A question for those who are pro gun - Politics Discussion

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Democrat voters have to invent a scientific way tell if a person is a psychopath or not before psych evaluations are taken seriously. Right now in the USA, if a psych evaluation was given to people who want to buy a gun, it would only weed out people who are disconnected from reality and psychopath people would still be able to buy a gun. It is not just about sanity but also psychopathy. Psychopaths are mostly very sane people so they would still be able to buy a gun.

Democrat voters do not want there to exist a scientific way to test people for psychopathy because they know that most democrat voters are psychopaths and psychopath people in general do not want there to exist a scientific way to test people for psychopathy. If a psychopath test existed, then people could make it so the people who want to become politicians would have to get tested for psychopathy and ban psychopaths from serving in all the governments of the USA. Psychopath people who work in business and finance and also the controlling investors of big corporations do not want psychopath people to be banned from serving in the USA governments.

Just so you know, there is a neurologist(James Fallon) who has said that an fMRI brain scan can discern between a brain that feels emotions and a brain that is psychopath so there is already a way to test a person for psychopathy. There is no chance that democrat voters would want to have their brains fMRI scanned to see if they are psychopath or can feel emotions. Democrat voters are the people who have actual power(in academia and other places) and they do not use that power because they are just as psychopath as the wealthy people that democrat voters say they are against.

reply

[–] Satan2016 (25577) 2 years ago

You have no idea what psychopath means. I just googled it, there are plenty of descriptions. The trans killer has "emotional problems" according to his parents.

The problem is successful sociopaths know how to deceive shrinks and parole boards. So you also have to interview associates and check police records. Felons can't own guns anyway.

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

People who went to school with serial killers usually described the serial killer as "shy" when they were in high school. The parents say that their kid just has "emotional problems".

Maybe the "shy" kid does not talk because if a person who feels emotions heard what they thought they would be horrified. Maybe the "emotional problems" that a kids has is that they do not feel emotions and that is the problem.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17484) 2 years ago

Sorry but when the those that write the psychology journals are just as insane as the folks they write about...I cannot agree to those terms.

The only way to solve the problem is to start at the root.

Parenting. We need good fathers back in the homes, period.

________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.

reply

[–] HarlemEagle42 (17860) 2 years ago

"... If you feel like you are sane enough to own one then you would have nothing to fear."

That last bit is the issue, a lot of right wingers are unhinged.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17484) 2 years ago

When you point a finger, you have 3 pointing back at yourself...

________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.

reply

[–] CraigC (8284) 2 years ago

Too bad you're just flat wrong, as usual. 80million gun owners killed no one today. We're not the ones putting boys in dresses, exposing children to pornographic material, burning the flag, defunding the police or setting criminals free. Seems to me that liberal democrats have been way too fucking unhinged for way too fucking long.

reply

[–] chilone (17914) 2 years ago

💥💯

reply

[–] Lord Rake (4469) 2 years ago

Good idea, how about the psychiatrist first shows evidence that they voted for Trump in the last two elections? It seems that the people who would vote democrat or for Biden or voted 38 times for Biden are a little untrustworthy. And they might just want to disarm or punish anyone who doesn't agree with them politically, I'm sure the recent shooter would have been cleared to own as many guns as they wanted under your rule.

reply

[–] WarrenPeace (2267) 2 years ago

Politics stays out of it.

reply

[–] CraigC (8284) 2 years ago

Yeah right.

reply

[–] Lord Rake (4469) 2 years ago

They are not keeping politics out of the courts, they are not going to keep it out of professions like psychiatry where someone spends 6 to 8 years in a far left college. Lets give the authority to issue marriage licenses only to catholic priests.

reply

[–] joej2923 (3052) 2 years ago

I agree that people with harmful mental disorders should not own weapons but I don't think you can target ALL gun owners or potential gun buyers. There should be a way to have red flag laws that prevent dangerous insane people from buying guns. The other big problem is that people can buy guns illegally or even steal them. Also, many evil people will commit these crimes and will pass various mental health tests.

I'd like to see the US bring back mental asylums since so many crazy people are walking the streets. Many families have a crazy relative who gets shot when they call the police for assistance. Lock up the crazy people before they kill someone and release them if they recover.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/12/mental-health-system-crisis/7746535/

There are links between marijuana and mass shootings. Marijuana does cause some users to experience psychosis and increased violence.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9462911/ * Cannabis and violence *

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

It is not about insanity. It is about psychopathy. That gun control people do not understand this is the main reason why no one cares what you say.

reply

[–] joej2923 (3052) 2 years ago

The study linked below shows that a significant number of mass shooters experienced mental disorders.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34102649/

Psychopathy is considered an antisocial personality disorder and there are TEN different personality disorders. There are many different mental disorders that could contribute to a person wanting to kill others.

https://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/types-of-mental-health-problems/personality-disorders/types-of-personality-disorder/

Schizophrenia is another type of mental illness that would cause someone to kill others. The ranker link below shows that many serial killers had mental disorders.

https://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/types-of-mental-health-problems/schizophrenia/about-schizophrenia/

https://www.ranker.com/list/serial-killers-with-mental-illness/ranker-crime

reply

[–] Keelai (34983) 2 years ago

Gun nuts don't want any restrictions.

reply

[–] CraigC (8284) 2 years ago

We know they don't work to do anything but restrict the law abiding citizen. When they don't work, you'll just want more, which is exactly what this is, more. When more doesn't work, you'll want more again. You'll want more and more until there is none left but we'll still have violent people committing violent crime. If not more, because there will be no fear of armed citizens. Because you're fucking retarded and never addressed the underlying cause of the violence in the first place.

reply

[–] Keelai (34983) 2 years ago

You're repeating NRA propaganda.

