What law()s) would have stopped the Buffalo shooting?

I agree, we are a barbaric bloodthirsty insane country.

 

Or a country that believes in the right that built this country

 

It wouldn't matter if it did.

 

Nope.

 

Occam's razor. All other factors being the same, if you modify a variable (establish gun control) expecting to obtain a specific result (reduction in gun episodes), and you DO obtain the expected result, the certainty of the premise increases. If the same experience is repeated, and the same results are obtained in multiple locations under different conditions, the certainty increases further. If no counter examples are found, or the results of examples to the contrary (for example, U.S. allowing assault weapon ban to expire) are compatible with the premise, the increase continues.... and so on.

It does require a bit of an epistemological mindset to understand the process. Because it's the same algorithm under which science works. But an epistemological mindset is a quality not too often found among most groups of right wingers.

But there are studies that compile all of this. I mentioned them in other threads I opened in the course of the last few years. But those were MY threads. Feel free to search for them, if you want. I did my research when I created those threads.

For now, I commented on your thread, and showed support for my statements reasonable enough for a thread I didn't open. This is YOUR thread. The purpose is for YOU to make a point. For which we assume you did YOUR research. Right now, I have OTHER threads I plan to open. And my time is spent on researching for THOSE. Not in doing your research for you. Refer to my sig, please.

 

Glad we have you to speak for us all lol. You can always move or is it more about the ability to control with you?

 

Neither. Actually I would ALL laws and regulation's concerning guns to be eliminated.

 

I agree guns will not be taken away.
But we already have infringements on the right to bear arms. Without an amendment to the constitution.

 

So you would just stomp all over the constitution, the reason for the 2nd amendment, and just allow the people in power to have guns.
They did that in Venezuela, China, Russia, North Korea, and we all saw how that turned out. Didn't we.
So you prefer a communist state where only the government is armed.
Go figure

 

Oh... I see. And you believe that people around them with guns DO have their best interest in mind. It's just another version of the "evil government is out to get us" conspiracy theory. Sorry... not interested...

 

Not a very smart comparison. We can restrict guns. We can't restrict blunt objects.

 

Anything we decide to define as "military style weapons" is fine by me. Being precise is contrary to my position. Let's assume it's ALL of the above plus anything you can think of, and leave the burden of proving why a particular weapon should NOT be banned to gun advocates.

 

I already explained the reason for the 2nd A here.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/

Spoiler alert: it's NOT what you think.

 

We all read your excuse as to why you THINK the 2nd amendment doesn't say what it says but the SCOTUS already ruled on it and you lost.
So we can put that to bed now.

So now on to my question.
Why would you want a government to be armed but its citizens unarmed?
How many different results of this does it take before people like yourself get it.
And if you really felt that way, why are you not a citizen of China, Russia, North Korea, Venezuela where we have seen every long term effect of handing over guns to the government.
Do you just ignore history all together? Nothing counts as long as you get to live in your government controlled life?

 

Do you believe you have the support to change the 2nd?

 

It’s easy to see you’re no law scholar

 

Why can’t you? If you can ban a gun by law you can ban blunt objects too. Neither of them will work

 

1: I never reported your posts. In fact the only time I ever report something is for something really egregious. And despite your dishonest posting style you never do anything worth me reporting.

2: I've shown how you take things out of context. Twice now. Mods deleted some posts in which I proved it once already. So I took the route of setting you up. Which worked exactly as planned. The fact that you won't admit it by now is just more evidence of your dishonest posting style.

Anyways, I'm pretty sure that these posts are going to be deleted anyways as the mods already deleted our off topic posts. And we're still off topic. So I'm done with this discussion. You will never be honest and admit what you do. You will continue taking posts and chopping them up in order to twist what is said and take things out of context, all to push your agenda.

 

We don't need to change the 2nd A. All we need to do is get a non-partisan Supreme Court that overturns the Heller legislation that Scalia wrote.

 

Oh... I don't NEED to be a law scholar. I just need to know more than YOU. And that's such a low low bar that even I can handle it.

 

So you don't know why we can't restrict blunt objects. Remember when we were talking about which one of us was less familiar with laws? My case is made!

Thanks for playing.

 

So what restricts laws against blunt objects?

 

Other than… you cant

 

i wouldn’t even bother reading that thread anytime someone rebutted him he just goes to the “that’s off topic” claim. Your time would be better spent elsewhere

 

They did NOT delete them because they were out of context. As a matter of fact, they haven't been deleted. They are pending review by a panel of moderators. I know YOU can't see them. That's because they are hidden. But NOT because they are out of context. It's a different matter. I already told you: posting ONLY the part of the post we respond to is ok so long as we don't change the context. That was already established in a review a long time ago. And, BTW, you are my best evidence in the review that it wasn't taken out of context given that you have been unable to show what context I altered.

So I retracted my statement, and you didn't. I guess that means I have proven that I am the more honest poster of the two.