Another start to the school year, another shooting; nothing will change

[C-south]

The concept of the general populace being armed equally with today's military is beyond insane.

Anyone arguing otherwise is a lunatic.

The founding fathers would be in complete agreement.

After the founding fathers fought off a tyrannical government why do think they placed the right to bear arms so close to the top of the list of fundamental rights? I’m sure you will come up with about the dumbest response possible so I’ll assume my question is rhetorical.

 

[volfanhill]

The concept of the general populace being armed equally with today's military is beyond insane.

Anyone arguing otherwise is a lunatic.

The founding fathers would be in complete agreement.

Lol. The whole damn point was the populace could take on the government. And overthrow it. Like they did. To think otherwise is silly. You just dont like what that means. Go ahead. Use the mechanisms to change it. Stop pretending its not obvious what they meant

 

[KB5252]

Thanks,
I am a genuine guy. I have never once held the position that people should give up their right to keep and bear arms.
I also know that it is completely unreasonable to claim that the general populace can/should be equally armed with the police and military.

Given the stated reasoning our founding fathers afforded us the right to bear arms why should the public not be similarly armed?

 

[KB5252]

The concept of the general populace being armed equally with today's military is beyond insane.

Anyone arguing otherwise is a lunatic.

The founding fathers would be in complete agreement.

The founding fathers would likely be seething we haven't blown it all up and started over. Some of the basic rights and much of the power afforded states and individual citizens are eroded or completely gone.

 

[C-south]

The founding fathers would likely be seething we haven't blown it all up and started over. Some of the basic rights and much of the power afforded states and individual citizens are eroded or completely gone.

Not only is luther for taking your guns but he also wants to make speech he doesn’t agree with illegal. He’s a “genuine guy” alright…..a genuine nut.

 

[InVOLuntary]

Thanks,
I am a genuine guy. I have never once held the position that people should give up their right to keep and bear arms.
I also know that it is completely unreasonable to claim that the general populace can/should be equally armed with the police and military.

Lol. You outlaw "assault" weapons then someone shoots up a place with a semi auto handgun you outlaw those.
You outlaw semi auto handguns and someone shoots a place up with a revolver you outlaw those. Someone shoots up a place with a shotgun, they're gone. Shoots up using a lever action, they're gone. We'd be left with muzzle loaders until someone shoots up a place with those. Then knives. Sounds like the UK.

 

[InVOLuntary]

The concept of the general populace being armed equally with today's military is beyond insane.

Anyone arguing otherwise is a lunatic.

The founding fathers would be in complete agreement.

The only lunatic here is one that hasn't read what the founding fathers wrote. They absolutely meant for the citizenry to have the firepower to resist an oppressive government. I hope you weren't a history teacher. Would explain the shape we're in now.

 

[InVOLuntary]

Not only is luther for taking your guns but he also wants to make speech he doesn’t agree with illegal. He’s a “genuine guy” alright…..a genuine nut.

Genuine communist.

 

[luthervol]

Given the stated reasoning our founding fathers afforded us the right to bear arms why should the public not be similarly armed?

I simply do not believe that the founding fathers wanted the general population armed with nukes, anti-aircraft guns, and grenades.
There is the fear of a tyrannical government, and there is the fear of a lone lunatic seeking to kill as many as possible.

 

[InVOLuntary]

I simply do not believe that the founding fathers wanted the general population armed with nukes, anti-aircraft guns, and grenades.
There is the fear of a tyrannical government, and there is the fear of a lone lunatic seeking to kill as many as possible.

So you agree the AR15 isn't a weapon of war?

 

[luthervol]

So you agree the AR15 isn't a weapon of war?

So you agree that a rose is a rose?

 

[Cod]

I simply do not believe that the founding fathers wanted the general population armed with nukes, anti-aircraft guns, and grenades.
There is the fear of a tyrannical government, and there is the fear of a lone lunatic seeking to kill as many as possible.

The general pop isn't..... so what's your point?

You think if you ban a gun ppl will stop killing each other, in you hero's words.... "Come On Man!!"

 

[InVOLuntary]

So you agree that a rose is a rose?

Don't deflect, answer the question, Kamala.