Statistics in blue states and other Western countries where gun violence is lower prove gun control works.

You love guns and you hate children.

reply

[–] CraigC (8284) 2 years ago

I'm repeating facts from DOJ/FBI studies of violent crime.

reply

[–] Keelai (34983) 2 years ago

Doubtful. Link?

reply

[–] Corneileous (414) 2 years ago

Call it whatever you want. Doesn’t make it any less true.

But OK, let me try this approach… being that there was almost 700 homicides in Chicago alone, in that one city… Which is in a blue state… Even far exceeds probably a lot of homicide crime overseas so, those blue states have the same, if not more restrictive gun laws but yet European countries still have a lot less, so what does that tell you?

Even Los Angeles had close to 400 homicides last year, so between those two cities alone, that’s over 1000 homicides in one year.

If you throw in New York City, that number jumps to almost 1500 people just between three blue cities.

This is why you can’t go comparing red states to blue states or either color state to Europe.

reply

[–] Keelai (34983) 2 years ago

You're bad with basic stats. Percentages show far less homicides in blue states. Furthermore, suicides are through the roof among gun owners

reply

[–] Corneileous (414) 2 years ago

I don’t care what the percentages are. That’s 1500 people killed in three… only THREE of the most gun-restrictive cities in the US. No one- except gun control nuts cares about which cities are the worst just because of the states political color as a whole when every one knows there’s quite the democratic majority, even in a lot of the southern states.

State “color” doesn’t matter when you still have that many homicides each year in only THREE of the most restrictive and gun-unfriendly cities in the US. And this isn’t even counting Minneapolis-St Paul, Milwaukee, Seattle, Indianapolis…. Denver….

So, only gun owners commit suicide? I don’t get your statement. There’s a lot of people who take the chickenshit way out and many of them aren’t gun owners, even if they use a gun which, is a pretty painless way to do it.

reply

[–] Keelai (34983) 2 years ago

Mainly red states top gun deaths:

Alaska
24.5
Alabama
22.9
Montana
22.5
Louisiana
21.7
Mississippi
21.5
Missouri
21.5
Arkansas
20.3
Wyoming
18.8
West Virginia
18.6
New Mexico
18.5

Safer states are mainly blue:
Hawaii
2.5
New York
3.7
Massachusetts
3.7
Rhode Island
3.9
Connecticut
5.1
New Jersey
5.3
California
7.9
Minnesota
8.2
Nebraska
8.3
Iowa
9.0

The U.S. has over 30,000 gun deaths per year. According to the FBI's 2019 Crime in the U.S. report, firearms were used in 73.66% of murders in the United States in 2019. Additionally, the Department of Justice estimates that 60% of adult firearm deaths are by suicide.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/gun-violence-by-state

Illegal guns flow from red states to blue, too. You're very lax on law and order.

reply

[–] Corneileous (414) 2 years ago

Again, it doesn’t mean near as much as you’re trying to make it out to be.

According to this-
https://efsgv.org/state/oklahoma/

My state, which is pretty lax on bullshit gun laws, only had 737 people killed by somebody with a gun in 2019 and on that same site, California had close to 3000. So tell me again, how “blue” states are safer than red? That’s just it, they aren’t, it’s all because of population and density of cities. My state only has two major cities and probably even both of those don’t even come close to LA alone.

And stop with this, “illegal guns flow from red states into blue states” bullshit because “red” states arent the only places you can buy guns.

Gee, why do I feel like I’ve told you this before??

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17484) 2 years ago

Gee, why do I feel like I’ve told you this before??

You probably have, but you shouldn't because the one you are debating doesn't debate in good faith, and it's a waste of time. Remember, debate is for the audience, not the ones debating. The majority of posters on this board all know he/she is a liar, and a racist so debate really isn't necessary.

________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.

reply

[–] Corneileous (414) 2 years ago

Oh I know and I am very well aware of that. I just take interest in people that continue to swallow down this bullshit like it’s the truth. I just wonder how somebody can be so stupid, naïve, and just flat out ignorant when so many people like this continue to believe that it’s our guns and our gun rights is why so many people die from being shot.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17484) 2 years ago

At some point I just start to believe I'm talking to an AI or Bot and give up lol.

________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.

reply

[–] Corneileous (414) 2 years ago

Kind of makes you wonder that after a while, don’t it?…lol.

reply

[–] Keelai (34983) 2 years ago

Only? You don't think much about human life.

