46 2

I still see more liberal gun grabbers making poor arguments for gun control. The fact is that the bill of rights is inalienable and unabridgable. Gun control is an abridgment and alienation of the right to keep and bare arms. Don't like it? Move. Problem solved.

jayneonacobb 7 Feb 17

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


I think you got lost on your way to "Don't like it? Move." \ is not the way rational people discuss controversial issues, so I don't expect your approach will get much traction here. You seem to lack an understanding of how our government works, and that people who difffer in opinion are patriotic Americans and have as much right to be here, express opinions, and work to change things as you do. I say this as a gun owner and former NRA member, and former frequent contributor to and others.

The only thing stopping a change to the 2nd is the money that the gun lobby puts in mostly Republican pockets.

And my response was deleted even though I was calling you out on how offensive I find your platform.

Again, post deleted.

@jayneonacobb The liberal administration of this website allow all kinds of derogatory comments against guns and Trump but when you try to reply in the same tone they often delete your remarks. Shows where they stand on the issues.

Do you think that the reason the "gun lobby" (the NRA, a civil rights nonprofit organization) only deals with the right because the left is the side opposing gun rights? Does it make sense to donate money to a cause you are opposed to? No, it makes no sense. I have a clear understanding that the government doesn't work.


The author of this post doesn't understand the definition of an amendment.

mt49er Level 7 Feb 17, 2018

In this case it means the latter. You don't understand that words have multiple meanings.

@jayneonacobb Assumptions! Have you never heard of repeal? []

@mt49er Wikipedia... It's ok for college Freshmen to do light research with, or to find a picture but it's hardly unbiased or accurate on these subjects.

@Crimson67 and again you throw around unsubstantiated claims.

@jayneonacobb Well, at least we agree that Wikipedia is a garbage site. Like it or not, the example is still valid.

@Crimson67 you can't repeal an amendment unless it conflicts with a pre-existing one. The bill of rights exists to limit government, not empower it. They don't have the authority to change the laws that govern them.

@EllenDale I said do light research wit or getting a picture. I didn't say it was a reputable, citeable source.

@Crimson67 keep arguing with liberal propaganda and your emotions. My word, I even tricked you into arguing for me multiple times. Your "guns won't fight the government" argument is exactly why the second amendment says arms, not muskets. Your feelings don't matter, and they never will.

@jayneonacobb If you look up who proposed the bill of rights and all of it's additional amendments, you should be capable of coming to an understanding of who it is that can change them. True, they cannot change the bill of rights, but they can introduce new amendments making old ones no longer valid just like in that crappy wikipedia link where 21 took out 18. The 18th amendment still exists, but has no power.

@mt49er Even though the Supremes said otherwise, the second he right of individuals to amendment does not guarantee own guns. Everybody seems to forget about regulated militias.

@mt49er if it conflicts with a right specified previously and currently established it is unconstitutional.

@jayneonacobb So what you're saying is the 21st Amendment is unconstitutional since it contradicts the 18th. I'm simply not following your logic mainly as it is lacking critical thought.

@mt49er the 18th amendment was found to be useless and it is unconstitutional any way as it limits the pursuit of happiness unnecessarily.


Tat is an outright lie. The 2nd Amendment does NOT give private individuals the right to own all available weapons. Many military weapons are not available for private ownership, nor should they be.

The AR15 rifle is not a military weapon. It is a semiautomatic civilian version.

@Trajan61 Finbish the statement and stay honest: "It is a semiautomatic version" -- of a military assault weapon. Stop playing stupid and dishonest word games!

@Trajan61 WTF difference does that make to this discussion?

@JanGarber What difference? Honesty! Is thazt a word you understand?

@wordywalt there's no such thing as an "assault weapon" there is no Smith and Wesson assault rifle for example. An assault weapon is a weapon used in an assault, not a type of gun.

@jayneonacobb pure obstructive horse manure!!

@wordywalt you were just arguing semantics on another thread about this exact subject. Why is it "obstructing" when I point out when you're wrong, but it isn't when you want to make false claims about what things are called?

@jayneonacobb For the purposes of a discussion like this, when the phrase "assault weapon" is used, everyone knows what is meant. They are talking about semi (possibly full) automatic rifles with high capacity magazines. Typically shorter length, that is carbines. Calibers from .23 to .30 with high velocity. They frequently are military pieces or near cousins. The kind of arms we commonly see SWAT members armed with. They are easy and fast to wield and capable of a rapid rate of fire for a sustained period.

