Firearms Freindly Collective?

[ProdigalSun]

I rest my case. There is a loud vocal minority (you) in this country that feels that any form of weapon falls under the second amendment and you won't be satisfied until every nut out there has a stockpile of guns and a nuclear warhead stashed in his basement. And then there's the rest of us that believe that people should have the right to own weapons, but that right isn't without it's limitations.

The supreme court agrees with me on this btw.

You weren't listening. It's obvious to me how you got into your current mental state. By making a habit of my first point.

The supreme court is not always right, just because they are the supreme court. The constitution is in place to limit the supreme court, not to be interpreted by it.

 

[st0wandgrow]

I guess this is pointless. No other choice but to agree to disagree on this.

We're on a weed forum, and I consider the prohibition of marijuana to be a far greater travesty than background checks for guns. You put a joint in the hands of a lunatic and he eats a bag of Doritos. You put a gun in the hands of a lunatic and people get killed.

I'll focus my energy on the marijuana.

 

[HomeLessBeans]

What "rights" have been taken away homeless? There are no new weapons bans, there are no bans on magazine capacities, nobody has or will come take away your guns. The only thing even being debated are universal background checks. Would that be such a big deal even if it did see the light of day? Do you feel like your right to drive a car is being infringed upon because you have to go take a test and get a drivers license??

You guys cry wolf like your rights are being trampled on, when it's the furthest thing from the truth. All of the truly tragic and unfair things that go on in this world and all you guys can think about are your fucking guns

you are Canadian right Stow? Where are your guns now? your pistols? At one time Canadians had more gun rights. Did they disappear all at once, or gradually ???

 

[Murfy]

traveling-

in a car. is a right. check the motor vehicle code.

 

[st0wandgrow]

You weren't listening. It's obvious to me how you got into your current mental state. By making a habit of my first point.

The supreme court is not always right, just because they are the supreme court. The constitution is in place to limit the supreme court, not to be interpreted by it.

Funny you should say that... coming from a guy that is too paranoid to go in to a dispensary to buy weed without having guns strapped to him. I'd say you need to focus on your own mental state there chief.

 

[ProdigalSun]

Because of guns, I do not answer to the queen of some other country.

 

[ProdigalSun]

I guess this is pointless. No other choice but to agree to disagree on this.

We're on a weed forum, and I consider the prohibition of marijuana to be a far greater travesty than background checks for guns. You put a joint in the hands of a lunatic and he eats a bag of Doritos. You put a gun in the hands of a lunatic and people get killed.

I'll focus my energy on the marijuana.

I have a gun to protect myself from people who don't follow laws.

 

[st0wandgrow]

you are Canadian right Stow? Where are your guns now? your pistols? At one time Canadians had more gun rights. Did they disappear all at once, or gradually ???

People can own guns in Canada. People can own pistols in Canada. You can apply for a license to carry a concealed weapon in Canada ..... but there are strict limitations to that. Perhaps too strict. Maybe somewhere in the middle lays a common sense answer ..... but common sense isn't part of the debate here in America.

 

[TheMan13]

Answer me this:

I guy is convicted of armed robbery. Someone gets shot in the process. The guy is released from prison 5 years later. Should that individual be allowed to go to a gun show and purchase whatever he wants, or should there be a process in place to screen individuals like that?

No, he should not legally be able to obtain or posses a "gun" by law. But in the real world you had better assume he will be armed as no law stops a criminal from arming themselves, it's an oxymoron. Furthermore, as an expert in human behavior, I suggest to you that the best indicator of future behavior is past behavior ....

 

[st0wandgrow]

This topic is like racism here in America. People are so sensitive. You guys are the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons of the gun world. The minute ANYTHING about guns is brought up, no mater how much sense it makes, the "our rights are being taken away" card gets played. The extremists on both sides make all of the noise, and the vast majority of the country that sits in the middle watches in bewilderment.

 

[st0wandgrow]

No, he should not legally be able to obtain or posses a "gun" by law. But in the real world you had better assume he will be armed as no law stops a criminal from arming themselves, it's an oxymoron. Furthermore, as an expert in human behavior, I suggest to you that the best indicator of future behavior is past behavior ....

