Second Amendment Repeal / Gun Control

[Big Jim P]

Since they are "designed only to kill", then you would have to compare every hour of a gun being carried or otherwise not locked up. That is their primary use.

Not locked up doesn't make that much sense as cars are frequently just left parked up. But being carried I would happily accept.

A gun being carried is in use, as is a car being driven. A gun locked in a safe is not in use nor is a car that is parked.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

What? We have a bunch of hypocritical noguns/europoor that bitch whine and moan, making an enormous deal about political cuckery that isn't even theirs to deal with. Honestly, it's just silly; look at Tears Morgan for a good example.

Their opinions are legit, but being non-Americans, their opinions can safely be ignored.

Nationality is a silly and prejudicial reason to ignore an opinion.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Not locked up doesn't make that much sense as cars are frequently just left parked up. But being carried I would happily accept.

A gun being carried is in use, as is a car being driven. A gun locked in a safe is not in use nor is a car that is parked.

How is it in use while being carried? Not saying I disagree, just making sure that everyone's on the same page regarding the definition of "in use".

[Big Jim P]

Their opinions are legit, but being non-Americans, their opinions can safely be ignored.

Nationality is a silly and prejudicial reason to ignore an opinion.

Not when it comes to the laws of any given country. Should my opinion that every other nation should enact a Second amendment equivalent be taken seriously by the people in a nation where I have no vote?

[Fartsniffage]

Not locked up doesn't make that much sense as cars are frequently just left parked up. But being carried I would happily accept.

A gun being carried is in use, as is a car being driven. A gun locked in a safe is not in use nor is a car that is parked.

Yes, that's what I said.

[Big Jim P]

A gun being carried is in use, as is a car being driven. A gun locked in a safe is not in use nor is a car that is parked.

How is it in use while being carried? Not saying I disagree, just making sure that everyone's on the same page regarding the definition of "in use".

It is being carried (I am assuming under open/concealed carry laws, not in a gun case to or from a range) for self defense, thus it is in use.

[Big Jim P]

A gun being carried is in use, as is a car being driven. A gun locked in a safe is not in use nor is a car that is parked.

Yes, that's what I said.

Just clarifying.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Nationality is a silly and prejudicial reason to ignore an opinion.

Not when it comes to the laws of any given country. Should my opinion that every other nation should enact a Second amendment equivalent be taken seriously by the people in a nation where I have no vote?

Certainly, if you can make a compelling argument as to how it would improve matters for them.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Nationality is a silly and prejudicial reason to ignore an opinion.

Not when it comes to the laws of any given country. Should my opinion that every other nation should enact a Second amendment equivalent be taken seriously by the people in a nation where I have no vote?

I'm not sure a powerful wizard such as yourself should ask that question in such a manner.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

How is it in use while being carried? Not saying I disagree, just making sure that everyone's on the same page regarding the definition of "in use".

It is being carried (I am assuming under open/concealed carry laws, not in a gun case to or from a range) for self defense, thus it is in use.

Okay, fair enough. I suppose that we could get into the whole "How locked away does it have to be before it's no longer in use?" thing, but that seems a fruitless pursuit. I agree with your definition as it stands.

[Big Jim P]

Not when it comes to the laws of any given country. Should my opinion that every other nation should enact a Second amendment equivalent be taken seriously by the people in a nation where I have no vote?

Certainly, if you can make a compelling argument as to how it would improve matters for them.

Perhaps, but my not having any political power in another nation makes my opinion on their gun laws something that they can safely ignore.

[Eisarn-Ara]

Blimey m8, you seem to be rather booty-bothered about this; your not an american are you?

As American as this.

Your so heavily antiFun, you MUST be a Commiefornian idjit of some stupid level of repute; are you secretly Feinstein?

[Fartsniffage]

Nationality is a silly and prejudicial reason to ignore an opinion.

Not when it comes to the laws of any given country. Should my opinion that every other nation should enact a Second amendment equivalent be taken seriously by the people in a nation where I have no vote?

Ummm, you're arguing to defend an amendment to the US Constitution that was written using influences from the Magna Carta, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes and Montesquieu, among others.

Opinions of non-Americans are fundamental to the entire basis of your legal system......

[Big Jim P]

It is being carried (I am assuming under open/concealed carry laws, not in a gun case to or from a range) for self defense, thus it is in use.

Okay, fair enough. I suppose that we could get into the whole "How locked away does it have to be before it's no longer in use?" thing, but that seems a fruitless pursuit. I agree with your definition as it stands.

The definition would also apply to hunting guns being carried in the field, and home defense guns being left loaded in the closet, whether or not they are actually fired.

