.  Me doing mental evaluations won't stop the gang's from shooting other gang's.

 

On 5/23/2018 at 3:32 PM, Hystery said:

That's an issue with investigation and trial, not with the law. You're mixing everything.

  And when none of those work the law failed.  When someone rapes someone and never gets caught, the law fails.  It can only be used after the fact.  I am not mixing anything, if these law's worked, then the crime that persist would be no more, yet the crime continues and people are only brought to justice after caught.

 

On 5/23/2018 at 3:32 PM, Hystery said:

Until recently, it was forbidden for gay couples to marry legally. I'm gay. Meaning that until recently, you'd want me to do (or in this case, NOT do) things (not marry) in the manner that you want, and I'd not agree with it, but still would forced to live by it. Does that mean that I'd have been a slave for so long and never realized it until now? 🤔 Or maybe does that mean you make no sense with this and you're clearly overreacting🤔

  When the fuck was I for banning gays from being married?  Never, I have been against any form of refusing to allow people to marry since I was a child and I have voiced my opinion on why the state should never restrict gays from marrage.  It was a form of slavery and I have been vocal with my reps since I was young.  Gays, just like blacks, wer barred from being free individual's because someone seen fit that they should be forced to live in their image. I am against that.  Live and let live is my motto.  You live the way that you live until you start infringing upon mine, and it will be YOU, not an object, that will come into questions for your actions.

 

  It is not my position to say who you can love, if you are a man and you love another man or if you are a woman and you love another woman and wish to marry then do so, that is not my position to deny you that.  I personally see no reason, exept for control, that the State is involved in marriage at all.

 

  If you want to be gay, HURRAY, it doesn't bother, harm, or disrupt me.  When you start forcing me, to live by your beliefs, then I have an issue.  You live your life the way you see fit and so will I.  

 

  I want everyone here to know that I am not just an advocate for owning guns but my beliefs, in Individual Freedom, spreads farther than just owning guns. I find that Individual Liberty will alway's come before anything else and it is my belief that if we want the government to do something for us then we should hold them to the highest scrutiny.

On 5/23/2018 at 3:32 PM, Hystery said:

EDIT: sorry for the double post, website has been acting up today.

  Same here.

Edited by ToeBius
Misspelled a word

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, willpv23 said:

 

The first reference with some explanation here.

 

He's referencing tax here, with "purchase a little temporary safety" literally meaning forcing people to pay for their own protection. The Governor was refusing bills to appropriate funds for the protection of the Frontier against the French and Indians because he wanted to tax the Penn lands instead.

 

The second reference, during the revolution. He's essentially saying that compromise will not be possible regarding "the other two acts" and they would rather go to war than alter them. The "other two acts" he is referencing are "16. The American admiralty courts reduced to the same powers they have in England, and the acts establishing them to be reënacted in America; and 17. All powers of internal legislation in the colonies to be disclaimed by Parliament" - nothing to do with guns, or even individual rights at all (source for the two acts).

 

Thanks for the information, I wasn't aware of that at all.

 

Regardless, my point still stands:

 

Spoiler

tumblrmons.png1564189459-thomas_jefferson_quote_on_gun_rights_tiles-r1e4c39491a72472eb615293766a0b10f_agtk1_8byvr_512.jpgSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

 

 

4 hours ago, willpv23 said:

 

I want to live my life surrounded by nuclear weapons that could destroy the entire world, therefore I should be able to buy them. An exaggeration, but no different than your argument of "it should be legal because I want it."

That's not what they're saying though is what you aren't getting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×