Your math is bad since you're unaware that California has many more residents than Oklahoma. Furthermore, you don't know how to do statistics.

Just casually looking at your two figures shows me your state has epidemic gun deaths. I decided to do more digging.

Oklahoma - 3.987 million pop. with 737 gun deaths
California - 39.24 million pop. with 3,000 gun deaths.

Your state has a HUGE NUMBER OF GUN DEATHS for a sparsely populated state!!!!

Official statistics:

"California's gun death rate was the 44th lowest in the nation, with 8.5 gun deaths per 100,000 people – compared to 20.7 in Oklahoma.

California Ranked #1 for Gun Safety, Death Rate 37% Lower than National Average
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/06/02/fact-sheet-californias-gun-safety-policies-save-lives-provide-model-for-a-nation-seeking-solutions/

California is much safer than Oklahoma!

reply

[–] Corneileous (414) 2 years ago

So, just because you’re looking at population comparison, you think that just because my state only had 737 “gun” deaths in, I don’t know what time frame you’re referring to but you say that is more than the 3000 people in California that were killed? Again, in what time frame? I don’t understand your logic and I certainly don’t understand how you can say it’s safer in California than it is here… Lol. That’s just absolutely absurd.

Not to mention the fact that almost every gang known to man is in LA, San Francisco, and probably even in San Diego as well. Not to mention Sacramento but yet because you look at population comparison, you foolishly think California is a safer state than Oklahoma… Lol. I swear man, you need some help because I think you got a few wires crossed in your head.

But see, and I think I’ve asked you this before but which of those 3000 killed in California was a “gun” death from self-defense and how many of those 737 in Oklahoma was a “gun” death as a result of self-defense? I guarantee you there was a lot more criminals and outlaws getting shot here than there were in California.

But see, this is just like Covid. If a person died of something else but had Covid at the same time, they listed it as a result of Covid even if Covid didn’t really have that much to do with it. This is the same thing. Whether somebody died as a victim from someone with a gun, it’s still going to get counted the same way as somebody who died from somebody with a gun who was defending themselves. This is why you can take your so-called data and stick it where the sun don’t shine.

reply

[–] Keelai (34983) 2 years ago

2 1/2x more likely to die by a gun in Oklahoma than California!

You're the one who submitted the data!!!! You are clueless in understanding it because your math sux, dude! I'm going to assume your state's educational system is crappy, too!

reply

[–] Corneileous (414) 2 years ago

2 1/2x more likely to die by a gun in Oklahoma than California!

You're the one who submitted the data!!!! You are clueless in understanding it because your math sux, dude!

No, I dont think so. My state respects gun rights and lets it’s residents carry without a rights-infringing permit which means any legally-recognized resident- well, actually anybody for that matter in the United States including Hawaii and Alaska can carry here also without permit so, there’s a lot more people here who can freely defend themselves with the very tool you're trying to restrict!

And what data are you talking about? Yes, I know I gave the data yet you refuse to read it and take it for what it is. I asked you, how many of those 3,737 people killed in California and Oklahoma who were victims and how many were killed by the person the attacker was trying to victimize? Why cant you answer that? Why do you continually step over that?

But I still wanna see how you say my math sucks because there’s still a lot more people killed in California than there are here and because we have more good people armed here, I guarantee you most of those 737 are the piece of shit people who’s trying to hurt people.

I'm going to assume your state's educational system is crappy, too!

Well, you know what they say about that word assume… Makes an ass outta you and me. Well, mostly you.

reply

[–] WarrenPeace (2267) 2 years ago

Yeah, their idea is to keep on adding more and more guns to the problem, which as we see is not working.
It's like fighting a fire with gas.
No matter how much they put on it just ain't gonna ever put it out.

reply

[–] CraigC (8284) 2 years ago

Except it isn't. There's 100 million gun owners in the US with 400 million guns. If we were the problem, you wouldn't exist.

reply

[–] Keelai (34983) 2 years ago

It's about gun manufacturers' profit from gun sales. Republican politicians receive political donations from them. Meanwhile, most gun owners want common sense gun legislation passed except for the extremists.

reply

[–] WarrenPeace (2267) 2 years ago

"It's about gun manufacturers' profit from gun sales."

Which is how law abiding gun owners are part of the problem.
Every time they buy guns and ammo that gives the makers more money to keep on making guns and ammo to keep on putting out there so they will end up in the hands of criminals legally or illegally bought.

reply

[–] Keelai (34983) 2 years ago

Notice how their solution is always about buying more guns. That's the reason they want teachers to carry guns.

reply

[–] Corneileous (414) 2 years ago

Well, yeah. If more teachers and staff were armed in schools, maybe all these people that go to schools to kill people would probably be a little less inclined to go in there and start shooting people. Rumor has it that the Nashville shooter was gonna go to another school but since they had a sign up that said they had armed staff, the shooter chose the one that didn’t have that. Funny how that works, huh?

reply

[–] Corneileous (414) 2 years ago

So the police, military and National Guard throughout the US has no part of this whatsoever, only legal gun owners? Come on man, give me a break.

