BF2S Forums Gun politics, firearms ownership, and US 2nd amendment discussion

Does bullying shifty really make you all feel better about yourselves? So fucking sad.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Adams_BJ wrote:

My bad, when I think of 22 here, I think of a bolt action. Mags don't need to be high cap. Keep it at 10 for everybody. Need bigger? Prove it and you can have it.

You're the one trying to restrict my liberties; you need to give me a valid reason not to have a high capacity magazine. I do not need to prove anything.

And you determine their eligibility by the requirement for the firearm. Rifle for hunting, semi for shooting targets at a range or whatever, pistol for home defence. Register it, store it safely and you'll be left alone to do what you want with it. If you gun turns up in a crime or reported missing, prove it was stored safely at the time and get yourself a new one, can't prove it was stored safely and your eligibility goes down a rung. Super simple stuff, and you get to keep your guns. Sorta like straya.

My requirement is that I desire a firearm. My Constitution says I have the right to own one. It does not say which weapon I can own, it just says I can bear arms. The Constitution doesn't say I can't have a colonial era cannon. Once again you need to tell me why it should be hard for me to obtain the weapon of my choosing. Why are you regulating 99% of the population just in case 1% does something violent?

I agree that obtaining a gun, even with regulation, is not hard. I don't necessarily mind regulation that much. I don't like having restrictions for lousy reasons as you can see.

I would happily support an amendment to the constitution specifically prohibiting you and others like you from owning so much as a BB gun. Your knowledge of this country seems to only extend to a rough understanding of the second amendment of the US constitution and no further, and your refusal to explain yourself in a way that makes sense (or at all) isn't helping matters much. Your time would be better spent learning shooting stances from Call of Duty than trolling this section with your inane banter.

Jay wrote:

Does bullying shifty really make you all feel better about yourselves? So fucking sad.

Bullying? HAH!

Jay wrote:

I like the dumbfuck rednecks a lot more than I like know-it-all paternalistic liberals. hurr der 200 year old constitution. that 200 year old piece of paper is also what grants us the right to free speech, freedom of the press, protection from illegal search and seizure, the right to due process and trial by jury, and protection against cruel and unusual punishment. Seriously, YOU fuck off. You don't live here. None of what we do impacts your life. Go play in traffic.

Cos you're the only country with a consitution, and the only country to have those rights. Seriously?

And no it's no bullying, he's a just a dumb parrot with one defence - the constitution. Nothing else. as long as he gets to have all his cool lethal toys who gives a fuck. Everyone else at least puts up half decent arguments, he just goes, "Consitushion faygets, ill own wat the fuk i like n i dun care if u thik im a redneck *post picture of bald eagle in front of american flag with tear down its cheek*"

Jay wrote:

What would you call it if a group of people relentlessly attacked someone that was obviously weaker than themselves? Pretty much the definition of the word 'bullying' isn't it?

Bullying implies unwarranted attention. Shifty is starting arguments that he can't figure out how to back, and you say we're mean for calling him out on it? Do you not agree that he should educate himself on US history if he's so interested in discussing policy [e: or being a self-proclaimed patriot]? Particularly for gun control, you'd think assassination would be on his short list of things to smarten up on. But no, instead we get an indignant (to paraphrase) "I don't know what the Kennedy bros. were shot with, OK?" followed by his usual.

After all that, he still hasn't explained to me just why it is we need assault rifles to defend ourselves from "tyranny."

-Sh1fty- wrote:

you told me to fuck off and quit debating.

That's rich.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Fuck this shit, I'm keeping whatever weapons I want. Call me a redneck, call me stupid, call me whatever the hell you want.

So what percentage does the murder rate need to get to before it becomes important to you?

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Jay wrote:

I like the dumbfuck rednecks a lot more than I like know-it-all paternalistic liberals. hurr der 200 year old constitution. that 200 year old piece of paper is also what grants us the right to free speech, freedom of the press, protection from illegal search and seizure, the right to due process and trial by jury, and protection against cruel and unusual punishment. Seriously, YOU fuck off. You don't live here. None of what we do impacts your life. Go play in traffic.

Fucking thank god this is the shit Adams doesn't get.


Adams, you want to regulate my weapons, you don't have the power to do so but for arguments sake I'm asking you why you want to regulate them, which ones you want to regulate, and what gives you the right to regulate them. Those are simple, mature, adult questions. Don't give me that "You're a child" bullshit after I actually stop and take a moment to be serious. We were having a good discussion until you acted as the child and told me to fuck off and quit debating.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Adams_BJ wrote:

My bad, when I think of 22 here, I think of a bolt action. Mags don't need to be high cap. Keep it at 10 for everybody. Need bigger? Prove it and you can have it.

You're the one trying to restrict my liberties; you need to give me a valid reason not to have a high capacity magazine. I do not need to prove anything.

