Annihilator (Gun Control Thread- NOT SHOOTINGS)

[Byrthnoth]

Bombs are fun to blow up, particularly large ones.

Sure, there are no practical uses for them in my personal life, but aren't I allowed to have them anyway? I am certain that I could detonate them without loss of life.

Gubbermint stay away from my bomb stockpile. I am just a bomb enthusiast.

[Day]

good strawman but if "bombs" are legal for you to own then more power to you, have fun. explosions are cool.

[Byrthnoth]

Are bombs not arms?

[Day]

one could probably make that argument but much like guns I believe there are already laws around such items

[archibaldcrane]

they also like to use pressure cookers to blow people up, but no one is calling for the banning of them.
Just because a small minority of crazy people use them, does not mean the rest of us should lose our rights.

You don't have some intrinsic right to own an assault rifle.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Zealot]

Guns aren't designed solely for shooting other people. Plenty of people shoot for fun, hobby, hunting etc. Does every item we use need to be necessity and only used for it's specific purpose in America? I don't think so.

This is a dumb response. All those hobbies involve destroying or killing something.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Zealot]

It also just illustrates the opposite of what you were trying to say. Killing is the primary purpose of a gun, some people have found some other uses for it. Other objects are primarily intended for something else and people found a way to make them kill.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Buffy]

Can't we all just agree that it is too broad of an amendment because the founding fathers had no conception what an automatic rifle, rocket launcher, or tank was?

[Day]

This is a dumb response. All those hobbies involve destroying or killing something.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Lmao

[Zealot]

Lmao

Oh ok I see your point now.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Salodin]

Good counter argument Fiye, really showed him how wrong he is.

Lmao

C'mon man try harder.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Fiye]

https://twitter.com/VicBergerIV/stat...48587332382722

[Day]

C'mon man try harder.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

Why should I no one else is. Also im busy working today aint got time for gun control argument #12654, maybe next week Ill bless you all with better arguments

[Salodin]

Why should I no one else is. Also im busy working today aint got time for gun control argument #12654, maybe next week Ill bless you all with better arguments

But they did. They responded and explained the difference. If you're too busy to respond that's one thing but don't act like they aren't engaging you. Just like every other discussion the other side can't come up with anything other than "don't take away my freedumbs" even though people are earnestly giving you policies and information supporting why we should place stronger restrictions on your hobby that serves no purpose other then to destroy a piece of paper, clay, or life from a distance.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Day]

Whats wrong with a hobby that destroys clay or paper?

[TsingTao]

Whats wrong with a hobby that destroys clay or paper?

Nothing.

You don't need AK-47s to shoot paper targets or clay pigeons though.

[Fiye]

Whats wrong with a hobby that destroys clay or paper?

Hope you get that pair of scissors from the rafflecopter then.

[dasva]

Can't we all just agree that it is too broad of an amendment because the founding fathers had no conception what an automatic rifle, rocket launcher, or tank was?

They actually did have knowledge of automatic weapons they were just a bit cost prohibitive and rare to have much use back then. That said I'd say we legally at least do agree on those points given the restrictions on them

[archibaldcrane]

Can't we all just agree that it is too broad of an amendment because the founding fathers had no conception what an automatic rifle, rocket launcher, or tank was?

It doesn't cover any of those things.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[TsingTao]

They actually did have knowledge of automatic weapons they were just a bit cost prohibitive and rare to have much use back then. That said I'd say we legally at least do agree on those points given the restrictions on them

Which automatic weapon are you thinking of that existed in the mid to late 1700s?