But even if you stop all gun manufacturing, there’s still over 400 million gun owners in this country with probably twice or three times that in the amount of guns so who gives a shit about the gun manufacturers making more? I really do not understand your thought process and it’s almost to the point that the only way I will have a chance is if I could stick my head up my own ass which I can’t.

It’s also funny how you automatically assume that every legal gun owner is going to wind up as the victim of gun theft. But you know, I know it happens, you know it happens but no matter what restriction or regulation you put against the storage of guns, you’re never ever ever ever ever ever ever going to be able to enforce that.

reply

[–] CraigC (8284) 2 years ago

"Meanwhile, most gun owners want common sense gun legislation passed except for the extremists."

That is a democrat lie.

The firearms industry is not the lobbying force you seem to think it is. Not a freckle on the ass of big pharma or the military industrial complex.

reply

[–] Keelai (34983) 2 years ago

"Which Senators Have Benefitted the Most from NRA Money?
https://elections.bradyunited.org/take-action/nra-donations-116th-congress-senators

"What is the NRA's political ideology?
During the 1970s, it became increasingly aligned with the Republican Party. After 1977, the organization expanded its membership by focusing heavily on political issues and forming coalitions with conservative politicians. Most of these are Republicans."

"NRA-ILA FrontLines is comprised of NRA-ILA's most dedicated volunteers, who work vigorously at the local, state, and federal levels to defend our Second Amendment rights. FrontLines members work with NRA-ILA, and especially with their NRA-ILA FrontLines Activist Leader (FAL), to advance ILA's legislative and political agendas. Your FAL is a local NRA member who has volunteered to act as the liaison between NRA members and gun owners and various pro-gun campaigns seeking volunteer support. Your EVC also works with local Second Amendment supporters to promote NRA-ILA's legislative agenda."
https://www.nrapvf.org/grades/

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17484) 2 years ago

common sense gun legislation

No democrat/leftist can actually define this without some sort of confiscation plan.

________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.

reply

[–] Corneileous (414) 2 years ago

None of us have that mentality of pouring gas on a fire in hopes to put it out, but… There is the tactic of fighting fire with fire. Two completely different things from what you’re talking about.

reply

[–] chilone (17914) 2 years ago

Another abject lie from MC's liar in chief.

reply

[–] CraigC (8284) 2 years ago

We place the blame where it belongs, on the person who did the crime and whatever led up to it. Personally, I blame liberals and their failed policies that have destroyed what was good about this country. Yes, YOU. I do not blame inanimate objects or the people who did not do it. The problem is that YOU assholes don't want to talk about the underlying causes of these crimes, because YOU would have to admit that you were wrong.

Where do you morons get the idea that we live in fear?

What part of "unconstitutional" do you not understand?

Who determines the criteria of such an "exam"? Slippery slope.

Here's my idea. We require a civics test for voters. People like you will be in deep shit, along with 81 million other dumbasses. If you fail, you don't vote but get a 2nd chance if you pass a civics course. If you are able to pass a civics course, you'll no longer vote democrat.

reply

[–] WarrenPeace (2267) 2 years ago

"The problem is that YOU folks don't want to talk about the underlying causes of these crimes...."

I did bring up the underlying cause in the OP which should humor you gun nuts.
I offered up a solution which fits in with your agenda of what to blame in gun crimes.
Where is your solution?

reply

[–] CraigC (8284) 2 years ago

Start with admitting that liberal policies are an utter failure.

reply

[–] Keelai (34983) 2 years ago

Fewer gun deaths in blue states and they're drastically lower in other Westernized countries.

The failure is GOP extremist policies which aren't supported by most Americans including most sane Republicans.

reply

[–] WarrenPeace (2267) 2 years ago

Way to deflect and move the goal posts!

All you want to do is just point fingers and play the blame game and politicize something that isn't.

reply

[–] CraigC (8284) 2 years ago

Politicize something that isn't? You are 100% guilty of what you just accused me of. I want to address the underlying cause, you want to deflect. Typical liberal response.

reply

[–] Corneileous (414) 2 years ago

And your solution to that is garbage which, I already told you that in a different post.

My opinion of what needs to be done is remove all these stupid regulations, restrictions, and gun laws that restrict the good people. Get rid of these damn gun free zones including schools so that there can be more good guns there to defend against the bad ones because when you support all these restrictions, regulations and laws concerning gun ownership, all you’re doing is making it easier for the bad person to do their crime. For the life of me, I really just cannot understand why you people don’t see that and why all you see is, let’s just get rid of the guns and make it hard to get one, like that’s going to do any good. When are you people gonna learn, criminals and bad people do not follow the law!

Another fun fact; probably every one of these schools in the last 20 years that’s had somebody come in there with a gun and start shooting people, HAVE ALL BEEN GUN FREE ZONES. THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MINUTE. IF CRIMINALS FOLLOWED LAWS LIKE YOU SO STUPIDLY THINK THEY WILL, YOU WOULD THINK WE WOULDN’T HAVE ANY SCHOOL SHOOTINGS BECAUSE IN SCHOOLS, GUNS ARENT ALLOWED!!

reply

[–] Corneileous (414) 2 years ago

Excellent post Craig!

reply

[–] CraigC (8284) 2 years ago

Thanks!

reply

[–] kspkap (13570) 2 years ago

Firstly, we have this thing commonly known as the 2 Amendment to the United States Constitution. Maybe you should read it and let it sink into your mind. People akin to you are the very ones who let despots come to power.