[Eisarn-Ara]

Not when it comes to the laws of any given country. Should my opinion that every other nation should enact a Second amendment equivalent be taken seriously by the people in a nation where I have no vote?

Ummm, you're arguing to defend an amendment to the US Constitution that was written using influences from the Magna Carta, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes and Montesquieu, among others.

Opinions of non-Americans are fundamental to the entire basis of your legal system......

Your argument is both nonsensical and terrible.

[Big Jim P]

Not when it comes to the laws of any given country. Should my opinion that every other nation should enact a Second amendment equivalent be taken seriously by the people in a nation where I have no vote?

Ummm, you're arguing to defend an amendment to the US Constitution that was written using influences from the Magna Carta, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes and Montesquieu, among others.

Opinions of non-Americans are fundamental to the entire basis of your legal system......

Noe of the influences you mentioned are just average anybodies on the internet either.

[Fartsniffage]

Yes, that's what I said.

Just clarifying.

Okay. So what's your opinion on my point?

[Big Jim P]

Ummm, you're arguing to defend an amendment to the US Constitution that was written using influences from the Magna Carta, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes and Montesquieu, among others.

Opinions of non-Americans are fundamental to the entire basis of your legal system......

Your argument is both nonsensical and terrible.

Actually, her arguments make plenty of sense. I don't necessarily agree with them, however, that does not make them terrible.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Not when it comes to the laws of any given country. Should my opinion that every other nation should enact a Second amendment equivalent be taken seriously by the people in a nation where I have no vote?

Ummm, you're arguing to defend an amendment to the US Constitution that was written using influences from the Magna Carta, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes and Montesquieu, among others.

Opinions of non-Americans are fundamental to the entire basis of your legal system......

Opinions of dead non-Americans who weren't just any non-Americans. Is the average European a philosopher or legal document? No?

[Big Jim P]

Just clarifying.

Okay. So what's your opinion on my point?

You point about comparing car deaths to gun deaths. Agreed, if we are going to do that, we should be very specific concerning whether or not the deaths are accidental or intentional, and whether or not the intentional deaths are homicide or suicide.

If that I missed the point you are trying to make you will have to specify.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Welp, next time I'm assailed I'll just beat my attacker to death with my bare hands. Your move, ATF. -nods-

[New Tsavon]

Welp, next time I'm assailed I'll just beat my attacker to death with my bare hands. Your move, ATF. -nods-

Inb4 the ATF bans hands.

[Fartsniffage]

Okay. So what's your opinion on my point?

You point about comparing car deaths to gun deaths. Agreed, if we are going to do that, we should be very specific concerning whether or not the deaths are accidental or intentional, and whether or not the intentional deaths are homicide or suicide.

If that I missed the point you are trying to make you will have to specify.

My point is that the use of cars in the US vastly outnumbers the use of guns in terms of hours that they are in use. To compare the two and then try to use is as a whataboutism argument is just bloody silly.

It's a bad argument and makes those that use it look silly.

There are good arguments to support looser gun control, that really isn't one of them.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Certainly, if you can make a compelling argument as to how it would improve matters for them.

Perhaps, but my not having any political power in another nation makes my opinion on their gun laws something that they can safely ignore.

Depends on what you mean by "safely". If you mean that the person isn't going to have significant impact on legislation, well, that depends on how many other people can be convinced of the rightness of the cause. Just as an example, many of the major political and economic struggles that we see in America today involve disputes between followers of an English economist and those who follow an economic outlook that had its roots in the streets of Vienna, between followers of an itinerant carpenter and rabbi of 1st century Judea, followers of a late 6th/early 7th century prophet, and followers of a former Egyptian noble turned spiritual leader, with nonbelievers most famously represented in the media by an English evolutionary biologist. To this day on this very forum, you can find occasional flame wars between followers of a 19th century German economist and philosopher and a 20th century Russian-American novelist.

So I'd say that their ideas are at least worth listening to, if only to keep up with what's going on around you.

[Spirit of Hope]

You point about comparing car deaths to gun deaths. Agreed, if we are going to do that, we should be very specific concerning whether or not the deaths are accidental or intentional, and whether or not the intentional deaths are homicide or suicide.

If that I missed the point you are trying to make you will have to specify.

My point is that the use of cars in the US vastly outnumbers the use of guns in terms of hours that they are in use. To compare the two and then try to use is as a whataboutism argument is just bloody silly.

It's a bad argument and makes those that use it look silly.

There are good arguments to support looser gun control, that really isn't one of them.

If we are comparing cars and guns the cars loose. They cause way more death and injury through accidents than guns do through accidents. In deaths cars actually rival guns for total number of deaths, including homicide and suicide. In injures cars take home the cake, by like 2 orders of magnitude.

And there are actually more guns in the united states than cars.