gun lives matter

First topic message reminder :

We will never allow foreign bureaucrats to trample on your Second Amendment freedom': Trump tells the NRA he is pulling out of the international gun trade treaty signed by Obama

Failing Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon on Friday announced at the National Rifle Association's annual meeting that the United States will drop out of an international arms treaty signed in 2013 by then-President Barack Obama but opposed by the NRA and other conservative groups.

Trump told members of the gun lobby that he intends to revoke the status of the United States as a signatory of the Arms Trade Treaty, which was never ratified by the U.S. Senate.

'We're taking our signature back,' Trump said to thousands of cheering attendees, many wearing red hats emblazoned with the Republican president's 'Make America Great Again' slogan.

'Under my administration, we will never surrender American sovereignty to anyone, Trump said, before signing a document on stage asking the Senate to halt the ratification process. 'We will never allow foreign diplomats to trample on your Second Amendment freedom.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6964639/Trump-heeds-NRA-decides-pull-U-S-U-N-arms-treaty.html

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

And I gave you an answer. I don't have to think about it, as history shows how humans defended themselves prior to firearms.  

Swords, knives, arrows, rocks, clubs, spears, slings, trebuches, boiling oil, dogs and fists.

I'm sure there are more.  

But none designed to so efficiently kill other people.

No shit.

Carting around a fucking trebuche is a bit cumbersome.

But rest assured, that mankind kept the gravediggers busy prior to firearms.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But none designed to so efficiently kill other people.

No shit.  

Carting around a fucking trebuche is a  bit cumbersome.

But rest assured, that mankind kept the gravediggers busy prior to firearms.  

As I said, but none were designed so efficiently to kill people. So, I think it's proper to treat firearms and bombs as a separate category, with special laws...out of consideration of the purpose of guns.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

No shit.  

Carting around a fucking trebuche is a  bit cumbersome.

But rest assured, that mankind kept the gravediggers busy prior to firearms.  

As I said, but none were designed so efficiently to kill people.  So, I think it's proper to treat firearms and bombs as a separate category, with special laws...out of consideration of the purpose of guns.

They are treated differently. Are there any restrictions on trebuches?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

As I said, but none were designed so efficiently to kill people.  So, I think it's proper to treat firearms and bombs as a separate category, with special laws...out of consideration of the purpose of guns.

They are treated differently. Are there any restrictions on trebuches?

Guns are the only single use device: to kill life. Outta be the most restrictions on them.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

They are treated differently. Are there any restrictions on trebuches?

Guns are the only single use device: to kill life.  Outta be the most restrictions on them.

And there are. I carry my knife everywhere without restrictions like they place on guns. Even carry it in a bar.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Guns are the only single use device: to kill life.  Outta be the most restrictions on them.

And there are. I carry my knife everywhere without restrictions like they place on guns.  Even carry it in a bar.

But you can't carry a knife on an airplane.  It's all relative.

Lawmakers need to take a fresh look at the question: what is necessary and acceptable, and what is not.  There is no need for an AR-15 or an AK-47 anywhere in civilian life.  Its as silly as justifying nukes for private, personal use.  Additionally, there is no rational need for extended magazines.  No bump-stocks.  Etc.  There are only two benign justifications for any firearm: hunting and target practice.

As for protection, we need to look, not at the extraordinary story that is so rare that it makes the papers, but at actual statistics of how frequent, or how many people find a need for a handgun.  And property needs to be eliminated from the list of justifications.  What property is so valuable that it is worth taking a life?

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

And there are. I carry my knife everywhere without restrictions like they place on guns.  Even carry it in a bar.

But you can't carry a knife on an airplane.  It's all relative.

Lawmakers need to take a fresh look at the question: what is necessary and acceptable, and what is not.  There is no need for an AR-15 or an AK-47 anywhere in civilian life.  Its as silly as justifying nukes for private, personal use.  Additionally, there is no rational need for extended magazines.  No bump-stocks.  Etc.  There are only two benign justifications for any firearm: hunting and target practice.