 

[luthervol]

The general pop isn't..... so what's your point?

You think if you ban a gun ppl will stop killing each other, in you hero's words.... "Come On Man!!"

lol....that's because there are restrictions. Which are appropriate.

Good grief man, NO ONE believes that if you ban guns people will stop killing each other.

 

[Majors]

I simply do not believe that the founding fathers wanted the general population armed with nukes, anti-aircraft guns, and grenades.
There is the fear of a tyrannical government, and there is the fear of a lone lunatic seeking to kill as many as possible.

Seems like an endorsement for tougher border policies.

 

[utvolpj]

I simply do not believe that the founding fathers wanted the general population armed with nukes, anti-aircraft guns, and grenades.
There is the fear of a tyrannical government, and there is the fear of a lone lunatic seeking to kill as many as possible.

They also didn't believe in standing armies during peace. I don't think a citizen owning grenades would really scare them since that is who fought and won the war

 

[luthervol]

Don't deflect, answer the question, Kamala.

That was a legitimate question?

An AR-15 is more of a weapon of war than a shotgun, handgun, or knife and less of a weapon of war than a nuke, anti-aircraft gun, or grenade.

On the weapon of war continuum......an AR-15 is at 71%.

 

[KB5252]

Not only is luther for taking your guns but he also wants to make speech he doesn’t agree with illegal. He’s a “genuine guy” alright…..a genuine nut.

I really don't think he is, his heart is in the right place, I won't fault anyone for wanting to curb gun violence, especially toward children. I just disagree with his approach.

 

[KB5252]

I simply do not believe that the founding fathers wanted the general population armed with nukes, anti-aircraft guns, and grenades.
There is the fear of a tyrannical government, and there is the fear of a lone lunatic seeking to kill as many as possible.

Which is more dangerous though, and harder to stop?

And I agree I don't want the public armed with tanks nukes and such. I do however think they should be armed with the same shoulder and side arms that the Police and army. If they don't have that there's literally no way the states can arm and defend themselves from tyrannical government as intended.

 

[Majors]

I really don't think he is, his heart is in the right place, I won't fault anyone for wanting to curb gun violence, especially toward children. I just disagree with his approach.

Except his stance doesn’t go into inner city violence/murders in Liberal ran metropolitan cities. Notice his absence

 

[utvolpj]

That was a legitimate question?

An AR-15 is more of a weapon of war than a shotgun, handgun, or knife and less of a weapon of war than a nuke, anti-aircraft gun, or grenade.

On the weapon of war continuum......an AR-15 is at 71%.

What? The shotgun, handgun, and knife have seen infinitely more war and caused more death than a civilian AR ever has.

 

[KB5252]

Except his stance doesn’t go into inner city violence/murders in Liberal ran metropolitan cities. Notice his absence

He can correct me if I'm wrong but I think he believes if you ban "assault" type weapons they become less and less available..... And the problem takes care of itself.

Not saying I agree with that for a number of reasons but it's more of less what he believes......I think.

 

[luthervol]

What? The shotgun, handgun, and knife have seen infinitely more war and caused more death than a civilian AR ever has.

lol.....I think a nuke is more of a weapon of way than a knife. Maybe that's just me.

 

[luthervol]

He can correct me if I'm wrong but I think he believes if you ban "assault" type weapons they become less and less available..... And the problem takes care of itself.

Not saying I agree with that for a number of reasons but it's more of less what he believes......I think.

That's pretty accurate.
I believe that selling 18 million guns in 2024 is better than selling 22 million.

 

[InVOLuntary]

That was a legitimate question?

An AR-15 is more of a weapon of war than a shotgun, handgun, or knife and less of a weapon of war than a nuke, anti-aircraft gun, or grenade.

On the weapon of war continuum......an AR-15 is at 71%.

So our founding fathers meant for the citizenry to have weapons to go against an oppressive government. The government has M4 automatic weapons as a standard issue rifle. Do you think our founding fathers meant for the citizenry to fight the government with shotguns?

An AR-15 isn't close to a weapon of war. It's a semi automatic sporting rifle.

Remember, the 2nd amendment wasn't adopted hunt or even self defense. It was placed there to keep the government in check.