I'm late on this, but I'm pretty sure BLM and Antifa definitively answered this question in 2020.jteAg said:
I own two shotguns and 3 rifles, all for the purpose of hunting.
I'm asking why anyone sees the rationale of owning an AR-15?
Any comments…..
The AR-15 is designed to blow targets apart. Its bullets travel with such velocity that they can decapitate an adult.
— NPR (@NPR) June 1, 2022
Unfortunately, this Uvalde coroner has now seen first-hand what the weapon can do to children.https://t.co/LjxAps68UP
country said:
The people telling the silly lies are those that claim to believe in 2A but are perfectly ok with restricting who gets what and when.
PanzerAggie06 said:country said:
The people telling the silly lies are those that claim to believe in 2A but are perfectly ok with restricting who gets what and when.
That's it. It's either all in or all out, huh? Either you support the insanity of nukes owned by all or you are taking a dump on the 2A. No nuance or rationale thought allowed in this debate. It's just black and white. Haha. What a simplistic mindset on display.
This is one of the dumbest things I have ever read… this is almost on par with the California congressman attempting to explain what a ghost gun is.Agthatbuilds said:The AR-15 is designed to blow targets apart. Its bullets travel with such velocity that they can decapitate an adult.
— NPR (@NPR) June 1, 2022
Unfortunately, this Uvalde coroner has now seen first-hand what the weapon can do to children.https://t.co/LjxAps68UP
What's your take on all the other amendments? Can you yell fire in a crowded theater?country said:PanzerAggie06 said:country said:
The people telling the silly lies are those that claim to believe in 2A but are perfectly ok with restricting who gets what and when.
That's it. It's either all in or all out, huh? Either you support the insanity of nukes owned by all or you are taking a dump on the 2A. No nuance or rationale thought allowed in this debate. It's just black and white. Haha. What a simplistic mindset on display.
You feel it necessary to call people that take that stance liars. I believe strongly in 2A. I believe it to mean what I've said in this thread. You've called me a liar. Thus, I've pointed out that you cannot really believe in the 2A if you believe it comes with restrictions.
jwoodmd said:What's your take on all the other amendments? Can you yell fire in a crowded theater?country said:PanzerAggie06 said:country said:
The people telling the silly lies are those that claim to believe in 2A but are perfectly ok with restricting who gets what and when.
That's it. It's either all in or all out, huh? Either you support the insanity of nukes owned by all or you are taking a dump on the 2A. No nuance or rationale thought allowed in this debate. It's just black and white. Haha. What a simplistic mindset on display.
You feel it necessary to call people that take that stance liars. I believe strongly in 2A. I believe it to mean what I've said in this thread. You've called me a liar. Thus, I've pointed out that you cannot really believe in the 2A if you believe it comes with restrictions.
Quote:
Can you yell fire in a crowded theater?
No, but I can drink whiskey even though we had the 18th amendment.jwoodmd said:What's your take on all the other amendments? Can you yell fire in a crowded theater?country said:PanzerAggie06 said:country said:
The people telling the silly lies are those that claim to believe in 2A but are perfectly ok with restricting who gets what and when.
That's it. It's either all in or all out, huh? Either you support the insanity of nukes owned by all or you are taking a dump on the 2A. No nuance or rationale thought allowed in this debate. It's just black and white. Haha. What a simplistic mindset on display.
You feel it necessary to call people that take that stance liars. I believe strongly in 2A. I believe it to mean what I've said in this thread. You've called me a liar. Thus, I've pointed out that you cannot really believe in the 2A if you believe it comes with restrictions.
The lie here seems to be that you think I said 'people should be able to buy nukes'. I never said that. I said the 2A supports the idea of owning nukes which was the response to your statement about the 2A before that.PanzerAggie06 said:Hungry Ojos said:PanzerAggie06 said:American Hardwood said:The reason there is reluctance responding to you is because your argument strategy is an obvious setup. Those like you propose such a ridiculous scenarios like this to try to get 2A supporters to step in this ridiculous trap so you can say there should be limits cuz MuH NuKeS.PanzerAggie06 said:ChemEAg08 said:PanzerAggie06 said:schmellba99 said:Well, if your overlord the government was doing it's job...then other nation states wouldn't be ablet o just waltz into Nukes 'R Us and buy one, now would they?PanzerAggie06 said:schmellba99 said:
B61 $8.25 Billion Cost
Chump change for Soros and Gates. And with nukes readily available on the market I'm sure no nation state would use ulterior means to head to a Nukes R' Us store in the US and get their hands on one.
Again, nukes in the free market is incredibly stupid. And I have a feeling you agree with me but you're so blinded by "muh gun rights" that your blinded to common sense.
This is a stupid ass argument, I'm bored with it.
100% agree. Very stupid.
The notion I had to waste an hour of my life explaining to graduates of Texas A&M that private ownership of nukes is an incredibly bad idea is actually quite sad.