It doesn't matter that this is not an official category of firearm. Playing that semantic game in this context is not constructive. It is just playing dumb.


It’s ironic that you blame others for having poor arguments..

Marz Level 7 Feb 17, 2018

I literally just explained the letter of the law. You, on the other hand, are just making snide remarks.

@Marz poor argument is the middle name of trollers

@evestrat name calling a troll after repeatedly asking them to stop. And in your case inadvertently offending you, for which I apologized and asked for an acceptable alternative as to avoid being offensive in the future. Yeah, I'm a real asshole.

My arguments would make more sense if they weren't being deleted as soon as I post them. It seems like evertime I end the debate my post is deleted.

@evestrat I'm not saying you name called. I'm saying I offended you by accident and I am genuinely sorry for that. I was asking what term you prefer because I actually care about not insulting people. Provided that they do not do so repeatedly first. (I'm not saying you did) I asked politely for these people to be civil or not engage with me further. They continued and made terrible acuisations that should sicken anyone. They are trolling, not me.

How about gun control supporter or advocate? I feel like that is accurate and unbiased. Is that correct, or is there a better option?


A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That's it... that's the entire text of the Second Amendment. Nowhere do I see any notion that gun control is an abridgment or alienation.

As to the "don't like it, move," comment, that's just ridiculous. If you love something... say democracy... school children... human life... you don't bail because there are things happening that you don't like. You stay and make it better. You find a way to make it better. If you cannot tolerate a variance of opinion... especially on this subject, perhaps you shouldn't be discussing this issue at this point.

I have to agree. I like constructive conversations/debates. Insulting people is not constructive. Demanding that unless they think like you, they're moronic idiots, is not constructive. You don't want debate, you want to bully people to agree with you. Newsflash.... it's not going to happen.

Also, just because you're an "expert" in gun control/laws does NOT mean you speak for everyone. People have their own interpretation of our laws; that does not mean you're right and everyone else is wrong (and vice/versa). If it did, we would have no need for a government. We would just imprison everyone that didn't agree (last I heard that was called a dictatorship)

"Shall not be infringed upon." Thats from the BILL OF RIGHTS. A right is defined as an inalienable and unabridgable need granted by virtue of sentient life. Words have meanings.

The US is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. That's a cheap blow, building your soap box out of dead children. Shame on you for stooping to using such a deplorable travesty as a platform for your political agenda. That is incredibly undignified not to mention extremely offensive.

Better is subjective. Guns are inanimate objects. Let's look at this with a simple test.

Johnny walked home and shot his friend.


An AR-15 walked home and shot his friend.

Which one makes sense?

Maybe people shouldn't be so immature and vicious about this debate? I am perfectly civil until someone isnt with me, and even then I'm usually pretty level headed. It seems that like religion, the gun control supporters tend to get very emotional, irrational, verbally and physically abusive when challenged on their beliefs. Not all, just a majority in my extensive experience.

Thank you @Crimson67. I keep seeing him insisting on being an "expert" but didn't know his credentials. If that's and expert, then I'm an expert on food because I can cook.

@jayneonacobb: So you start out with a logical fallacy: Equivocation – or using a term with more than one meaning, and glossing over it's intended meaning. Followed by the logical fallacy of Making Shit Up! And then jump into the logical fallacy of verbosity: If you throw out enough terms the rest of us won't notice you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

THEN, you want to use the logical fallacy of Intentionality, insisting that meaning of the Second Amendment is what YOU say it is.

And I've been reading your comments here, and you're really making the best use of false authority, pretending you're an expert... which, as it's been pointed out, you're not.

To quote you:" I am perfectly civil until someone isnt with me, and even then I'm usually pretty level headed. It seems that like religion, the gun control supporters tend to get very emotional, irrational, verbally and physically abusive when challenged on their beliefs. Not all, just a majority in my extensive experience."

I've been reading your comments. You come unhinged when someone disagree with you and become quite abusive, and jump the logical fallacy of Ad Hominem. I have not seen any evidence of level-headedness in your comments at all.

