Four kids, two adults shot dead near Houston

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: jaynkeel

I was trying to get people to have some semblance of understanding about gun violence.

We understand all too well, this gun violence that you claim we do not.

You are right, I have failed.

No one gives a # about gun violence on this board.

they obviously welcome it, embrace it, and celebrate it.

Logical Fallicy: reductio ad absurdum

All's well and good as long as gun owners get to keep their personal arsenal. Who cares how many innocent children die.

Logical Fallicy: argumentum ad passiones

It's not like gun owners patrol the streets trying to make this country safer. Can't do that naw.

Logical Fallicy: ad hominem

just let those criminals with guns keep em too.

They will keep them whether we try to take them or not.

a reply to: HauntWok

I'll just keep my mouth shut and let this video speak for itself...

*Warning - Bad Language*

I cant believe you people argued with this troll for over 6 pages, youre not going to change his mind, ignorants will never change, trolls will never change

originally posted by: HomerinNC
I cant believe you people argued with this troll for over 6 pages, youre not going to change his mind, ignorants will never change, trolls will never change

Is it really that surprising, combine the nature of ATS and that it's a hot-button issue, honestly in surprised it is only 6 pages.

Sad fact about it is just how obviously inflammatory it is and just how obvious is was. I reported it as such and nothing happened. This thread crossed the line between contentious and full blown political trolling an yet somehow it's survived.

a reply to: HauntWok

Oh please do explain.
I would love to read this.


I have broken down exactly how the statute reads, which you provided.
You have yet to provide any, not one instance of actually displaying you understand how to read laws/statutes.

There is one in every group, but this one won't go away!

It's not smart to argue will a fool in public because from a distance it's hard to tell them apart...

I'm out of here...

a reply to: HomerinNC

Not worried about him changing his mind. Could care less.

I do enjoy proving people wrong, especially in this case and this topic.

a reply to: macman

It's quite easy. See, you as a lawful legal gun owner do have the rights to keep and bear arms. However, with that right comes the responsibility to adhere to the rules set out by congress as a member of the Militia.

It is of course your patriotic duty as a "law abiding gun owner" to preform your duties in the Militia if and when the time comes.

So, if prescribed by congress under Article I Section 8 Clause(s) 15 & 16, it is perfectly within the purview of Congress (State or Federal) to require psychological testing as a prerequisite for you to own a firearm.

Everyone always forgets the first part of the 2nd Amendment, they only regurgitate the second half. It's a single sentence. Not two sentences.

So, anyway, let me get this thread back on target, shall I? I'm sure that you all have had so much fun thinking you have been beating me up on this topic, however, there's still the problem of these kinds of shootings.

They do have a solution. No, it's not a complete ban on guns. (I don't know why you all assume that I'm for a complete gun ban) It's a more stringent application process for those gun purchases. It's for closing loopholes in the current gun laws, it's for harsher penalties for those that abuse their right to bear arms.

Then there's the problem of those that follow the NRA philosophy that "the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

I live in Florida. We have the stand your ground law. (I'm sure you all know what that is) now, say I get into an argument with someone who is open carrying a firearm over gun control. Obviously I can reasonably believe that I am in mortal danger, (because as I have seen in this thread, I probably would be) and kill that open carry person and get away with it.

Does that help anyone? No, of course it doesn't, and I certainly hope that nothing like that ever happens. But I might be forced to defend my life from some "law abiding gun owner" that doesn't understand boundary issues and thinks that a gun is his personal license to be a complete douchenozzle.

Do any of you see, why we need reasonable gun control measures in this country? Not an outright ban, but some reasonable measures that might given time reduce the amounts of these violent bloodbaths that seem to hit the news on a nearly weekly basis?

originally posted by: HauntWok

It's quite easy. See, you as a lawful legal gun owner do have the rights to keep and bear arms. However, with that right comes the responsibility to adhere to the rules set out by congress as a member of the Militia.

No. Only when Congress controls the Militia, when the control is released from the State.
You clearly have no clue as to how to read statute.
I would suggest this, maybe take some law courses, specifically in how to read law and then come back.
And not just law, I would suggest case law and statutes as well.

And then let's not forget those last 4 words, which you willingly omit in just about every response.

originally posted by: HauntWok
It is of course your patriotic duty as a "law abiding gun owner" to preform your duties in the Militia if and when the time comes.

No again.
All peoples, as defined by this statute, Title 10 USC 311 are bound to the duties.
Again, your MDA based understanding of laws is clear and in the open.

originally posted by: HauntWok
So, if prescribed by congress under Article I Section 8 Clause(s) 15 & 16, it is perfectly within the purview of Congress (State or Federal) to require psychological testing as a prerequisite for you to own a firearm.

No again. The Militia is only under the control of Congress when the State releases them to the Federal Govt.
Dude, really.......you don't really get this. It is stated in the statute you provided.

originally posted by: HauntWok
Everyone always forgets the first part of the 2nd Amendment, they only regurgitate the second half. It's a single sentence. Not two sentences.

And you continually omit the last.

"Shall not be infringed" actually means something. Just because you refuse to address that, doesn't mean it disappears.

originally posted by: HauntWok
So, anyway, let me get this thread back on target, shall I? I'm sure that you all have had so much fun thinking you have been beating me up on this topic, however, there's still the problem of these kinds of shootings.

And that is great to hear.
The problem is a small number of people. NOT the larger population that are law abiding citizens. With certain rights you wish to trample on.

originally posted by: HauntWok
They do have a solution. No, it's not a complete ban on guns. (I don't know why you all assume that I'm for a complete gun ban) It's a more stringent application process for those gun purchases.