And you determine their eligibility by the requirement for the firearm. Rifle for hunting, semi for shooting targets at a range or whatever, pistol for home defence. Register it, store it safely and you'll be left alone to do what you want with it. If you gun turns up in a crime or reported missing, prove it was stored safely at the time and get yourself a new one, can't prove it was stored safely and your eligibility goes down a rung. Super simple stuff, and you get to keep your guns. Sorta like straya.

My requirement is that I desire a firearm. My Constitution says I have the right to own one. It does not say which weapon I can own, it just says I can bear arms. The Constitution doesn't say I can't have a colonial era cannon. Once again you need to tell me why it should be hard for me to obtain the weapon of my choosing. Why are you regulating 99% of the population just in case 1% does something violent?

I agree that obtaining a gun, even with regulation, is not hard. I don't necessarily mind regulation that much. I don't like having restrictions for lousy reasons as you can see.

I've done this, and like before - you went right to the constitution. You ask me how to regulate, I give you an example, and you just go "Nope, constitution says.." You wanting to own a firearm isn't a good enough reason to own a firearm. Me saying you don't need a high cap magazine isn't restricting your liberties, saying you can't have a magazine at all could be. Simple reason is there is no reason you NEED a high cap magazine. You can do the same thing with a 10 round magazine, and then when you run out, you put the next magazine in. There.

And you need to stop saying you're being punished for the 1%. You're not getting punished.

How about you have a think about what I said, and if you need clarification, ask for clarification into what the process might be and continue. Don't ask something and when you disagree fall back on the piece of paper which for some reason you hold so dear to your heart.

I wonder what the percentage of people are who own assault rifles because they are fuck off cool, compared to those that would willingly try and over throw a government.

What do you mean it doesn't matter? That's the whole reason you have the second amendment, man!

It doesn't matter if people want to own one to defend against tyranny or not. They have the right to own one if they so choose.

If you want to debate like a child I won't respond. Let me know when you have a serious response.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

If you want to debate like a child I won't respond. Let me know when you have a serious response.

Adams_BJ wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Jay wrote:

I like the dumbfuck rednecks a lot more than I like know-it-all paternalistic liberals. hurr der 200 year old constitution. that 200 year old piece of paper is also what grants us the right to free speech, freedom of the press, protection from illegal search and seizure, the right to due process and trial by jury, and protection against cruel and unusual punishment. Seriously, YOU fuck off. You don't live here. None of what we do impacts your life. Go play in traffic.

Fucking thank god this is the shit Adams doesn't get.


Adams, you want to regulate my weapons, you don't have the power to do so but for arguments sake I'm asking you why you want to regulate them, which ones you want to regulate, and what gives you the right to regulate them. Those are simple, mature, adult questions. Don't give me that "You're a child" bullshit after I actually stop and take a moment to be serious. We were having a good discussion until you acted as the child and told me to fuck off and quit debating.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Adams_BJ wrote:

My bad, when I think of 22 here, I think of a bolt action. Mags don't need to be high cap. Keep it at 10 for everybody. Need bigger? Prove it and you can have it.

You're the one trying to restrict my liberties; you need to give me a valid reason not to have a high capacity magazine. I do not need to prove anything.

And you determine their eligibility by the requirement for the firearm. Rifle for hunting, semi for shooting targets at a range or whatever, pistol for home defence. Register it, store it safely and you'll be left alone to do what you want with it. If you gun turns up in a crime or reported missing, prove it was stored safely at the time and get yourself a new one, can't prove it was stored safely and your eligibility goes down a rung. Super simple stuff, and you get to keep your guns. Sorta like straya.

My requirement is that I desire a firearm. My Constitution says I have the right to own one. It does not say which weapon I can own, it just says I can bear arms. The Constitution doesn't say I can't have a colonial era cannon. Once again you need to tell me why it should be hard for me to obtain the weapon of my choosing. Why are you regulating 99% of the population just in case 1% does something violent?

I agree that obtaining a gun, even with regulation, is not hard. I don't necessarily mind regulation that much. I don't like having restrictions for lousy reasons as you can see.

I've done this, and like before - you went right to the constitution. You ask me how to regulate, I give you an example, and you just go "Nope, constitution says.." You wanting to own a firearm isn't a good enough reason to own a firearm. Me saying you don't need a high cap magazine isn't restricting your liberties, saying you can't have a magazine at all could be. Simple reason is there is no reason you NEED a high cap magazine. You can do the same thing with a 10 round magazine, and then when you run out, you put the next magazine in. There.

And you need to stop saying you're being punished for the 1%. You're not getting punished.

How about you have a think about what I said, and if you need clarification, ask for clarification into what the process might be and continue. Don't ask something and when you disagree fall back on the piece of paper which for some reason you hold so dear to your heart.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

If you want to debate like a child I won't respond. Let me know when you have a serious response.

"I want it and that's a good enough reason!"

Now you're the one being stupid. This is the correct quote, "I want it, and my Constitution says I can own one."


Why do you want to control guns?

Nope

Airports are privately owned, as are the jets. The owner of the establishment and air vehicles is allowed to restrict whatever he so chooses from his property.