You are accusing the rest of us of being "emotional, irrational, verbally and physically abusive... But think about this. If everyone around you is "exhibiting" these emotions, then it's not them. It's you. And people are responding to you as such. And through those lenses you vilify people's response to you so that it's "them" when it's actually you. A term I learned in Psych 101... Projection.

Clearly you are unable to think clearly on this subject which means that you're not qualified to debate it. At this point your argument has become so toxic that you're not getting a lot of support from anyone here. This is a big debate, a complicated subject, and must be handled through the lenses of truth and reality. You cannot circumvent those, and that's exactly what your arguments are trying to do.

Yes. Well said, Benthoven.

@Benthoven no that's you projecting your emotional state into me. You find my rights offensive, that's your problem. Read the federalist papers, they define those terms in no unsure way. Your argument is based off your feelings and liberal lies. You are using tragedy as a political platform, there are few things less predatory or disgusting in politics. Fact is my rights are rights, you not anyone else has a right to infringe upon them.

@jayneonacobb: I will DEFEND your rights. You're not arguing rights here. You're making up some bullshit argument and trying to defend it. You know, like religious people do. They start with a premise and try to defend it. And your premise is profoundly flawed. I love that you had to retreat to "liberal lies," again, another logical fallacy "Ecological fallacy" assuming that people of a group act in a specific way without any consideration for the individual.

Your entire argument is logical fallacies, and based on pure lies.

Even in the District of Columbia v. Heller... in a 5 to 4 vote... that's Justices looking at what the Second Amendment means, calls bullshit to your argument.

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited… Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

Again, I repeat my previous point. You're too emotional to be having this conversation. This is a conversation that sane people need to have, sober people, reasonable... Your arguments do not reflect any of those.

And by the way, the ONLY RIGHTS guaranteed in the Constitution are: LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. As it stands right now, the Second Amendment as it's being interpreted by you, is in direct conflict with that right. Keep in mind the Second Amendment is an AMENDMENT to the Constitution.

Once again, I repeat the words of that bastion of Conservationism: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…"


The U.S. populous is not a well regulated militia. That was the original intent of that amendment because of the tyranny of the British royalty. A way to keep the government in check, so that their power does not corrupt absolutely. The state national guard has fulfilled the criteria for that aspect of the amendment, and has become the well regulated militia of the states. We have a love affair with guns, and that is a fact and it will never change. There are too many guns out there and it is past the point of no return. If law abiding citizens give up their guns only criminals and mentally ill people who wants guns to commit atrocities will get them. It is so easy to get a gun; legally and illegally now. People who claim that they need their guns to keep the government from taking over their lives will not be able to use a gun against a tank or a jet fighter or a nuclear bomb if the government turns on them.

No, the national guard and reserves soldiers are not private citizens. A militia is defined as an armed citizenry. That excludes soldiers as they give up certain rights during the term of their service and some after. You clearly have no idea how the government or military work.

@jayneonacobb Actually you do not. Back when the constitution was written there was no military establishment. It was the citizens that made up the militias. Now the state's have a well regulated militia. It was about about state rights. And I was in the military. Over the years people came to interpret the meaning of that amendment two different ways based on their ideological beliefs. It is up to the courts to decide which way is correct.

No, not at all. The national guard is not a militia, my E-6 friend will attest to that. They are an auxiliary force scantioned and encompassed by the US army. He is not a full fledged citizen because of it. One of my roommates was in the air reserves as an E-5. He's out and working in the private sector as an airplane mechanic. He still doesn't have the right to sue the government for damages he suffered while in the military. That means he is also not a full citizen because his right to sue the government has been perminantly revoked.

The definition of a militia is an armed citizenry. Those soldiers, good friends of mine, will never again have full fledged citizen because of their service to you and your rights. They are eligible for a militia, but prior service is not required. Technically, by old laws that still exist every person eligeable for the draft or voluntary service is a member of the militia. Thusly granting them, the people, access to arms. Arms means all weapons and armaments.

The founding fathers knew weapons technology would advance. They heard of mythical weapons of immense power from religion and other fiction. They could easily comprehend wielding the power of 1000 Sun's.

The bill of rights was established expressly to limit government. You can not remove an amendment unless it conflicts with a pre-existing one. As was the case with the 21st and 18TH amendments.

The bill of rights aknowldeges certain human rights. It does not grant them. A right is an inalienable and unabridgable need of a person.