Secondly read the following quote and let it sink in.

"A gun, like any other source of power, is a force for either good or evil, being neither in itself, but dependent upon those who possess it."

Thirdly, loud and clear…I WILL NOT, AS A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, SURRENDER MY FIREARM (S) TO ANY GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL!

BTW, educate yourself about the difference between a psychiatrist and a psychologist.

reply

[–] WarrenPeace (2267) 2 years ago

Seeing how deluded you are shows that you should not be trusted with a gun and it further proves my point that gun owners are paranoid chicken shits.

reply

[–] CraigC (8284) 2 years ago

Your ignorance and stupidity run very, very deep. There's 100 million of us. If we were the problem, you would know it.

reply

[–] kspkap (13570) 2 years ago

This ^^^^! 👏🏻👏🏻 I have to add those who believe as WarrenPeace does are angry. Angry over these mass shootings as we all are, but going after law abiding citizens isn’t the answer. He’s the one who is deluded to think following his inane idea would solve the problem. I know people who have invested thousands in gun collections. Are they supposed to relinquish what they’ve collected over many years to satisfy him?

What’s next? Knives, pressure cookers, vehicles, etc. Murderers gotta murder and they will find a way to do so without a firearm.

reply

[–] WarrenPeace (2267) 2 years ago

No one can ever be trusted with a gun at anytime.
No one.

reply

[–] Kowalski (76313) 2 years ago

🤣

reply

[–] WarrenPeace (2267) 2 years ago

No one with a gun can ever be trusted.
You cannot ever say that you will never go nuts with it and start shooting innocent ppl. with it because you just never know if you will.
How the F can anyone trust you if you say you will never do that when so many do?
You cannot say that out of those 100 mil. that there are not any future criminals among them.
Not where a lot of criminals, including mass shooters, are buying guns legally.

Like that recent tranny mass shooter in Ten. was among those 100 million you mention.

reply

[–] CraigC (8284) 2 years ago

But you trust the government to have them all? How ignorant can a person be?

Oh man, NOBODY should own anything that could be used to harm another human being because they could go nuts at any time????? So no motorized vehicles, knives, hammers, baseball bats, 2x4's, bricks, rocks, hands, feet or oversized dildos.

And you call us paranoid??????? We're being punked.

reply

[–] Corneileous (414) 2 years ago

You’re right, it’s hard to tell who’s gonna trip out and who isnt but that’s not the point.

But you know something? If I was to ever someday lose my shit- being that you’re so confident that every legal gun owner will- and wanted to start blasting upon a big group of people, I would sure hope there would be somebody there long before the law shows up to put my ass down but you know, with all the current bullshit regulation and restriction, there may not be a good guy with a gun as with what’s happened in a lot of shootings. Funny how that is, huh? But it’s cool, I know you’re still gonna argue this to the T because that’s just how you are. You just simply cannot comprehend logic or common sense.

reply

[–] WarrenPeace (2267) 2 years ago

I like pizza.
Who doesn't?
Am I right?

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6138) 2 years ago

Funny during the Vegas shooting no one shot the guy why not? Oh yeah because he was hidden where you could not see where he was shooting from. How would a gun have helped when you have no idea where the shots are coming from?

reply

[–] Corneileous (414) 2 years ago

What is the basis of your question? In other words, why are you asking me this because basically anytime you have a sniper situation- which is pretty much what that was, minus the full-blown sniper rifle, your only best bet is to hide behind something and get the hell away from there.

Is it not obvious? I swear, bro, sometimes your questions along with your silly-assed statements just make absolute no sense. So you asked a question about a particular scenario that rarely ever happens. But hey, what about the Indiana mall where there was no sniper situation, where there wasn’t somebody high up above shooting into a crowd of people from a balcony? Oh yeah, I remember that one and I’ll tell you exactly how that went down. A young man carrying a pistol put that shooter down not long after he started shooting. Sure, the piece of shit who started murdering people killed two people but hadn’t that young man been there or somebody else like him, who knows how many more people would’ve been carried out of that place in a body bag? Try again.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6138) 2 years ago

So no answer to that scenario. So in the case of a sniper your best bet is to get out of there. So in your eyes anybody should be allowed to buy a gun even a felon. I mean after all they will get a gun by any means so meh just let them have it.

reply

[–] Corneileous (414) 2 years ago

It’s hard to effectively give an answer to that scenario and yeah, it’s better to just find the nearest exit and get out.

But yeah, they’re gonna get them anyways if they want them bad enough but who said anything about allowing felons to have guns? I never said that.

