Quote:
Originally Posted by Humerox
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
What argument?
I asked for someone to tell me what "arms" are protected by the Second Amendment. No one was able to show me what arms they were because the Constitution doesn't make it clear.
No one has proven a thing here in defense of the "right" anyone has to carry assault-style weapons.
Dismissal isn't "debunking".
|
This stance isn't worth my time going over entirely with you again(simply because we have been through the motions and you acted with a child's rhetoric and logic), but the vagueness of the term 'arm' was deliberate. It is an umbrella term and if you can't admit that then we are done here because I know not to battle ignorance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Humerox
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
That has not been shown.
|
http://www.project1999.org/forums/sh...=93857&page=28
via statistics mind you. This does not mean proven.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Humerox
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
And I liked you better here: [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] |
I am still there. I agree with many of the regulations you put forth. I don't like the gun shows where you can get extremely powerful guns with absolutely no government intervention. Those need to be stopped. I firmly believe in psychological evaluation of people purchasing guns specifically looking for proneness to anger and rage. If a person has any violent criminal record then the likelihood of them being permitted to carry a gun should be severely limited or just barred outright. More extensive background checks are also a good idea. I think we should also focus some of our efforts to dealing with those sick individuals who shot up the schools and such. However, as I stated before, I find the AR ban unnecessary and have put out reasons why I find it more of a scapegoat than an actual solution.