OK. So wouldn't it stand to reason that he should not be allowed to *legally* obtain a firearm, and the penalty for him being caught with an illegally obtained firearm should be much stiffer?

I'm failing to see the downside in attempting to keep guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, and attempting to keep them out of the hands of criminals.

 

[TheMan13]

This topic is like racism here in America. People are so sensitive. You guys are the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons of the gun world. The minute ANYTHING about guns is brought up, no mater how much sense it makes, the "our rights are being taken away" card gets played. The extremists on both sides make all of the noise, and the vast majority of the country that sits in the middle watches in bewilderment.

Hmmm Can you name two gun nutz whom became rich and famous slinging their bullshit

Global warming/green jobs = Al Gore ...

Seems to be a pattern my friend

 

[ProdigalSun]

People can own guns in Canada. People can own pistols in Canada. You can apply for a license to carry a concealed weapon in Canada ..... but there are strict limitations to that. Perhaps too strict. Maybe somewhere in the middle lays a common sense answer ..... but common sense isn't part of the debate here in America.

That simply is not true.

I could say the same about you. Since someone uses a certain type of weapon to kill people, you want to take my stuff, because I have the same stuff he did? Where's the sense in that?

The event already took place. It wasnt my fault, It wasnt my stuff, the stuff didnt do it, heck, one of the biggest reasons I have this stuff is people like that.

 

[ProdigalSun]

OK. So wouldn't it stand to reason that he should not be allowed to *legally* obtain a firearm, and the penalty for him being caught with an illegally obtained firearm should be much stiffer?

I'm failing to see the downside in attempting to keep guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, and attempting to keep them out of the hands of criminals.

What point is making the law stiffer, when wanting the law to be stiffer is an admission of its failure?

You can't keep the guns away from the criminals by taking them away from the law abiding.

 

[TheMan13]

OK. So wouldn't it stand to reason that he should not be allowed to *legally* obtain a firearm, and the penalty for him being caught with an illegally obtained firearm should be much stiffer?

I'm failing to see the downside in attempting to keep guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, and attempting to keep them out of the hands of criminals.

Lawfare has a way of defying reason, the means must be justified by the ends IMO.

 

[st0wandgrow]

Hmmm Can you name two gun nutz whom became rich and famous slinging their bullshit

Global warming/green jobs = Al Gore ...

Seems to be a pattern my friend

The NRA exists to line the pockets of the gun manufactures. There are way more than two.

 

[st0wandgrow]

What point is making the law stiffer, when wanting the law to be stiffer is an admission of its failure?

You can't keep the guns away from the criminals by taking them away from the law abiding.

This just isn't true. NOBODY is taking away your guns. Continuing to repeat that does not make it any less false Mr Sharpton.

 

[TheMan13]

The NRA exists to line the pockets of the gun manufactures. There are way more than two.

I hope that you are bright enough to have received my point

 

[st0wandgrow]

OK, I give up. There is no middle ground to be found here. I have my opinions, and you guys have yours. The funny part is that we are in agreement on 99% of this issue, but that 1% seems to keep us divided.

I respect the fact that although this topic can get heated, you guys are able to present your case without any low-blows.

Now, I have some amendments for my soil that I have to run out and buy. Have a great day fellas...

 

[ProdigalSun]

This just isn't true. NOBODY is taking away your guns. Continuing to repeat that does not make it any less false Mr Sharpton.

They are, and they have said so, loudly.

I hate the NRA btw.

People can own guns in Canada. People can own pistols in Canada. You can apply for a license to carry a concealed weapon in Canada ..... but there are strict limitations to that. Perhaps too strict. Maybe somewhere in the middle lays a common sense answer ..... but common sense isn't part of the debate here in America.

What good do that do? You say it's hard to get a legal handgun, and a permit to carry one. Is it that way for the criminal too? Does it make you safer that he has a gun and you likely do not? Most people give up on firearms carry because it's a pain. The criminal doesnt have these problems.