@Crimson67 I am a member of a military family and many of my friends are in the military. I've worked for the military. I know how it works

I don’t think there’s enough tanks and jet fighters to chase down all the gun people. The government would have to be crazy to use nukes on their own people. Besides with Trump in command the tanks and jet fighters are on our side so what are you talking about.

@jayneonacobb Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. When the states started the National Guards for each state they started a well regulated state militia. When the Constitution was written there was no thought of that being done, because they did not like the idea of a government having and controlling an army. Read the constitution and understand it or go to law school. You can pass an amendment to change any part of the constitution. If there is something in the constitution then it can only be changed by an amendment. So when they passed the 18th amendment and chaos followed, they could not pass laws to get rid of it. They had to repeal it by passing another amendment to repeal it.

@jayneonacobb I have doctors in my family, and I am part of a family that have doctors in it. It does not make me a doctor.

@Trajan61 I am just pointing out that the argument that they have guns to keep the government from taking over does not hold water. Look, people like their guns, and most of them just like to go hunting and target practice. I have no problem with that, just don't use dumb reasons as arguments, and use some common sense when it comes to safety and protecting the innocents.

@noworry28 I'm an expert in the field, that makes me an expert. Making up new definitions to support a political movement doesn't change the words meaning. Lincoln said that if you call a dogs tail a leg, it still only has four legs. I'm paraphrasing because of the rhetorical question structure. The fact is that the guard and reserves do not constitute a militia by definition.

Who do you think the bill of rights was written for? The peoole, or the government that it was designed to limit?

@Crimson67 I've worked with the military and I grew up around it. I hear about it all the time. That makes me familiar with it.

@jayneonacobb You are no expert. You are just delusional.

@Crimson67 still enough to know what constitutes a militia and what constitutes a professional military.

@noworry28 and what evidence do you have to disprove the very real existence of my degree and fact that I am in compliance with all firearms laws in my location? I know I am because I'm well versed in them because I have to be or I'd be in prison. That makes me an expert on gun law. I havn't passed the bar exam, but I have a complete understanding of those laws. That is literally the definition of expertise.


Gun control <> gun grabbing.

There's not one law-abiding, sane gun enthusiast who would be negatively impacted by common sense gun control that can / will (and HAS) prevented mass murders in the past.

No one has a legitimate need for automatic weapons; they should be prohibited as they cause WAY more harm than good.

Common sense my ass. Common sense dictates that the government doesn't have anyone's best interests in mind but their own. If other people have the, especially criminals and governments, then I need them. That's called equality. Aren't you hippies all about equality?

Automatic weapons are already prohibited. Civilians can only buy semiautomatic weapons unless you have a class lll and those are very rare. Most crimes are committed with handguns. Your not going to solve much by outlawing AR15’s.

@Trajan61 Then gun enthusiasts will have no problem throwing us a bone with an assault rifle ban.

Of course it was AR15-style weapons that did the shooting this week, the one in Lost Wages, and IIRC, the Newtown shootings. Maybe preventing those tragedies isn't "solving much" but I'm willing to bet the relatives of all those victims will beg to differ.

Since your chances of being struck by lightning are higher than being shot by a mass shooter maybe we should pass laws making it manditory everyone stay indoors during storms.

Are you not alarmed by the fact that 4 judges on the US Supreme Court think it’s ok for a city to pass laws making it illegal for their residents to have a gun in their own home. If that’s not a total ban I don’t know what is. If Obama could have done so it would have appointed a fifth liberal judge to the Supreme Court and the 2nd amendment would have been toast.

@Trajan61 We can't control the weather. We CAN control guns.

I’ll never relinquish control of my guns to the government and I’d be joined by millions of others so what in the hell are you talking about.

What does the weather have to do with the liberals on the Supreme Court?

@jayneonacobb I hope you're not planning to collect social security when you retire, or expect the fire department to protect your from fires, or the police to protect you from criminals, or the road department to pave the streets. I mean, after all, the government can't be trusted. I admire you for applying this principle uniformly and logically. You must have one impressive compound / fortress out there at the end of Chester's Hollow Road.

@Trajan61 Let me spell it out for you with real small words. YOU brought up the weather (getting struck by lightning somehow making children dying in school shootings an acceptable / insignificant price to pay for unfettered gun ownership). THAT is what it has to do with what YOU said it had to do with, which was NOT the Supreme Court.