And nobody’s saying they should just be allowed to have them because they’ll get ‘em anyways. That’s your assumption.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6138) 2 years ago

So then you do think some form of gun control should happen? I thought laws for it were useless? We should just allow anybody to have one. Remove all the laws I mean like you said they will get them anyways so why not?

reply

[–] Corneileous (414) 2 years ago

No, I don’t. I don’t consider a law against felons or any criminals having guns as “gun control”. That’s just a regular ole law just like any other law that allows for a chargeable offense if a criminal or felon gets caught with a gun. And generally speaking, no law is useful at prevention.

The laws that are truly in the name of gun control are laws like magazine restrictions. Specific firearm restrictions. Laws that state the American people must have a permit in order to exercise their rights. Laws that state we must have some goofy insurance policy that helps to pay restitution to somebody who was a victim of “gun”. crime for which we didn’t have anything to do with but just because we own a gun. Laws that make people wait a specific amount of time before they can legally buy a firearm. Laws that say we can’t have private gun sales.

As far as background checks- yes, they are still unconstitutional but sadly enough to admit, there are people out there who know they can’t legally buy a firearm, but they try anyway. Just like how there’s people who know they would fail a drug test, but they take one anyway if a specific job employment requires them to take one.

And I didn’t say we should just allow anybody but that’s just it, the ones we don’t allow will still get guns regardless.

Why is this such a hard concept for you to understand??

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6138) 2 years ago

It isn't that's why anyone should be allowed guns period. If they can't afford it hey just give to them. I mean hey they would steal it anyways. This same thing could be applied to food. Hey give those people free food I mean hey they will steal it anyways so just give it to them.

reply

[–] Corneileous (414) 2 years ago

Man, you’re just way too off base on this stuff. I don’t know what more to say to you. Every time I reply to one of your comments, you just reply with something totally off-the-wall that doesn’t even really pertain to anything I said, nor do you really even answer properly to what I say.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6138) 2 years ago

Exactly no retort. Since people will steal let's remove the law. Sounds good right?

reply

[–] Corneileous (414) 2 years ago

I gave you my retort but as usual you just dismiss it because either you're way too dense to comprehend it or you just dont want to hear it because in your silly mind, you think laws prevent crime and when somebody like me says we don't need specific laws for specific purposes, you go off on shit like this and come up with these retarded responses like saying that just because people like me say people will still steal irregardless of the law that we should just make theft legal. That is not what I'm saying. We need laws against theft, murder, assault, etc because when these people commit these crimes and when they get caught, they can be properly charged for those crimes. There is a difference, man.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6138) 2 years ago

No in my book there is no difference. So I want all theft laws removed since you know people will steal anyways.

reply

[–] Corneileous (414) 2 years ago

So, you don't see the difference, huh? Wow. Your stupidity and ignorance amazes me yet again.

But OK, explain to me how laws against murder, assault, theft or illegal drug use/sale of is the same exact thing as laws against magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, laws that restrict gun possession in specific places, laws that require carry permits, laws that restrict private gun sales, laws that restrict the legal purchasing of guns to people under 18/21 years of age or laws that restrict the sale of specific firearms?

Those laws I listed above that pertain to guns are the laws I'm talking about that only restrict the law-abiding. Those are the laws that dont deserve to be laws.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6138) 2 years ago

Laws restrict the law abiding. You just defeated your entire premise with that point. Yeah the law stops those that follow it... It is a deterrent for those that follow the law. Some people do not care about the law and will not follow it. So because they would not follow it why have them? Without any laws are there any criminals?

reply

[–] Corneileous (414) 2 years ago

Laws restrict the law abiding. You just defeated your entire premise with that point. Yeah the law stops those that follow it... It is a deterrent for those that follow the law. Some people do not care about the law and will not follow it. So because they would not follow it why have them? Without any laws are there any criminals?

When it comes to specific laws, there are those that we need and there’s also those that we don’t need. Laws that we don’t need are those against magazine capacity. Gun free zones, especially schools. Laws against which firearms we can own. Red flag laws. Laws that enforce a permit. I laws that require people to wait any given amount of time to buy a gun or ammunition.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6138) 2 years ago

So then we don't need driving laws right? I mean that makes it harder for the people who follow the law to get a license. Thus making it harder for the people who follow the law to drive a car.

reply

[–] Corneileous (414) 2 years ago

As usual you’re not listening and you’re once again responding on a whole different track.

And what do you mean when you ask me about not needing driving laws? What driving laws, and what do they have to do with getting a license? And how is anything you said gonna make it any harder or easier for someone to drive a car? I have no idea what you’re talking about or whatever point you’re trying to make because as usual, you respond the same way an eight-year-old would.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6138) 2 years ago

The same way you are not responding or making sense. So because people will steal guns meh let them have them. Including any criminal. I mean hey screw it.

reply

[–] Corneileous (414) 2 years ago

No, the only one not making sense here, is you. Between the two of us, I’m the only one who can actually differentiate between laws that we need and laws that are just intended to restrict the law-abiding. You’re trying way too hard to combine this shit to make it sound like or look like it’s the same and it’s not.

But on the guns part, yes. I mean after all, it is a constitutional right but- if you keep it to where it’s at now, where it’s still illegal for a felon to have a gun, that individual can still be properly charged for when he gets caught. Just like how being that anti-drug laws get walked on every day- we still need those laws so that when people get caught, they can be properly charged.

