Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@izzythepush,

Nope. No confusion on my end. You cannot provide any examples of me ever being confused.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Do you wear a seat belt?

Only when I'm in an automobile, as mandated by the law.

Quote:

Do you have a fire extinguisher?

I had one, but I lost it somewhere in the U.S. Capitol.

Quote:

Who are you afraid of?

You're changing the subject from potential automobile accidents and house fires to threats from human beings. To be logically consistent you should be asking "what" am I afraid of.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Only when I'm in an automobile, as mandated by the law.

Does this mean you would be foolish enough to not do so if the law did not mandate it??

hightor wrote:

You're changing the subject from potential automobile accidents and house fires to threats from human beings.

No change. All are threats to human beings.

hightor wrote:

To be logically consistent you should be asking "what" am I afraid of.

Meh.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Nuh-uh.

Wrong again. The legislation clearly addresses ordinary hunting weapons and does not address any assault weapons whatsoever.

InfraBlue wrote:

You're clearly confused about what the legislation banned.

No I'm not.

InfraBlue wrote:

Nuh-uh.

Wrong again. Progressives try to violate the Constitution because progressives hate the Constitution.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Alzheimer's would explain extensive memory loss,

My memory is nearly perfect, and far better than yours.

izzythepush wrote:

limited repetitive vocabulary,

That's another lie.

izzythepush wrote:

delusions

You cannot point out anything untrue in my posts.

izzythepush wrote:

and mania.

That's a new one.

"An excessive enthusiasm or desire; an obsession."

I don't see anything wrong with that.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Nuh-uh.

Uh-huh.

Nuh-uh.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Does this mean you would be foolish enough to not do so if the law did not mandate it??

But no one is mandated to own a firearm so I don't see the relevance here.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Actually I've heard of localities that mandate it.

The main reason for my question is that I am shocked that you could be so foolish as to not want to wear a seatbelt.

However, "voluntarily carrying a gun or not" is directly comparable to "voluntarily wearing a seatbelt or not".

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Nuh-uh.

Wrong again. The legislation clearly addresses ordinary hunting weapons and does not address any assault weapons whatsoever.

And again. Progressives try to violate the Constitution because progressives hate the Constitution.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

However, "voluntarily carrying a gun or not" is directly comparable to "voluntarily wearing a seatbelt or not".

That's a rather far-fetched and illogical comparison. People insist on firearms as personal "protection" because they fear other armed people or, among a much smaller population, dangerous animals. The "protection" either comes from flourishing the weapon (which, technically, could be a facsimile) or using it to incapacitate or kill the threat.

Before seat belts became mandatory I would choose to wear one on local errands, because 90% of vehicular accident occur within ten miles of home, and I would choose to buckle up on icy roads. The protection offered is passive — my wearing a seat belt does not prevent someone from colliding with my car, nor does it prevent me from skidding on black ice.

I shouldn't even need to point out that firearm ownership is covered in the Constitution; seat belts aren't mentioned.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

That's a rather far-fetched and illogical comparison.

Both are examples of people choosing to guard against danger.

hightor wrote:

People insist on firearms as personal "protection" because they fear other armed people or, among a much smaller population, dangerous animals.

People insist on seatbelts as personal "protection" because they fear car accidents.

hightor wrote:

The "protection" either comes from flourishing the weapon (which, technically, could be a facsimile) or using it to incapacitate or kill the threat.

Active protection is still protection.

hightor wrote:

Before seat belts became mandatory I would choose to wear one on local errands, because 90% of vehicular accident occur within ten miles of home,

I wonder what percentage of vehicular travel occurs within 10 miles of home.

90% perhaps??

Knowing the physics of car accidents, the mere thought of "me not wearing a seatbelt" makes my hair stand on end.

hightor wrote:

The protection offered is passive -- my wearing a seat belt does not prevent someone from colliding with my car, nor does it prevent me from skidding on black ice.