Oh, so just a little gun ban, on those that YOU and other Progressives deem as scary or evil.
Your still infringing on a right.

originally posted by: HauntWok
It's for closing loopholes in the current gun laws, it's for harsher penalties for those that abuse their right to bear arms.

My God. You have got to be kidding me.
Can you parrot anything else from MDA and the Brady Camp?
How about enforcing the current laws.

originally posted by: HauntWok
Then there's the problem of those that follow the NRA philosophy that "the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

And what is the problem here?

originally posted by: HauntWok
I live in Florida. We have the stand your ground law. (I'm sure you all know what that is) now, say I get into an argument with someone who is open carrying a firearm over gun control. Obviously I can reasonably believe that I am in mortal danger, (because as I have seen in this thread, I probably would be) and kill that open carry person and get away with it.

Your fears are your fears. Sounds like YOU have a personal problem here with fearing people and situations. Not my, nor anyone else's problem.
And your scenario is about the most moronic thing pitched today.

originally posted by: HauntWok
Does that help anyone? No, of course it doesn't, and I certainly hope that nothing like that ever happens. But I might be forced to defend my life from some "law abiding gun owner" that doesn't understand boundary issues and thinks that a gun is his personal license to be a complete douchenozzle.

Another what-if based around your irrational talking point based fear.
Sounds like you have many personal issue you need to clear up and maybe public outings and people interactions should be delayed until you work these things out.

originally posted by: HauntWok
Do any of you see, why we need reasonable gun control measures in this country? Not an outright ban, but some reasonable measures that might given time reduce the amounts of these violent bloodbaths that seem to hit the news on a nearly weekly basis?

No.
You want to infringe on others rights because you have a fear of something.

If you feared flying, you would probably want to ban planes.

There have been a multitude of gun laws in the US. Hand guns were a big target in the past.

But if no one carrying a hand gun is the solution, why did the idea of carry permits arise? It's because the people who want to break the gun laws for crime opportunity do it and know they have the edge over every who isn't armed.

say I get into an argument with someone who is open carrying a firearm over gun control. Obviously I can reasonably believe that I am in mortal danger, (because as I have seen in this thread, I probably would be) and kill that open carry person and get away with it.

Someone who thinks they need to kill someone who is armed, solely for that reason, has a mental problem. That makes for a poor anti gun stance.

because as I have seen in this thread, I probably would be

Poor logic based on emotion. Be careful... But if your discussion make you emotion and physically violent then that's a different problem with more then just gun law.

originally posted by: HauntWok


I live in Florida. We have the stand your ground law. (I'm sure you all know what that is) now, say I get into an argument with someone who is open carrying a firearm over gun control. Obviously I can reasonably believe that I am in mortal danger, (because as I have seen in this thread, I probably would be) and kill that open carry person and get away with it.

Good luck with that.

Please let us know when this happens and tell us how your defense goes.

originally posted by: HauntWok


Then there's the problem of those that follow the NRA philosophy that "the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

When accepted, enlightenment is a grand thing.
crimepreventionresearchcenter.org...

a reply to: macman

I have specifically multiple times have told you that I do not want an outright ban of all guns.

You have completely failed in your argument. You are assuming where there is no need.

Sorry for your failure. But I do not want a ban of all guns, just reasonable gun control legislation that I have already outlined above.

originally posted by: HauntWok
I have specifically multiple times have told you that I do not want an outright ban of all guns.
...

But I do not want a ban of all guns, just reasonable gun control legislation that I have already outlined above.

I just went back and reread your posts. What was the reasonable legislation you outlined? I saw something on education but that is not exactly legislation.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

i posted:

It's a more stringent application process for those gun purchases. It's for closing loopholes in the current gun laws, it's for harsher penalties for those that abuse their right to bear arms.

is that horrible? I'm not talking about a ban at all but trying to make sure the wrong people don't have access to guns and give authorities, the tools to do something about the bad guys having guns.

originally posted by: HauntWok
It's a more stringent application process for those gun purchases.

This is too vague. What does 'more stringent' mean specifically and how do you propose to implement and enforce it?

It's for closing loopholes in the current gun laws, it's for harsher penalties for those that abuse their right to bear arms.

Which loopholes? Also, I am for the maximum penalty for any commission of a crime with a firearm.

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: macman

I have specifically multiple times have told you that I do not want an outright ban of all guns.

You have completely failed in your argument. You are assuming where there is no need.

Sorry for your failure. But I do not want a ban of all guns, just reasonable gun control legislation that I have already outlined above.

And I have stated these items numerous times as well
-"Reasonable" is subjective. You have yet to provide who gets to decide this.
-"Reasonable" is the most tired talking point ever driven.
-You only want "certain" guns banned. The one you don't like or are scared of.
-You have not provided your list of "reasonable" guns. May I suggest that you pull some more talking points from someone else, and maybe just hijack Feinsteins list?
-Please include that scary "barrel shroud" as well.
-You have failed to show any understanding or comprehension in the Law/Statute you provided
-You have been shown multiple times where your failure to understand this, has brought you to incorrect and false conclusions on laws
-You still fail to address the last 4 words in the 2nd



Still want to play?

a reply to: HauntWok

There is already a stringent, and Unconstitutional process in place to purchase firearms.
So, in normal knee jerk, uninformed Progressive reaction, you want more laws in place, instead of just enforcing what is on the books.