Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

For the sake of argument:


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> For the sake of argument: Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
For the sake of argument: - 7/10/2016 3:56:20 PM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline 		Okay, hypothetically speaking, the congress passes an amendment eliminating the 2nd amendment and the required number of states ratify it.

Congress then passes laws banning firearm ownership.

All legally purchased firearms in the US are then confiscated by law enforcement.

Now, would someone please tell me how:

1) you are going to get the guns out of the hands of people who own them illegally
2) you are going to stop guns from entering the states illegally (didnt work so much for booze, remember?)
3) how are you going to stop someone from downloading the information on making guns from the internet (hasnt worked real well for stopping folks from downloading bomb making instructions, a few people arrested for possessing pipe bombs admitted to getting the information on making them from the net.)

Which brings me to the point, in countries where guns are illegal, if it is so effective, how are guns being used in crimes?

Okay granted not in the numbers as the US, but still, guns are in countries where guns are illegal. Even more to the point, many of these countries have a history of low crime rates to begin with.
and finally


4) how in the hell is getting rid of the legal guns going to stop cops from shooting unarmed men of any race, let alone black?

Okay, granted number 4, in my opinion is an unrelated problem, but still some in other countries seem to think that it isn't.



_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: For the sake of argument: - 7/10/2016 4:03:15 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
ORIGINAL: jlf1961


4) how in the hell is getting rid of the legal guns going to stop cops from shooting unarmed men of any race, let alone black?

Hmmmm..... wow that thar is a real puzzler ain't it????Oh wait you said get rid of the legal gun like the ones that cops use to shoot people with...yeah that would work if the cops don't have guns they would definitely have a tougher time shooting people.
You may be on to something there young fella.

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: For the sake of argument: - 7/10/2016 4:32:56 PM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline 		If they passed a constitutional amendment outlawing guns, then it would be pretty for the Swiss Guard at the Vatican to come and take over the the country. We would also save a ton on not having a military or VA

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: For the sake of argument: - 7/10/2016 4:36:09 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
ORIGINAL: KenDckey

If they passed a constitutional amendment outlawing guns, then it would be pretty for the Swiss Guard at the Vatican to come and take over the the country. We would also save a ton on not having a military or VA


Why would you disband the military?

(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: For the sake of argument: - 7/10/2016 4:37:08 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
ORIGINAL: KenDckey

If they passed a constitutional amendment outlawing guns, then it would be pretty for the Swiss Guard at the Vatican to come and take over the the country. We would also save a ton on not having a military or VA


How would the swiss guard of the vatican get here?

(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: For the sake of argument: - 7/10/2016 4:47:54 PM   
Dvr22999874


Posts: 2849
Joined: 9/11/2008
Status: offline 		Just like they ( the Swiss Guard) has taken over all those other countries that banned guns. How are we ever going to stop them ????They'll take over the world !!
What a load of bollocks.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: For the sake of argument: - 7/10/2016 4:55:44 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline 		ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874

Just like they ( the Swiss Guard) has taken over all those other countries that banned guns. How are we ever going to stop them ????They'll take over the world !!
What a load of bollocks.

I have heard that they take their guns home with them but I do believe there is about four or five kilos of paperwork to get one out of the country. That might put a little hitch in their invasion plans.


< Message edited by thompsonx -- 7/10/2016 4:56:12 PM >

(in reply to Dvr22999874)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: For the sake of argument: - 7/10/2016 5:27:29 PM   
ThatDizzyChick


Posts: 5490
Status: offline 		It's way to late for meaningful gun control in the US.

_____________________________

Not your average bimbo.

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: For the sake of argument: - 7/10/2016 5:41:06 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874

Just like they ( the Swiss Guard) has taken over all those other countries that banned guns. How are we ever going to stop them ????They'll take over the world !!
What a load of bollocks.

He was saying if not even the Government could have guns.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to Dvr22999874)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: For the sake of argument: - 7/10/2016 5:44:00 PM   
RottenJohnny


Posts: 1677
Joined: 5/5/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Okay, hypothetically speaking, the congress passes an amendment eliminating the 2nd amendment and the required number of states ratify it.

Congress then passes laws banning firearm ownership.

All legally purchased firearms in the US are then confiscated by law enforcement.

So, hypothetically speaking, three years later, the sheriff finally gets around to showing up at my house because for some inexplicable reason I (and probably many others) apparently never got the memo that I needed to turn in my guns.

I can easily predict how this conversation will go...

Sheriff: Knock, knock, knock...Excuse me, sir, our records show you are a previously legal gun owner.

Me: That's correct.

Sheriff: Well, as you may not be aware, you are required by law to surrender all fireaems immediately. Do you still have posession of any firearms?

Me: No, sir.

Sheriff: Since our records show you owned firearms but you have not surrendered them, we our legally allowed to search your home to confirm there are no firearms in your posession. Will you agree to let us do so?

Me: Certainly, sir. (search conducted - no firearms found)

Sheriff: Our records also show that you have never filed a report for any stolen firearms.