When people don't have good arguments they often deflect, change the subject, muddy the waters, and move the goal posts. Which is what YOU are doing because YOUR argument is morally indefensible.

@jayneonacobb Your comments constitute nothing more than ignorant, falsehoods and vitriol. You need to get your head out of your ...

So you favor the confiscation of all semiautomatic weapons just because some idiot abused the weapon. I was just using lightning to get across the point that getting shot by a mass shooter was extremely small. People often abuse automobiles. Maybe we ought to confiscate them as well.

@Trajan61 We didn't confiscate automobiles, we regulated them. That's all that's being suggested by gun control proposals. We studied how auto fatalities happened, added seat belts and crush zones and other engineering changes and then mandated / enforced them. Fatalities and injuries were greatly reduced.

@Trajan61 And he was not able to do it because of the Reptilians "if you can't beat'em, cheat'em" mentality.

@wordywalt I believe Jay likes the am well, taste, and warmth of his own ads. The sad thing is he probably has children and has passed those genes down to another generation.


The Constitution is a flexible document. Hence, "amendments".

True, but there is more than one definition of the word. In this case it means the latter in this definition. []

@Crimson67 it's a consensus definition.

@Crimson67 it should have been a link to the definition.


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You're not in a well regulated militia, so you don't have the right to keep and bear arms.

I am in a well regulated militia. The 3%ers. By law any one eligeable for the draft is a potential member of the militia. You brought a knife to a figurative gun fight, and you lost because of it.

You're regulated by the federal government? lol No, you're just another white terrorist. You're bringing guns to a drone fight.

@jayneonacobb You must be one of those Russian plants trying to stir up discord. I don't know any real Americans so ill-informed, so pedantic, so scurrilous in argumentation, so illogical, so uncivil.

@wordywalt I'm sorry, but you seriously need some lessons in etticut. You constantly throw insults whenever anyone disagrees with you about anything. You don't argue, you pick fights. You supply no evidence or logic to support you claims. I'm going to block you soon because you have never once responded correctly or appropriately to any thing I have posted. You're 50 years older than me physically, I'm pretty sure that's the only way you are more mature than me given your history here.

We're going to make assault riffles illegal and institute universal background checks. There is nothing you can do to stop us. Go ahead and keep arguing online while we make the laws.


Wrong. We can just better define the idea of what a gun in private hands can be.

Let's look at the definitions of the words which were carefully selected in the creation of the second amendment, Bill of rights and constitution.

Militia is an armed citizenry. Well regulated means governed effectively. Arms means all weapons and armaments. Inalienable means can not be infringed upon. Unabridgable means unable to be truncated. Infringed means impeded upon.

Given the facts you are wrong.

"Arms means all weapons and armaments."

Cool. If i move to the States, does that mean I can own a surface to air missile and my own nukes? And put land mines around the perimeter of my garden to stop felons breaking in?

@Uncorrugated you could mske a defense under the current law. I found the second best thing, two hysterical chihuahuas.


It's outdated and the NRA has perverted it with the sole purpose of selling the most guns they can.

Out dated how? Do you trust the US government completely? If you do you're a fool.

@jayneonacobb And how does private gun ownership give you any control over a drone wielding military with the population of a small country? They wouldn't even break step going over your body. Which may be the purpose of the wing nuttery associated with gun ownership in the USA. It keeps people who would genuinely resist the oligarchy in a state of compliance because they've been hoodwinked into thinking that gun ownership some how resists the gubbmint. It doesn't. It only reinforces the power of certain oligarchs.

Without the NRA we’d be run over roughshod by gun control nuts like Obama and Clinton who was determine to get rid of them any way he could even if it meant going around the people with liberal judicial appointments.

Arguing with gun nuts is pointless. They don't see reality. They only see threats at every turn. They're worse than religious people in the way they refuse to see the facts right in front of their faces.

@Trajan61 "Without the NRA we’d be run over roughshod by gun control nuts like Obama and Clinton who was determine to get rid of them any way he could even if it meant going around the people with liberal judicial appointments."

And you point is? What are you afraid of? What is it that scares you about being more like countries with strict gun control laws that also have a significantly lower rates of death by guns?

