Why are conservatives so pretentious?

[creek47]

More bogus argumentation. All man made laws are subject to being broken by those intent on breaking them. YOUR argument is that they are ALL worthless.

So you by your own admission is that laws are only good when law aiding citizens follow the law. It’s not bogus, you’ve not made one suggestion for a new law that would prevent another massacre.

So your interpretation of "shall not be infringed upon" means that you believe you have the constitutional right to own a NUKE. That's nice to know.

That’s an exaggeration and you know it. The first gun law was back in the 30s and it banned fully automatic weapons. I think this is good idea. But to say I want citizens to have a nuke? First off the cost is astronomical and concerning your suggest such a laughable idea.

 

[b.c.]

That’s an exaggeration and you know it. The first gun law was back in the 30s and it banned fully automatic weapons. I think this is good idea. But to say I want citizens to have a nuke? First off the cost is astronomical and concerning your suggest such a laughable idea.

Astronomical costs? Perhaps not for someone who could afford them, eh? You did suggest "shall not be infringed upon" gave one the right to own one, did you not?

OH! And you ACKNOWLEDGE gun laws EXIST, in spite of the 2nd Amendment and the language contained therein.

Now we're getting somewhere, I think.

 

[creek47]

Astronomical costs? Perhaps not for someone who could afford them, eh? You did suggest "shall not be infringed upon" gave one the right to own one, did you not?

OH! And you ACKNOWLEDGE gun laws EXIST, in spite of the 2nd Amendment and the language contained therein.

And limitations to the 1st Amendment as well. What’s your point?

 

[b.c.]

And limitations to the 1st Amendment as well. What’s your point?

My POINT IS, the possibility that SOME might ignore laws is NOT a valid reason for not bothering to HAVE them.

Your whole argument against better gun control laws is predicated upon the assumption that they won't stop all violence.

That, IMO, is a bullshit justification FOR DOING NOTHING. Clear enough?

 

[creek47]

My POINT IS, the possibility that SOME might ignore laws is NOT a valid reason for not bothering to HAVE them.

Your whole argument against better gun control laws is predicated upon the assumption that they won't stop all violence.

That, IMO, is a bullshit justification FOR DOING NOTHING. Clear enough?

To be clear if the law won’t do anything then it is just there to make people feel good about themsleves. Much like changing your filter to a tragedy on Facebook, if it is a do nothing Law it can just stay off the books. How about we start enforcing the laws on our books now?

 

[b.c.]

To be clear if the law won’t do anything then it is just there to make people feel good about themsleves. Much like changing your filter to a tragedy on Facebook, if it is a do nothing Law it can just stay off the books. How about we start enforcing the laws on our books now?

That's your problem right there, bud. 1. Your assumption that better gun control laws "won't do anything". and 2. Your assumption that advocates for such laws just "want to feel good about themselves." Like you think the concerns aren't genuine and are just some kind of p.r. stunt.

 

[creek47]

That's your problem right there, bud. 1. Your assumption that better gun control laws "won't do anything". and 2. Your assumption that advocates for such laws just "want to feel good about themselves." Like you think the concerns aren't genuine and are just some kind of p.r. stunt.

What law should of been on the books that wojkdnof stopped Cruz? It was a failure on so many levels and so many chances wasted. I ask you, what law could of stopped Cruz when you saw how inept government is that it couldn’t even enforce the laws in the books already!

 

[creek47]

I ask you what law would of stopped Cruz if the local, state and federal government is going to be so incompetent they can’t even enforce the laws im the books now.

 

[b.c.]

What law should of been on the books that wojkdnof stopped Cruz? It was a failure on so many levels and so many chances wasted. I ask you, what law could of stopped Cruz when you saw how inept government is that it couldn’t even enforce the laws in the books already!

Again we're back to the analogy I've presented, your argument being, why have the law "come to a full stop at stop signs" if someone chooses to ignore the law.

No one here is excusing the failure of responsible parties to enforce existing laws. We are only arguing that better laws would result in a COMBINED effect, with existing laws of making for a safer society, even if still subjected to occasions of violence, which IMO makes a HELL of a lot more sense than YOUR advocating doing NOTHING.

 

[creek47]

Again we're back to the analogy I've presented, your argument being, why have the law "come to a full stop at stop signs" if someone chooses to ignore the law.

No one here is excusing the failure of responsible parties to enforce existing laws. We are only arguing that better laws would result in a COMBINED effect, with existing laws of making for a safer society, even if still subjected to occasions of violence, which IMO makes a HELL of a lot more sense than YOUR advocating doing NOTHING.

And I’m asking what are those better laws? I’ve been asking what are those better laws.

Bump stocks, sure take them away, no true gun lover cares about bump stocks.

 

[b.c.]

And I’m asking what are those better laws? I’ve been asking what are those better laws.

Bump stocks, sure take them away, no true gun lover cares about bump stocks.

We know what you're asking, we know why you're asking, and we know what your response is going to be to our answer ("he would've found away around the law") which is why we don't bother.

Cruz reportedly bought his AR-15 legally. Maybe there need be changes in the age a non US military (i.e. untrained) person can legally acquire certain weapons. Maybe AR-15's and/or certain magazine sizes should be illegal. Maybe those responsible for reporting, documenting people with mental illnesses and criminal records should be required under PENALTY of law to do "due diligence" in following through with such requirements.