But again man, why is it so hard for you to comprehend this and why is it you’re responding to my comments the way you are? It’s like you’re trying so desperately to make me look dumb but in the end, the only person you’re making looking dumb is yourself.

Just face it, man. Guns are a constitutional right for a reason. Gun laws don’t do shit except restrict the wrong people. Gun laws are not the same as laws against murder. Laws against assault. Laws against illegal drug use.

If you don’t wanna own a gun then fine, don’t. If you don’t want to carry one for protection, then don’t but at the same time, when the next group of people get shot, don’t be coming to me like it’s my fault and don’t be screaming for more gun control because the lack of gun control is not why this happens.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6138) 2 years ago

All laws restrict the law abiding lol. What kind of logic is that? Criminals don't follow laws.

reply

[–] Corneileous (414) 2 years ago

What do you mean, what kind of logic is that? Law-abiding people follow the law. That’s why they’re called law-abiding in the first place. It’s pretty straightforward. And yes I know criminals don’t follow the law because that’s why they call them criminals or outlaws… Lol. What is the silly point you’re trying to make by saying that?

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6138) 2 years ago

Laws restrict the law abiding. Why restrict the law abiding? Why not make it legal to make it so they aren't restricted by the law?

reply

[–] Corneileous (414) 2 years ago

What are you even talking about?

reply

[–] kspkap (13570) 2 years ago

Where in my reply (btw without attacking you) did I show delusion? 🤔 Was it when I stated we had a 2nd Amendment included in The Constitution of the United States? The most profound clause in the 2nd Amendment is as follows:”… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Was I deluded when I stated the quote in my reply? A firearm is an inanimate object. It could lay where it is until hell freezes over without firing a shot. It’s dependent on someone to fire that shot. It doesn’t work by itself. It doesn’t think for itself.

Am I deluded because I have the 2nd Amendment granting me possession? Also, by being a law abiding U.S. citizen Law Enforcement respects my ownership? Is that delusional?

Am I delusional when I state decades ago we had gun clubs in high school? I walked to school with members of the gun club who had their rifles slung on their shoulders. Unloaded of course.

Your objective should be to question what has occurred in the last 6 decades to bring us to the point of mass shootings? Maybe, just maybe you won’t be so deluded. And, dammit stop it with the “paranoid chicken shits” personal attacks. Or am I deluded into thinking you are capable of stopping?

reply

[–] WarrenPeace (2267) 2 years ago

You are one of those that should not have a gun seeing how unhinged you are.

The more you gun nuts double down with your, "I have a right to it...blah, blah, blah...." just makes you seem even more untrustworthy of having a gun.

All you nuts want to do is argue and justify why deadly weapons should still be around instead of trying to ever even just think of having a conversation of common ground on how to end it.
And the more you justify keeping them after a mass shooting makes you look even more unsympathetic for the victims and that you just don't know the meanings of the words of love and compassion.

reply

[–] kspkap (13570) 2 years ago

I’m unhinged because I state the 2 Amendment to The United States Constitution?

I’m unhinged because I state I’m a law abiding gun owner?

” No one with a gun can ever be trusted.
You cannot ever say that you will never go nuts with it and start shooting innocent ppl. with it because you just never know if you will.”

It appears you are the paranoid one. (unreasonably or obsessively anxious, suspicious, or mistrustful:)

” The more you gun nuts double down…

” All you nuts want to do is argue and justify…

” And the more you justify keeping them after a mass shooting makes you look even more unsympathetic for the victims and that you just don't know the meanings of the words of love and compassion.”

Maybe you yourself could be a bit “unhinged”? (wildly irrational and out of touch with reality:) In other words the pot calling the kettle black.

reply

[–] WarrenPeace (2267) 2 years ago

You are the one that is part of the problem being a paranoid, coward, chickenshit gun owner while I am part of the solution.

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/64246e510641844518d2d448/How-law-abiding-gun-owners-are-part-of-the-problem

reply

[–] kspkap (13570) 2 years ago

From my prior reply to you:

”And, dammit stop it with the “paranoid chicken shits” personal attacks. Or am I deluded into thinking you are capable of stopping?

Yep! You’re incapable of posting without ad hominem attacks.

ad hominem:

”Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.” ”This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue.”

How does it feel to have been dropped on your head when you were born? The result being in your cranial cavity…1 Megohm from ear to ear.

reply

[–] WarrenPeace (2267) 2 years ago

Just posting the truth which you cannot handle.

If you were not a cowardly paranoid chickenshit then you would not own a gun as I don't.

reply

[–] Corneileous (414) 2 years ago

I’ve yet to see any real truth out of you.

But OK, if you’re not a paranoid chickenshit or just scared in anyway, shape or form then why are you pushing for so much gun control? Why are you wanting the government to do something about people getting killed? You would think that if you’re not scared or in fear of any way that you just wouldn’t care about people who get shot.

reply

[–] kspkap (13570) 2 years ago

There is absolutely no substance in that thing resting on his shoulders. This is why I stated he has 1 Megohm from ear to ear. Nothing gets through!

reply

[–] kspkap (13570) 2 years ago

How does it feel just being a flaming TROLL? You have absolutely no substance. You’re akin to a school ground bully who can only spout insults.

reply

[–] Corneileous (414) 2 years ago

It does no good to link that waste of space thread that’s all it does is prove your stupidity and your issue with having your head in the sand.