I really do not understand. Please explain it to me. Please explain how your liberal gun laws make you safer than places that have strict gun control laws.

@Uncorrugated In most countries you do not have a right to have a gun in your home or carry one on your person for self defense. In most places in the US you do. I’ll take the US any day over most countries.

So let me get this straight.
You would rather live in a country where you fear being attacked so carry a gun so you can defend yourself, to living in a country where you do not need to carry a gun because you chance of being attacked is so low you don't need to.

Is that a fair assessment?

@Uncorrugated Every country has crime, but it’s just in a few like the US and the Czech Republic that you have a right to defend yourself with a gun. In the rest your just at the mercy of the criminal! If you think other countries are so much better why don’t you move there.

I have blocked Trajan61. I simply do not want to interact with someone so fearful, someone who thinks he/she is going to be attacked at every turn in life. I have discovered that when you look for the negative, you find it. I don't choose to have anything to do with such people.


@admin how do I block this guy?


"The fact is that the bill of rights is inalienable and unabridgable."


I thought that the right to bear arms was the second AMENDMENT, just like the 18th amendment prohibited the manufacture, sale and consumption of alcohol and the 21st amendment repealed the 18th amendment.

Silly me for thinking stuff could change. Is the constitution infallible - just like the bible?

The bill of rights was established expressly to limit government. You can not remove an amendment unless it conflicts with a pre-existing one. As was the case with the 21st and 18TH amendments.

The bill of rights aknowldeges certain human rights. It does not grant them. A right is an inalienable and unabridgable need of a person.

"You can not remove an amendment unless it conflicts with a pre-existing one."

Citation, please.

And the 21st did not remove the 18th, genius, the language of the 21st simply nullified the 18th. Both are still a part of the constitution.

"A right is an inalienable and unabridgable need of a person."

Like healthcare?


It might help encourage productive conversation if you didn't say things like "liberal gun grabbers", which I immediately interpret as indicative of prejudice, ignorance, or some other conversation-stopping insult. And telling anyone who disagrees to move? If you are so supportive of the Constitution, which was founded on the right to differing beliefs, why say something like that?

marga Level 7 Feb 17, 2018

I didn't know that was offensive. I apologize. The bill of rights exists to limit government, not empower it. The rights expressed there in are that of the people evidenced by the nature of the document. You can not change an amendment unless it conflicts with pre-existing one, as was the case with the 21st and 18th amendments. In addition any amendment needs to be ratified by a majority consensus of states.


If people would just move when problems arise nothing would get solved. There are plenty of amendments which shows sometimes stupid laws need to be over turned. I'm not arguing for or against taking weapons. American citizens don't need to move when we disagree. We just need open minded people to get things done. Good thing not everyone is closed minded otherwise I'll still be sitting at the back of the bus or worse.


I think the US constitution states that you have the right to bare arms as a 'militia' rather than privately. I'm glad I don't like there. In my country you can be a man without the need to have a weapon or have the paranoid state of mind to think that the 'government' will come and take your much loved guns away.


It is no coincidence that there is usually a correlation between religious people and support of gun ownership: both tend to stick to some written down text without turning on their brain and doing some critical thinking about what else could be true.
Laws can be changed, and the progress we see in other countries in this respect, making them much safer and a much better place to send kinds to school, is based on those countries having changed their laws. This has happened in Britain, which has made the law much stricter which resulted in much fewer casualties and mass shootings, it has happened in Australia where those shootings stopped after they made the law stricter and many other places.

And of course an amendment to the constution is exactly the opposite of what you claim: it is a change to the constitution which can be done whenever the legal conditions are met. This has happened many times.

You are not only talking nonsense, you are also doing it in the disgusting and bullying way one has come to expect from right-wing gun-fanatics: "Don't like it? Move" -- Well no, no-one is going to move because they disagree with you and the suggestion is laughable.

The founding fathers knew weapons technology would advance. They heard of mythical weapons of immense power from religion and other fiction. They could easily comprehend wielding the power of 1000 Sun's.

The bill of rights was established expressly to limit government. You can not remove an amendment unless it conflicts with a pre-existing one. As was the case with the 21st and 18TH amendments.

The bill of rights aknowldeges certain human rights. It does not grant them. A right is an inalienable and unabridgable need of a person.
Your feelings don't matter against facts.

