MovieChat Forums > Corneileous > Replies
Corneileous's Replies
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.
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.
<blockquote>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?</blockquote>
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.
Kind of makes you wonder that after a while, don’t it?…lol.
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.
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??
First off, I don’t watch Fox News and second of all, how is my ”viewpoint” biased and distorted when I know the difference between rioting and protesting? And again, rioting isn’t protected under the first amendment. The only viewpoint that’s distorted and biased is yours.
What??…lol. I know what peaceful protest is and, I know what rioting is.
And what book should I ban? I bet I could think of quite a few.
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.
Your comments are mostly from lack of intellectual thought and a whole lot of hot air.
Last I checked, the 1A protected against peaceful protest, not rioting.
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.
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.
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.
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??
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.
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.
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.
What??
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.