But again, why do you keep calling us paranoid, coward, and chickenshit? What, do you expect us to take on all these shooters with our bare hands?… Lol.

And how are you part of the solution? Restricting gun owners is not part of the solution. We already have many restrictions in place but yet people still keep getting killed. Imagine that.

And another thing on this chickenshit comment you made, how can you call us all that when you’re obviously the one who’s paranoid, at least, because why else would you be pushing for all this extra regulation, restriction, and gun laws that restrict gun ownership? If anybody’s afraid, it would be you.

Did you ever hear the joke about the little old lady that got pulled over? In case you haven’t here’s the joke; this little old lady gets pulled over and as she hands the cop her drivers license and her insurance, she also hands over her carry permit and something about the cop just wanted to ask her, so he asked her if she had any weapons in the car. She responded by saying she had a gun in her purse, a gun in her center console and a gun in the glove box. The cop asked, gee lady, what in the hell are you so afraid of? She responded with a confident grin, not a damn thing.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17484) 2 years ago

All you nuts want to do is argue and justify why deadly weapons should still be around instead of trying to ever even just think of having a conversation of common ground on how to end it.

Not a gun nut, but I would love to have a conversation about how to end it, but no one else can handle truth of the problem...

Lack of good fathers in the home, and leading a strong family unit.

Literally no one wants to address this root problem.

________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.

reply

[–] Corneileous (414) 2 years ago

Wow. You must have a couple screws loose up in that head of yours or have some wires shorting out or something because I don’t see how anything he said would make him not trustworthy enough to own a gun.

And another myth you keep slapping out there is that we’re paranoid. The only ones paranoid is you which is why you’re pushing for all these gun laws, regulations and restrictions. Why in the hell would you dare call us paranoid when most of us don’t leave the house without a loaded gun? I’m not paranoid. I’m not scared yet you for some reason think I am.

reply

[–] WarrenPeace (2267) 2 years ago

"Why in the hell would you dare call us paranoid when most of us don’t leave the house without a loaded gun? I’m not paranoid."

Are you leaving the house with a loaded gun or not?
If it is the former then you are paranoid and you shot yourself in your foot with your comment!

reply

[–] Corneileous (414) 2 years ago

No, you don’t get it. If I didn’t have it, then I would be paranoid or scared but see that’s what your beetle headed little brain is telling you to think that just because I have it, I must be scared of something.

reply

[–] Keelai (34983) 2 years ago

You haven't read 2nd amendment which is clearly about militias created, paid and maintained by state governments.

reply

[–] CraigC (8284) 2 years ago

We already know you're a liar who can't read for comprehension.

reply

[–] Corneileous (414) 2 years ago

Again, you’re wrong.WE are the people when it talks about we the people. Practically all the other amendments say the same thing and no, they’re not, ensuring the government has the right to have arms, speak out, and all the other stuff so again, stop spreading bullshit about your entirely incorrect perception of the second amendment.

reply

[–] WarrenPeace (2267) 2 years ago

"WE are the people when it talks about we the people."

The constitution was ratified in 1787.
So take 2023 and subtract 1787 and that will leave us with...
Wow!
Holy cow!
You are like 400 years old?
Woah Nellie!

reply

[–] Corneileous (414) 2 years ago

What are you even talking about? The second amendment still protects our rights to own and bear arms just like how the first amendment allows you free speech to the government just like how the fourth amendment protects your rights against unlawful search and seizure.

reply

[–] WarrenPeace (2267) 2 years ago

You are one of those original, "We," back in 1787.
Which one and what is your secret to your longevity?

reply

[–] Corneileous (414) 2 years ago

What??

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17484) 2 years ago

Dude, the US Constitution does NOT, in any way shape or form 'grant' rights to Americans. It only recognizes our inherent, inalienable rights we're BORN with that cannot be infringed upon, and the formation of government is to protect those inalienable at all costs not fucking take them away(which they can't).

You really do not understand, nor appreciate the binding aspects of that document. Gallons upon gallons of blood were spilled to create that document and protect our human rights. It goes wayyy deeper than just a piece of parchment.

I will not give up what I was born with because a bad person committed a crime somewhere. Hold bad people accountable for the crimes they commit.

________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.

reply

[–] tvfan (12980) 2 years ago

Well said 💯 🤙

reply

[–] Keelai (34983) 2 years ago

"A well regulated Militia"

That's state government.

"the people"

Collective whole within the state. Not you singular inbred drunken hillbilly.

Seriously, the Founding Fathers disdained you. They didn't give you the vote because they knew how stupid you were. Only wealthy men were allowed to vote. They wouldn't be dumb enough to trust your cult to protect the Republic. Your cult is the unruly mob and tyranny which they feared. Your behavior on January 6th proves that!

reply