Me: That's correct.

Sheriff: Well then, can you please explain what has happened here? You had firearms. You no longer have them. You didn't turn them in as required. And they weren't stolen. Where are your firearms?

Me: I lost them.

Sheriff: You lost them?

Me: Yes, sir.

Sheriff: How did you "lose them"?

Me: Well, I can't be sure. Over the years I've made many trips to the local dump. Perhaps I accidentally mixed them in with the garbage and they were thrown away.

Sheriff: Do you really expect me to believe that?

Me: That's up to you. But I'll be contacting my lawyer tomorrow to make sure he gets a copy of your report that you've conducted a search of my home and found no firearms. Have a nice day.

A few days later, I return to my friends house, who has never owned a firearm (legally or otherwise) to retrieve my guns.

_____________________________

"I find your arguments strewn with gaping defects in logic." - Mr. Spock

"Give me liberty or give me death." - Patrick Henry

I believe in common sense, not common opinions. - Me

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: For the sake of argument: - 7/10/2016 5:45:37 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline 		Well I am wondering how the congress could get away with changing the core constitutional requirement for ratification and otherwise wouldn't get the required no. of states to ratify the death of the 2nd amend. I do think your hypothetical dies a quick death jl.

None of this would otherwise pass constitutional muster ? As recently as the Heller V DC we know what's up there and even a 4-4 court wouldn't go along with any of this and law enforcement would thus be so instructed.

That's why the feds needed to pass presidential martial law capabilities which has yet to be court tested. It is my understanding, that's the only alleged legal vehicle for the confiscation of the peoples' arm which was made optional under that law.

Then the govt. runs into Caesar's problem. (you ain't shit without the Army) Would the Army and law enforcement go along ?

< Message edited by MrRodgers -- 7/10/2016 5:48:01 PM >

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to ThatDizzyChick)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: For the sake of argument: - 7/10/2016 5:50:10 PM   
Greta75


Posts: 9968
Joined: 2/6/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Which brings me to the point, in countries where guns are illegal, if it is so effective, how are guns being used in crimes?

Guns are completely illegal in my country, so illegal that gun crimes, any gum crimes, like even using a gun to hold up and commit robbery is death penalty. And we don't have gun crimes. Infact I would encourage the US to instill death penalty for gun crimes too, and I guarantee gun crimes will drop drastically. Especially in a country where it's a right to have a gun, it's even more important to severely punish those who abuse that right and abuse the use of a gun. US has too slack laws.

We occasionally have police officers abusing the gun to commit suicide and shoot themselves. But that's about it. They know if they shoot others with it unfairly, it's death penalty to them, the police anyway.

Only police and military have guns. But they don't abuse it because their punishment would probably involve losing their life.

The problem with many other countries is that, it's not illegal. Guns are still legal for hunting and stuffs. Guns aren't even legal for hunting in my country.

So if you want it to work, it means, TOTAL BAN. Nobody gets a gun, period! Except law enforcement.


< Message edited by Greta75 -- 7/10/2016 5:52:43 PM >

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: For the sake of argument: - 7/10/2016 5:53:55 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Which brings me to the point, in countries where guns are illegal, if it is so effective, how are guns being used in crimes?

Guns are completely illegal in my country, so illegal that gun crimes, any gum crimes, like even using a gun to hold up and commit robbery is death penalty. And we don't have gun crimes. Infact I would encourage the US to instill death penalty for gun crimes too, and I guarantee gun crimes will drop drastically.

We occasionally have police officers abusing the gun to commit suicide and shoot themselves. But that's about it.

Only police and military have guns.

The problem with many other countries is that, it's not illegal. Guns are still legal for hunting and stuffs. Guns aren't even legal for hunting in my country.

So if you want it to work, it means, TOTAL BAN. Nobody gets a gun, period! Except law enforcement.


many states here don't have the death penalty period, and in the others it is hard to get death

Then there is that little thing called the Constitution.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to Greta75)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: For the sake of argument: - 7/10/2016 5:57:57 PM   
Greta75


Posts: 9968
Joined: 2/6/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
many states here don't have the death penalty period, and in the others it is hard to get death

Then there is that little thing called the Constitution.

Republican politicians should really be pushing for increasing punishment for gun crimes, to ensure that guns are used peacefully only. Obviously total ban is never realistic for the US.

But surely instilling tougher punishments will be easier! What do people have against punishing people heavily for misusing guns?

That way good gun owners can happily keep collecting their guns, while the rogue gun owners, get rid of them! A gun filled country does not need rogue gun owners in their population. I'd just eliminate them.

< Message edited by Greta75 -- 7/10/2016 5:58:27 PM >

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: For the sake of argument: - 7/10/2016 5:58:41 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		Lets pretend the sky was green and the earth was square, how many eyes would god have?

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Greta75)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: For the sake of argument: - 7/10/2016 6:07:24 PM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline 		Greta, your country is 277 square miles, all of which is pretty much urbanized.

