Gun "Logic" , The "Right" to Bear Arms?

In the restaurant / chef example, only cooks who are willing to be regulated may be chefs.

 

..............

 

The point is that only well regulated militias are necessary to the security of a free State.

- - - Updated - - -

You are welcome to cite a rule of grammar; appealing to authority really is a fallacy in this case.

 

I don't see how we can get anywhere. You don't think rights exist at all apparently. You are confusing privileges and physical phenomena with rights. I can't get through to a person who would maintain that human beings don't have a right to be free from bondage unless there's a law written down somewhere. Your semantic rubbish is giving me a headache.

Let's just hope that your gov't never passes a law selling you to someone else, as you won't have any grounds to complain. Your position would say that the government has the "right" to do such.

 

appealing to authority is how the US legal system works. you have nothing backing your argument other than your stupidity. I have US supreme court precedent backing mine.

you lost

 

Whatever makes you happy, bro. You've beat me into submission. There's only so much inanity that I can take. Call this a concession, an admission of defeat, whatever floats your boat.

 

sounds like you're perfectly happy being a subject, I personally prefer to be a citizen!

 

I just read the first sentence and stopped. Yes, it is my own inanity, that I can apparently no longer come up with. That must be it. Whatever makes you happy, brother. You win, I lose. You're a master debater, I am a rube. You're the genius, I'm the class clown. Your arguments are rock solid, mine are mush. Happy?

 

It was a simple error; it should be corrected eventually.

 

Was this not a good enough example of the last time i heard of a weapon holder breaking down and going on a killing spree?

- - - Updated - - -

Was this not a good enough example of the last time i heard of a weapon holder breaking down and going on a killing spree?

 

I've already said that Police Offices are just as likely to get into firearm related incidents as Carry and Conceal users, and this proves it.

Knowing this, how can anyone trust their life with a Police Officer any more than a mere teacher with a gun?

 

So you are agreeing that a teacher with a gun is just as likely to have a break down as this former police officer was? That was easier than I thought. thank you.

 

"MissJoelyn" how do your own words taste? Seeing that you are eating them! LOL Well stated Jessierae!

 

That's not what I said at all. I said anyone can have an incident with a gun. Police Officer, Carry Conceal User, Teacher.

- - - Updated - - -

What is with all the new people on the forum establishing strawmen?

 

what you consider an error is meaningless.

atleast you've admitted what the second amendment actually means. maybe now you will bow out and stop embarassing yourself.

 

I believe you were asking NYCMitch when was the last time he heard of a weapon carrier losing his mind and going on a killing spree and I gave you an answer, which happens to be going on right this minute. if 'trained and screened' police officers are capable of breaking down and going on killing sprees, and you agree that "ANYONE could have an incident with a gun" then tell me WHY we should allow teachers who are just as susceptible to these kind of moments to carry a gun on school grounds where our children are? Is it worth it to you, to have a gun on grounds for a hypothetical school shooting when it is just as likely that the same gun meant to protect them could possibly end up being used against them. This is what he was trying to point out, that there is potential for harm in any case a gun is in a school.

p.s. strawman? please. Feel free to explain to me how my comment was a strawman... you are hiding behind the strawman theory because your argument is weak.

 

Actually, all you did was give me an example of someone who happen to go 'rogue.' There is really no evidence that he lost his mind.

You're not making an argument, you're only begging the question. Teachers are responsible for a student's safety, just as police officers are responsible for the safety of citizens. The only difference is there is nothing a teacher can really do if a child life is threatened in any way.

Police offers are just as likely to be in a incident involving firearms as carry and conceal. If you trust a police officer to protect you in the event of a hypothetical school shooting, then you should trust a teacher, principal or school security.

If you don't, then you are merely being selective with your logic.

The strawman was that I acknowledge that a police officer lost his mind, when that is not what I said at all.

You are using the strawman because your argument is weak. Funny how that works.

 

Ok, so because it went against your argument, now there is 'no proof' that this guy lost his mind.
Debating with you is ridiculous and pointless. Obviously you think that teachers carrying guns is a good idea, regardless of the fact that they would have a gun in the same building as your kids every single day. Even when I give you an example of someone who was trained and screened just as those teachers would be going on a killing spree, (oh right you need further proof that he lost his mind than 3 dead people....) I am personally not comfortable sending my kids to school knowing that there is a gun on school grounds. there are way too many opportunities for accidents, and i am not willing to risk a childs life with the false security of an armed person. There are surely other options out there, that people are unable to recognize because we are all to busy fighting about whether or not guns are the answer. I agree that there is a possibility of a teacher being able to stop a potential shooter if he/she had a gun on them, but there is just as much of a possibility that the teacher would make a mistake. It's obvious that you are not willing to see any other side, you have a childish "my way or the highway" attitude and even when proven wrong you spin your OWN words to meet your agenda. Twist my words however you want, Twist your original words in attempt to make me look stupid, i really don't care. People like you are unable to take a step back and actually try to understand the other side of an argument. To each his own.

 

IMO, many people who choose to be a police officer have mental issues to begin with. It may be a job requirement actually.

I trust the average teacher with a gun before I do a cop with a gassed up head and a sense of being above the law.

 

Don't move to Colorado, we have cops in schools WITH GUNS everyday. They call them resource officers. I don't remember any of them accidentally shooting the kids, but I guess anything is possible. That gun could jump out of its holster and go on a rampage.

 

No, I'm just pointing out that there is really no evidence that he lost his mind.

Is there really any place or anywhere where children are not exposed to guns? And from the sound of things, you trust a police offer with a gun more than you trust a teacher. Although you acknowledge that a police officer is not immune from gun incidents, it sounds like you would still trust a police officer with a gun more than you would trust a teacher? That's distinction without a difference.

I really forgot that online insane people kill.

I have no agenda. I'm just concerned with my own interest. I also do see the other side. It's just really not a good position. I would want my kid to go to private school, where there are armed guards. Now what is the difference between teachers owning guns and the principal being the only one with a gun? What is the difference between the principal being the only one with a gun and having armed guards with a gun? It sounds to me like you are in favor of continuing to make schools a gun free zone and leaving people defenseless there.

It's easy for me to refute the other side because I understand it so well.