These and other proposals that have been put forward by those with far greater expertise in such matters are ideas WORTHY of discussion and consideration, as opposed to the blind, obstinate, nay-saying obstructionism on the part of those such as yourself who'd just as soon have us do nothing.

 

[creek47]

We know what you're asking, we know why you're asking, and we know what your response is going to be to our answer ("he would've found away around the law") which is why we don't bother.

Cruz reportedly bought his AR-15 legally. Maybe there need be changes in the age a non US military (i.e. untrained) person can legally acquire certain weapons. Maybe AR-15's and/or certain magazine sizes should be illegal. Maybe those responsible for reporting, documenting people with mental illnesses and criminal records should be required under PENALTY of law to do "due diligence" in following through with such requirements.

These and other proposals that have been put forward by those with far greater expertise in such matters are ideas WORTHY of discussion and consideration, as opposed to the blind, obstinate, nay-saying obstructionism on the part of those such as yourself who'd just as soon have us do nothing.

I would like to look into penalties for individuals who don’t enter the information correctly. This can be seen from the Air Force OSI agent who didn’t enter domestic violence charge on the Church Shooter I’m Texas which would of prevented him from obtaining his weapon.

Was that so hard? You gave an actual, tangible thjng that may stop a mass shooter and I can find two situations where it could of been affective.

 

[Chrysippus]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/the-left-ignores-law-enforcements-failures-in-parkland/

There you go

one article doesn’t contitute proof. You’re lost.

 

[StormfrontFL]

Probably look at how we are raising the youth of America. We have changed how we raise kids in the last year more then at any time o can remember. We now put so much emphasis on being happy that kids don’t really know how to cope with frustrations and lose. We use medication to be happy without learning what it means to be “happy”, perhaps the medicalization of American society has taken away our ability to cope and have resilience. I wouldn’t look at gun control but look at how we are raising the youth.

That’s my suggestion. Parents are trying to be friends rather than parents, kids who don’t know how to deal with pain and we don’t teach kids how to deal with pain anymore either. This situation is so complex that one law will not fix the issue.

I agree that parenting these days sucks. However, placing the blame on bad parenting is a clear cop-out. There are people who had lousy parents who grew up to be fine citizens. The problem is when lousy people have easy access to weapons that were designed to kill as many as possible.

 

[StormfrontFL]

And I can talk about the victims of Chicago which has more Killed in that city alone than Afghanistan and Iraq combined and also see the countries toughest gun control laws. So an emotional reaction isn’t really appealing because it doesn’t hold water.

I would also think the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto probably would of preferred to have weapons.

I was wondering when you, or someone like you, would mention Chicago. It's funny that you bring up that city but fail to mention that most of the guns there are bought or brought in from the surrounding states with much more lax gun laws.

 

[StormfrontFL]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.va...-shooting-trump-republicans-nra-monologue/amp

Jimmy Kimmel going after the NRA and saying that they have blood on their hands imply that the NRA member who is law abiding has blood in their hands. This is of course untrue.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.va...-shooting-trump-republicans-nra-monologue/amp

If you know that the organization to which you belong is doing something wrong and you remain silent then you are complicit. If the NRA members who are law abiding agree that more measures need to be taken and the organization tries to push the issue under the rug they ought to speak up. Don't get mad when it's assumed you go along when you're silent.

 

[creek47]

If you know that the organization to which you belong is doing something wrong and you remain silent then you are complicit. If the NRA members who are law abiding agree that more measures need to be taken and the organization tries to push the issue under the rug they ought to speak up. Don't get mad when it's assumed you go along when you're silent.

So you’re ok with labeling law-abiding citizens who wish to have their rights intact. For the record I’m not a member of the NRA or own a weapon. The oddest thing is how you say “it’s assumed you go along” that just seems like a stereotype.

 

[StormfrontFL]

So you’re ok with labeling law-abiding citizens who wish to have their rights intact. For the record I’m not a member of the NRA or own a weapon. The oddest thing is how you say “it’s assumed you go along” that just seems like a stereotype.

It's not a stereotype when you belong to an organization and you are quite when you know they are wrong. Learn what a stereotype is.

Yes, I'm okay with labeling someone who privately disagrees but publicly embraces something. If one is a member of the NRA and feels that some measures are needed but remains silent when those who supposedly speak for them say measures aren't needed then they best be prepared to be lumped in with those who go along.

 

[creek47]

I was wondering when you, or someone like you, would mention Chicago. It's funny that you bring up that city but fail to mention that most of the guns there are bought or brought in from the surrounding states with much more lax gun laws.

So you agree that people are going to break the law and criminals don’t care about the federal laws about moving firearms from state to state. Pretty sure that their is a transporting law in Illinois.

 

[creek47]

It's not a stereotype when you belong to an organization and you are quite when you know they are wrong. Learn what a stereotype is.

Yes, I'm okay with labeling someone who privately disagrees but publicly embraces something. If one is a member of the NRA and feels that some measures are needed but remains silent when those who supposedly speak for them say measures aren't needed then they best be prepared to be lumped in with those who go along.

Again, I’m not a member so you can stop killing me into that group. More so, what if that person agrees that alll we need is to enforce the legislation that’s already on the books which is the stance of the NRA, are they silent and agreeing?

And yes just because a person is silent doesn’t mean they fully endorse and yes it’s a stereotype to lump someone into your box based upon being a member of a particular group. Example is saying that you’re a republican, so you must be white, rich, heterosexual and god fearing. This of course is a stereotype