This brings up the question, where the hell would anyone go hunting?

Finally, contrary to what you may believe, the death penalty has been proven to NOT be a deterrent to criminal activities. Christ all you have to do is look at Texas and Florida to see the death penalty hasn't stopped many capital crimes.

But more to the point, if a person is determined to commit the crime, they already have accepted the cost.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: For the sake of argument: - 7/10/2016 6:11:35 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
many states here don't have the death penalty period, and in the others it is hard to get death

Then there is that little thing called the Constitution.

Republican politicians should really be pushing for increasing punishment for gun crimes, to ensure that guns are used peacefully only. Obviously total ban is never realistic for the US.

But surely instilling tougher punishments will be easier! What do people have against punishing people heavily for misusing guns?

That way good gun owners can happily keep collecting their guns, while the rogue gun owners, get rid of them! A gun filled country does not need rogue gun owners in their population. I'd just eliminate them.

They do, and so does the NRA but that is dismissed as doing nothing and ridiculed as only punishing people after they have committed a crime.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to Greta75)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: For the sake of argument: - 7/10/2016 6:54:10 PM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Okay, hypothetically speaking, the congress passes an amendment eliminating the 2nd amendment and the required number of states ratify it.

Congress then passes laws banning firearm ownership.

All legally purchased firearms in the US are then confiscated by law enforcement.

Now, would someone please tell me how:

1) you are going to get the guns out of the hands of people who own them illegally
2) you are going to stop guns from entering the states illegally (didnt work so much for booze, remember?)
3) how are you going to stop someone from downloading the information on making guns from the internet (hasnt worked real well for stopping folks from downloading bomb making instructions, a few people arrested for possessing pipe bombs admitted to getting the information on making them from the net.)

Which brings me to the point, in countries where guns are illegal, if it is so effective, how are guns being used in crimes?

Okay granted not in the numbers as the US, but still, guns are in countries where guns are illegal. Even more to the point, many of these countries have a history of low crime rates to begin with.
and finally


4) how in the hell is getting rid of the legal guns going to stop cops from shooting unarmed men of any race, let alone black?

Okay, granted number 4, in my opinion is an unrelated problem, but still some in other countries seem to think that it isn't.




Bottom line, and you see it, it is simply not practical.

And really, though I am against it, most people who get shot by the cops are fucking stupid. Don't they know the cop has a gun and is licensed to kill ? In fact they usually get a two week paid vacation when they shoot one of these Darwin Award winners. I am not saying it is right and I am not saying all of cop shootings are justified and I am not saying that more cops should be prosecuted for some of these shootings, but these people they shoot just don't know that they have a gun ? Or what ?

If they are that stupid then kill the motherfuckers before the break down my back door and get blood all over the place. When cops shoot wrongly I think they should be severely punished. When they beat somebody's ass for wrong reasons they should be severely punished. But when they catch some N____ beating up his Wife and kids, I have no problem with cops putting the scumbag into the hospital.

But some do it out of hate or bigotry. They can take some lead as far as I am concerned.

T^T

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: For the sake of argument: - 7/10/2016 7:43:00 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline 		ORIGINAL: BamaD


He was saying if not even the Government could have guns


What part of the second ammendment gives the government any right to guns?

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: For the sake of argument: - 7/10/2016 7:46:13 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny

So, hypothetically speaking, three years later, the sheriff finally gets around to showing up at my house because for some inexplicable reason I (and probably many others) apparently never got the memo that I needed to turn in my guns.

I can easily predict how this conversation will go...

Sheriff: Knock, knock, knock...Excuse me, sir, our records show you are a previously legal gun owner.

Me: That's correct.

Sheriff: Well, as you may not be aware, you are required by law to surrender all fireaems immediately. Do you still have posession of any firearms?

Me: No, sir.

Sheriff: Since our records show you owned firearms but you have not surrendered them, we our legally allowed to search your home to confirm there are no firearms in your posession. Will you agree to let us do so?

Me: Certainly, sir. (search conducted - no firearms found)

Sheriff: Our records also show that you have never filed a report for any stolen firearms.

Me: That's correct.

Sheriff: Well then, can you please explain what has happened here? You had firearms. You no longer have them. You didn't turn them in as required. And they weren't stolen. Where are your firearms?

Me: I lost them.

Sheriff: You lost them?

Me: Yes, sir.

Sheriff: How did you "lose them"?

Me: Well, I can't be sure. Over the years I've made many trips to the local dump. Perhaps I accidentally mixed them in with the garbage and they were thrown away.

Sheriff: Do you really expect me to believe that?

Me: That's up to you. But I'll be contacting my lawyer tomorrow to make sure he gets a copy of your report that you've conducted a search of my home and found no firearms. Have a nice day.

A few days later, I return to my friends house, who has never owned a firearm (legally or otherwise) to retrieve my guns.


Funny how all you "law and order guys figgure the law applies to someone that is not you.

(in reply to RottenJohnny)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> For the sake of argument: Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109