Talking to gun fanatics can actually be worse than talking to fundamentalist religious people.


How fast could a gun fire when the bill of right was created? I don’t think our founding fathers could even conceive of assault rifles. Guns have changed. Laws need to be updated.

The puckle (yay, It didn't auto correct this time) gun could fire up to 11 rounds in rapid succession by cranking a handle before reloading. That's fully automatic by definition because the crank is the trigger and the pull is a complete cycle of operations. It was invented in 1722. They knew machine guns existed and would get better. The puckle did in their life times. These were smart people. I can foresee better weapons technology. People have been doing it since ancient times. Look at Zeus, he wielded lightning, an energy weapon of immense power, according to the Greeks.

@jayneonacobb a quick google search will tell you the puckle never made mass production.


You are for gun control buddy. You are against selling guns to drug cartels I assume. May I assume you are anti guns for folks who are severely retarded as well? I could be wrong. You may be completely unreasonable.

The point is that gun control in some measure is just reality and to deny that is to be separate from reality.

Further so in the reality of gun control we really need to stop selling guns to crazy people.

You misunderstand the term. Gun control is legislation passed which determines which types of guns or accessories I can own. It also is laws passed in an attempt to keep guns out of the hands of "enemies of the state." Which is a broad sweeping term open to interpritation. Mentally ill people in psychiatric care and prisoners don't have full rights because of their mental status or history of crime. That's not the same as saying I can't have an AR.

@sarahjustme are we really scapegoating white males when that demographic has been most represented in the area of this type of terrorist?

@sarahjustme mentally ill is too broad a term. True psychotics folks with oppositional defiance disorder, folks with violent antisocial tendencies should absolutely be banned from gun ownership.

@sarahjustme quarantining white men,LOL. Nevertheless there is a verifiable trend there.

@sarahjustme some effort must be made and some folks are going to have their feelings hurt. Who is going to decide? The government. I don't like it either but restrictions must be made and they are the restricters.

@sarahjustme I never said it did. I am pointing out that there is an undeniable commonality there that should be investigated. I'm a bit confused as to how you get from my pointing out that most of these terrorists have been young white males to rounding up and incarcerating all white males?


An important question here: how many mass shootings have there been in countries other than the US? How many of those countries have gun control, or (gasp) outlaw guns altogether?

Come on now: answer honestly.

How many more guns exist here? How much more screwed up is our society here? How many other countries are the primary target of Islamic terrorism? Moot point given the context. I find your under handed insult to be in poor taste.

@jayneonacobb Islamic terrorism targets all non-Muslim liberal democracies. There have been major attacks throughout Europe, for example. Meanwhile, Muslim-Americans are amongst the most affluent and law-abiding, non-radical Muslims in the world.

And thanks for using the existence of many guns due to lack of gun control as an argument for why guns are needed. That's really an impressive argument. Oh, and thanks for associating the proliferation of guns with how screwed up we are.

I hope you find that in poor taste also.


The Second Amendment protects the right to near arms in the context of a well-regulated militia. It does not say that every yahoo should be able to have military-style weapons. What is becoming increasingly clear is that the NRA is all about protecting the rights of gun manufacturers, gun retailers, and the community of scared would-be, (wanna-be) militia members over those of regular citizens who just want to live and let live. The majority of Americans want stricter gun laws. The fact that the NRA lobby has been able to thwart the public will for so long speaks volumes about the dysfunction in the political system. The same system let a MINORITY of voters put a total ignoramus in the Oval Office.


Are you OK? Your posts aren't usually this angry and aggressive and your grammar is suddenly flawed whereas you're usually pretty coherent.


Well, then. Nuclear arms are arms, and we've all got the right to bear them. It's our inailienable right to own them. Our rights are being infringed upon.

Certainly, by your infallible logic, you must agree with my statements.

And telling people to move because you don't agree with them is unAmerican. So get bent on that one.


You must be one of thos Russian plants intending to stir up discord in our country. It is hard to believe that any American could be so aggressive, arrogant, misinformed and violence prone.


Another troll stinking up the site.

A troll is defined by your behavior exemplified by that post. I'm contributing to the conversation. You are just disrupting it because you don't like what you hear. You're the troll. Isn't this a site dedicated to intellectual integrity?

@jayneonacobb Riiight. Whatever you say Mr T. Lol

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:25484
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.