Passive protection is still protection.

hightor wrote:

I shouldn't even need to point out that firearm ownership is covered in the Constitution; seat belts aren't mentioned.

Thank goodness progressives are not trying to pass laws outlawing seatbelts they way they do with guns.

By the way, if nonlethal weapons ever become so effective that there is no longer any reason to use lethal weapons, it'll be interesting to see what that will mean for the Second Amendment.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Both are examples of people choosing to guard against danger.

Distinctly different types of danger.

Quote:

Knowing the physics of car accidents, the mere thought of "me not wearing a seatbelt" makes my hair stand on end.

Then you admit to being a fearful person.

Quote:

Thank goodness progressives are not trying to pass laws outlawing seatbelts they way they do with guns.

This is ironic as well as logically inconsistent. Liberals worked to implement seat belt laws, not to outlaw them. And the liberal response to gun violence has been to limit access to certain types of weapons by certain kinds of people, not to outlaw firearm ownership in general — because that would require a constitutional amendment.

2 Replies

@hightor,

You’re talking to someone whose paranoia is off the chart.

Talking of other people banning seatbelts is absurd.

Seatbelts make people safer.

Taking guns away from dangerous, delusional, paranoid idiots also makes people safer.

Sectioning the above makes them safer still.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

You're lying about me again. That's not very nice.

It also shows the weakness in your argument. You wouldn't have to lie about me if you could defend your position with facts or logic.

0 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Distinctly different types of danger.

Danger is danger.

hightor wrote:

Then you admit to being a fearful person.

No. A fearful person would have excessive fearfulness.

I have the appropriate amount of fearfulness for a person to have.

hightor wrote:

This is ironic as well as logically inconsistent. Liberals worked to implement seat belt laws, not to outlaw them.

No inconsistencies on my end. I prefer to be protected from danger regardless of the danger.

hightor wrote:

And the liberal response to gun violence has been to limit access to certain types of weapons by certain kinds of people, not to outlaw firearm ownership in general

Progressives do not deserve to be called liberals, and should not be allowed to claim that title for themselves.

Limiting access to types of guns that the Constitution protects the right to have, for people who have the right to have that access, is a grievous violation of the Constitution.

hightor wrote:

because that would require a constitutional amendment.

Progressives see no barrier in amending the Constitution, as they are more than happy to just ignore the Constitution and violate it outright.

0 Replies

I have better things to do than entertain the delusional nonsense of sad pathetic creeps.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

You're a fraud. You cannot provide any examples of delusion in my posts.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

everything you think about progressives is a delusion. everything you say about pistol grips is a delusion, everything you say about blm is a delusion. those are not ypour only delusions by any means. they have now been provided.,

1 Reply

@oralloy,

biden is thinking about taking executive action on gun control If that's what it takes to get something done, then go, joe.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

everything you think about progressives is a delusion.

Wrong. It is a fact that you cannot provide any motivation for outlawing pistol grips other than the fact that progressives enjoy violating people's civil liberties.

MontereyJack wrote:

everything you say about pistol grips is a delusion,

Wrong again. Here is a post where you praised a law against pistol grips:
https://able2know.org/topic/203766-209#post-5227079

MontereyJack wrote:

everything you say about blm is a delusion.

Wrong again. BLM are on record as wanting to punish police officers and white people for justifiably defending themselves when black people try to murder them.

Note the fact that they formed in protest against the deaths of Trayvon Martin (who was shot in self defense as he tried to murder someone who they consider a white person), Michael Brown (who was shot in self defense as he tried to murder a police officer), and Eric Garner (who died from a struggle that he caused by resisting a lawful arrest).

MontereyJack wrote:

those are not your only delusions by any means.

You cannot provide examples of an untrue statement from any of my posts.

MontereyJack wrote:

they have now been provided.,

Your untrue statements do not prove delusion on my part.

It is possible that your untrue statements prove delusion on your part.

0 Replies

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know