Challenge Accepted. We need common sense and compromise on gun violence.

[Defnestor]

No
Just no.

 

[uncle money bags]

I applaud JB's intent to show anti-gunners the light of their unsubtantiated and misplaced fear,but...

The challenge for speaking about guns should not be to the people that are ignorant of guns telling US why, afterall, they are the ones that are ignorant.

The challenge should be more to us. We are the enlightened ones that bear the burden of proselytizing the lost sheep.

Two failures in this thread.

1. Biting the bait of a so-called open minded outsider that really had no intention of being open minded. He started in knowing that no "gun nuts" from an internet forum would show him the error of his thinking.

2. Making the real "fence riders" too scared to now ever join in.

I wish this thread would disappear.

Hey TimB, go back to the valley!

I think this is exactly what this thread was about.

My take?
Timb was a plant whose nonsense arguments and lack of common sense were used to flush out the people on this forum and make them formulate arguments on behalf of preserving our rights.
In other words, a kind of forum debate practice.

 

[AKguy1985]

Interesting that the "new" member's IP matches a current member and that the registration email is that current members screen name...

Well....if it smells like a troll........it probably is.

 

[Belthos]

We have already established that the Second Amendment is not unlimited.

No we have not, we have established that it is already infringed upon in violation of the constitution.

 

[TimB]

I think this is exactly what this thread was about.

My take?
Timb was a plant whose nonsense arguments and lack of common sense were used to flush out the people on this forum and make them formulate arguments on behalf of preserving our rights.
In other words, a kind of forum debate practice.

Really, you think so? It would take a really seedy member to take that much time and effort to argue against somthing he loves.

 

[Seedy]

The challenge should be more to us.

It was. How did the forum do?

 

[farmerbyron]

It was. How did the forum do?

Got your new avatar Seedy.

[Broken External Image]

 

[Ace_on_the_Turn]

No we have not, we have established that it is already infringed upon in violation of the constitution.

You believe that the 2nd is unlimited? In spite of 200 years of jurisprudence to the contrary? In spite of the fact that no constitutional scholar would agree? In spite of the fact that no pro gun-rights organization would agree? In spite of the fact that freedom of speech is clearly limited (libel, can't yell fire in a movie theater)? We have many laws that hold that the offense is more severe if the actor is armed with a firearm (e.g., armed robbery). Do you believe all of those laws are unconstitutional? Do you believe that prisoners have the right to bear arms?

 

[caojyn]

Really, you think so? It would take a really seedy member to take that much time and effort to argue against somthing he loves.

 

[n8thegr8]

Do you believe that prisoners have the right to bear arms?

You keep using this argument without thinking it all the way through. Why aren't prisoners allowed arms? So that they stay prisoners. The only reason for restricting a free man's rights is to subjugate him and make him a prisoner.