Is it time to talk about guns?

Could you explain what you are talking about without the bahhhhh'd?

 

Yes guns are already regulated and certain types are very hard to attain or outright illegal to own.
That's what I said.
Nothing illegal or anti constitutional about it.
So what is your point?

 

More riddles.
In other words no on who has received "proper training" or with "comman sense" has ever killed or injured anyone with a gun?
So if someone gets hurt by someone with a gun it's becasue they didn't have proper training or lack common sense. Circular argument.
Then you contradict what you said.

Why do you bother to post this stuff?

 

So you support the overthrow of the United States government by violent means?
Please state clearly if you are willing and ready to shoot public officials.

 

And that fear would be induced through the threat of shooting them, not by the fear of being voted out of office or by peaceful protests.

You see you are promoting the ownership of guns so that they can be used to intimidate elected officials so that they listen to what you want.
Now a gun can't be used for intimidation unless someone believes it will be used to shoot them, as that is the purpose of guns.
So how are you going to use your 2nd Amendment guns to cause elected officials to fear you if they don't believe you will use those guns to shoot them?

If you point a gun at me and I know you won't use it I don't have a "healthy" fear of being shot.
In short you think the 2nd gives you the right to issue death threats through the use of a gun, whether to a specific public official or all public officials in general and to intimidate them to your own end. You suggest political violence is the American way.

Death threats and intimidation of public officials signal Trump’s autocratic legacy

 

Yes we know all that.
Every news source I have listened to or viewed has pointed that out. They were deluded by the con man Donald Trump and thought they were right.
So what? They still caused the peaceful transition of power to be delayed by violence and they threatened to hang the vice president, etc.

Are you saying that because they were fooled by propaganda and lies they shouldn't be held accountable for their actions?
Are you claiming they are mentally deficient and can't tell right from wrong?
Hanging someone, or attempting to, becasue you think you're right but you aren't is excusable?
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

 

Tundra,
you posted:

I'm asking you what properly trained is and what common sense is. And I'm asking if anyone that has ever had proper training and has common sense has ever hurt anyone with a gun. You claim that it has never happened.
I would provide examples but you haven't defined what proper training or common sense is.

Then you claim there is nothing deadlier than a person who has been properly trained and has common sense.
And you don't define what you mean by deadlier. Deadlier to whom? Deadlier in what way?

It's a cute phase and play on words but doesn't really mean much.

 

The Federalist Papers are compilation of 85 articles.
When we enter into a debate or discussion and we want to introduce a document or documents to support or contradict some line of thought we don't tell our fellow participants to go read an entire book or series of articles or books. What is done is a portion of that document is cited, the best way is by title, author, publication date, page, paragraph and quote...then we offer our interpretation and or other respected interpretations of what that particular section means. Then we debate as to that whether that interpretation(s) is correct or relevant.

If we are debating gun control or any other thing we don't just say go and read the Constitution, or go and read the Federalist Papers, or go and read the letters of Alexander Hamilton; as most of the material will be irrelevant, and if relevant we have no way of knowing what the person we are debating with thinks of the particular document.

So if you wish to avoid further discussion by telling me to go off and read some book, fine.
If you wish to discuss some particular aspect of the Federalist Papers that pertain to the current subject please cite the specific portion, and your, or others' interpretation of that portion and I will gladly look that section up on the net and offer my comments.

 

True two sides. I'm asking you to articulate your side further and point out weaknesses in my arguments and strengths in yours.
Then we can continue to debate what each of us thinks.