As for protection, we need to look, not at the extraordinary story that is so rare that it makes the papers, but at actual statistics of how frequent, or how many people find a need for a handgun.  And property needs to be eliminated from the list of justifications.  What property is so valuable that it is worth taking a life?

And in some countries, there is no need for a pocketknife.

Thankfully, freedom isn't about needs.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But you can't carry a knife on an airplane.  It's all relative.

Lawmakers need to take a fresh look at the question: what is necessary and acceptable, and what is not.  There is no need for an AR-15 or an AK-47 anywhere in civilian life.  Its as silly as justifying nukes for private, personal use.  Additionally, there is no rational need for extended magazines.  No bump-stocks.  Etc.  There are only two benign justifications for any firearm: hunting and target practice.

As for protection, we need to look, not at the extraordinary story that is so rare that it makes the papers, but at actual statistics of how frequent, or how many people find a need for a handgun.  And property needs to be eliminated from the list of justifications.  What property is so valuable that it is worth taking a life?

And in some countries, there is no need for a pocketknife.

Thankfully, freedom isn't about needs.

Freedom is a vacuous entity. Weapons of intentional destruction are very real, as are the deaths they produce. Do you want 'rule of law', or 'rule of guns'? Because, one way or another, one of them is going to win...and it's not looking well for the good guys right now.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

And in some countries, there is no need for a pocketknife.

Thankfully, freedom isn't about needs.

Freedom is a vacuous entity.  Weapons of intentional destruction are very real, as are the deaths they produce.  Do you want 'rule of law', or 'rule of guns'?  Because, one way or another, one of them is going to win...and it's not looking well for the good guys right now.

I want freedom.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Freedom is a vacuous entity.  Weapons of intentional destruction are very real, as are the deaths they produce.  Do you want 'rule of law', or 'rule of guns'?  Because, one way or another, one of them is going to win...and it's not looking well for the good guys right now.

I want freedom.

Turns out it is nothing. You might as well say you want to kill, which at least is something.

The concept of nothing is dangerous, as it can be filled in with all manner of things, some of them illegal. Eg: "I want the freedom to murder so-and-so." That's not freedom...there's a law against that. Use of terms like freedom are often contradictory. If you posit a vacuous entity or concept, it can mean (or filled-in with) anything.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I want freedom.

Turns out it is nothing.  You might as well say you want to kill, which at least is something.

The concept of nothing is dangerous, as it can be filled in with all manner of things, some of them illegal.  Eg: "I want the freedom to murder so-and-so."  That's not freedom...there's a law against that.  Use of terms like freedom are often contradictory.  If you posit a vacuous entity or concept, it can mean (or filled-in with) anything.

I think people who have lived without freedom know it is something.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Turns out it is nothing.  You might as well say you want to kill, which at least is something.

The concept of nothing is dangerous, as it can be filled in with all manner of things, some of them illegal.  Eg: "I want the freedom to murder so-and-so."  That's not freedom...there's a law against that.  Use of terms like freedom are often contradictory.  If you posit a vacuous entity or concept, it can mean (or filled-in with) anything.

I think people who have lived without freedom know it is something.  

They got the wrong side of the deal. That's what I was just warning you about. Freedom is malleable. Freedom, in the hands of Hitler or Trump, is not what you want.

Be careful of open invitations.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I think people who have lived without freedom know it is something.  

They got the wrong side of the deal.  That's what I was just warning you about.  Freedom is malleable.  Freedom, in the hands of Hitler or Trump, is not what you want.

Be careful of open invitations.

Thanks for the warning.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

They got the wrong side of the deal.  That's what I was just warning you about.  Freedom is malleable.  Freedom, in the hands of Hitler or Trump, is not what you want.

Be careful of open invitations.

Thanks for the warning.  

Anytime. I like to see young minds change, and grow.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Thanks for the warning.  

Anytime.  I like to see young minds change, and grow.  

And I try to be kind to the elderly as they lose their mental faculties.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Anytime.  I like to see young minds change, and grow.  

And I try to be kind to the elderly as they lose their mental faculties.  

I do too.