No, the idea that you are trying to make an outrageously idiotic argument says more about you graduating from A&M.
Nukes are nothing like guns.
Nukes are hella expensive and have the potential to kill millions with 1 weapon.
Guns are much cheaper and a significantly smaller chance to that man people per weapon.
Your argument and logic is flawed.
You proved my point. Thanks.
Nukes can kill millions. Nukes are nothing like guns. Theses are your comments. Thus, for some to claim they are protected by the 2A is ridiculous. Thanks for seeing the light on this.
The 2A is a statement of philosophy towards entrusting the people to overthrow the government by whatever means they can arm themselves, without limit. It is very easy to understand. Therefore the 2A does support the idea of owning a nuke. Same goes for tanks, fighter jets, submarines or whatever if those are necessary to overthrowing the government. The beauty is, it is up to the people to decide what is necessary, not the government. There is the small problem of finding someone to sell you a nuke though.
But people with common sense also understand that owning and deploying a nuke is a practical impossibility so it really isn't an issue, and your argument is 100% a straw man.
That's an impressive theory. However, it has one huge flaw. I don't support gun control. It won't work and I, like many, see the "problem" we face as one of mental health not one of guns.
However, stating people should have nukes because to do otherwise points to the flaws of the 2A is the equivalent of a child holding their breath and covering their ears when faced with something that upsets them. It's a silly lie that does nothing to deal with the issue at hand.
And ultimately one has to ask, "if you have to lie to prove your point then perhaps your point isn't worth making".
What did he lie about? The purpose of the 2A is to allow the citizenry to defend itself against a tyrranical government. Its entirely illogical to then suggest "yeah, but the founders would be cool with the government having bigger and better weapons than the citizenry". It undermines the entire reason behind the 2A.
The lie is a person stating, "I believe people should be able to buy nukes" when in reality the person doesn't believe this but won't say otherwise because to do so somehow weakens the 2A.
jteAg said:
I own two shotguns and 3 rifles, all for the purpose of hunting.
I'm asking why anyone sees the rationale of owning an AR-15?
Any comments…..
To understand, you should know that he gets all his meat at the grocery story. I mean, all that glorious meat just appears there. It's magic!Quote:
I don't hunt and don't understand why you do
He is not saying that people should own nuclear weapons. He is saying that people could own nuclear weapons. Big difference.PanzerAggie06 said:American Hardwood said:The reason there is reluctance responding to you is because your argument strategy is an obvious setup. Those like you propose such a ridiculous scenarios like this to try to get 2A supporters to step in this ridiculous trap so you can say there should be limits cuz MuH NuKeS.PanzerAggie06 said:ChemEAg08 said:PanzerAggie06 said:schmellba99 said:Well, if your overlord the government was doing it's job...then other nation states wouldn't be ablet o just waltz into Nukes 'R Us and buy one, now would they?PanzerAggie06 said:schmellba99 said:
B61 $8.25 Billion Cost
Chump change for Soros and Gates. And with nukes readily available on the market I'm sure no nation state would use ulterior means to head to a Nukes R' Us store in the US and get their hands on one.
Again, nukes in the free market is incredibly stupid. And I have a feeling you agree with me but you're so blinded by "muh gun rights" that your blinded to common sense.
This is a stupid ass argument, I'm bored with it.
100% agree. Very stupid.
The notion I had to waste an hour of my life explaining to graduates of Texas A&M that private ownership of nukes is an incredibly bad idea is actually quite sad.
No, the idea that you are trying to make an outrageously idiotic argument says more about you graduating from A&M.
Nukes are nothing like guns.
Nukes are hella expensive and have the potential to kill millions with 1 weapon.
Guns are much cheaper and a significantly smaller chance to that man people per weapon.
Your argument and logic is flawed.
You proved my point. Thanks.
Nukes can kill millions. Nukes are nothing like guns. Theses are your comments. Thus, for some to claim they are protected by the 2A is ridiculous. Thanks for seeing the light on this.
The 2A is a statement of philosophy towards entrusting the people to overthrow the government by whatever means they can arm themselves, without limit. It is very easy to understand. Therefore the 2A does support the idea of owning a nuke. Same goes for tanks, fighter jets, submarines or whatever if those are necessary to overthrowing the government. The beauty is, it is up to the people to decide what is necessary, not the government. There is the small problem of finding someone to sell you a nuke though.
But people with common sense also understand that owning and deploying a nuke is a practical impossibility so it really isn't an issue, and your argument is 100% a straw man.
That's an impressive theory. However, it has one huge flaw. I don't support gun control. It won't work and I, like many, see the "problem" we face as one of mental health not one of guns.
However, stating people should have nukes because to do otherwise points to the flaws of the 2A is the equivalent of a child holding their breath and covering their ears when faced with something that upsets them. It's a silly lie that does nothing to deal with the issue at hand.
And ultimately one has to ask, "if you have to lie to prove your point then perhaps your point isn't worth making".
