Virginians stand tall today, I salute your courage

[Xenom0rph]

Most gun owners are responsible . You’re talking to one of them.

Which means these bills were unnecessary and that they were nothing more than a trojan horse to usher in more gun restrictions with the eventual goal of nullifying the 2nd A....

 

[EyeBRollin]

Which means these bills were unnecessary and that they were nothing more than a trojan horse to usher in more gun restrictions with the eventual goal of nullifying the 2nd A....

Since “most” and “all” are far from synonyms, your logic doesn’t hold up. The overwhelming majority of people are not murderers - should we drop laws regarding murder?

 

[Xenom0rph]

Since “most” and “all” are far from synonyms, your logic doesn’t hold up. The overwhelming majority of people are not murderers - should we drop laws regarding murder?

Isnt this what you would classify as a "straw man" argument?

Of course there are murder laws just like there are laws preventing certain individuals like violent felons from owning firearms.

The argument is excessive gun restrictions.

 

[EyeBRollin]

This is another stupid wedge issue meant to distract you from bigger things.

Is it a wedge issue if a whack job with no business owning a gun goes and shoots up a school?

 

[EyeBRollin]

Isnt this what you would classify as a "straw man" argument?

No. Straw man Arguments use a false premise or distorted version to attack instead of the actual argument put forth.

Of course there are murder laws just like there are laws preventing certain individuals like violent felons from owning firearms.

The argument is excessive gun restrictions.

Great, that would be a subjective discussion. What restrictions to firearm purchases do you find to be excessive?

 

[Xenom0rph]

No. Straw man Arguments use a false premise or distorted version to attack instead of the actual argument put forth.



Great, that would be a subjective discussion. What restrictions to firearm purchases do you find to be excessive?

Restrictions to so called "assault rifles".

 

[EyeBRollin]

Restrictions to so called "assault rifles".

So you think every citizen should have an unrestricted right to own so called “assault rifles?” Why is that? Seems like overkill for hunting in my opinion.

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

1) You’re right! New Jersey is only #2 strictest on some lists. *eyeroll*

Lol no. Other places are stricter. Chicago for example had guns completely banned until 2008, and that didn’t do jack **** for gun crime lmao

2) Right, the only klansmen are the ones wearing white robes.

How does this even remotely address my point? You’re so stupid hahaha

3) Seems like they’re protesting a pants on fire conspiracy theory. Sounds pretty lowlife.

Doesn’t mean it’s not true. That’s what every nation does before their government becomes oppressive. It’s been this way for millennia so I dare say it’s a fact, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

4) if you take it that literally, sure.

That still doesn’t even address my point lol wtf? Are you that dumb?

5) It’s a logical conclusion to their actions.

For all 50,000? Hell no dumbass that’s just retarded. That would be like me saying you only lift weights to be stronger to harm others. Such a stupid conclusion.

6) that’s what we call a slippery slope fallacy. It hasn’t stopped citizens in states with strict laws from owning guns.

And it hasn’t stopped criminals from having guns either. Your bonehead brain couldn’t figure that out? You pick and choose the facts you want and discard. Concede this discussion.

7) alright

Concede this debate. Admit that you’re wrong and that is Republican conservatives are right.

 

[Xenom0rph]

So you think every citizen should have an unrestricted right to own so called “assault rifles?” Why is that? Seems like overkill for hunting in my opinion.

Again with the hunting argument that was pioneered by Hillary Clinton and repeated by the left. The 2nd A is about self protection, not hunting.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Again with the hunting argument that was pioneered by Hillary Clinton and repeated by the left. The 2nd A is about self protection, not hunting.

You need a semi-automatic weapon as protection from what specifically?

 

[EyeBRollin]

You’re out of your league in these discussions.

Lol no. Other places are stricter. Chicago for example had guns completely banned until 2008, and that didn’t do jack **** for gun crime lmao

Chicago is not a state. LOL! Guns there are traced to Indiana and Wisconsin - both less than an hour away.

How does this even remotely address my point? You’re so stupid hahaha

Ad hominem attack. Maybe you should think harder at the analogy presented.

Doesn’t meanit’s not true. That’s what every nation does before their government becomes oppressive. It’s been this way for millennia so I dare say it’s a fact, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

Virginia governor gun confiscation is a pants on fire conspiracy theory.

That still doesn’t even address my point lol wtf? Are you that dumb?

You’re so desperate to find something to rebut you missed the underlying meaning behind the comment.

For all 50,000? Hell no dumbass that’s just retarded. That would be like me saying you only lift weights to be stronger to harm others. Such a stupid conclusion.

Again, you missed the meaning behind the comment which was pretty clear - They are fanatical lowlife gun nuts.

And it hasn’t stopped criminals from having guns either. Your bonehead brain couldn’t figure that out? You pick and choose the facts you want and discard. Concede this discussion.

Concede this debate. Admit that you’re wrong and that is Republican conservatives are right.

Actually it does stop criminals. Gun related homicides are lower in states with stricter gun laws. It’s a near perfect linear correlation.

 

[Xenom0rph]

You need a semi-automatic weapon as protection from what specifically?

And this right here is precisely the type of leftist tyranny that citizens need to push back on. DemoKKKrats are attempting to dictate what you can and cannot choose with which to defend yourself. Soon that list of firearms grows smaller and smaller according to their restrictive laws to the point that the 2nd A is essentially nullified....

This is the very basis of the slippery slope argument that has preserved firearm ownership rights.

 

[Billtx49]

What Libs conveniently fail to recognize is when #2 was conceived is that firearms were used for both hunting and war. Different century, same fact…

 

[Xenom0rph]

We don't have to "need it". Nor do we have to declare why. It is a God Given right in the Bill of Rights.

The whole "You need X for what exactly?" argument is the very foundation on which politicians, in this case DemoKKKrats, base their ever increasingly restrictive laws upon. It's an absurd argument to pass laws that dont serve the public benefit but rather private interests.

Tangent: marijuana is a good example of how politicians use "you need to smoke MJ for what exactly?" as a way to keep it illegal at the federal level....

 

[EyeBRollin]

What Libs conveniently fail to recognize is when #2 was conceived is that firearms were used for both hunting and war. Different century, same fact…

...for hunting runaway slaves if we want to be precise.

 

[EyeBRollin]

The whole "You need X for what exactly?" argument is the very foundation on which politicians, in this case DemoKKKrats, base their ever increasingly restrictive laws upon. It's an absurd argument to pass laws that dont serve the public benefit but rather private interests.

Tangent: marijuana is a good example of how politicians use "you need to smoke MJ for what exactly?" as a way to keep it illegal at the federal level....

So I should able to own a rocket launcher? How about a bomb? A nuclear warhead? No limits right?

 

[Billtx49]

#1 Classic sign of losing an argument. Expand it into the realm of absurdity…

 

[Xenom0rph]

So I should able to own a rocket launcher? How about a bomb? A nuclear warhead? No limits right?

Yet another "straw man" used to advance the agenda of ever-increasing restrictions on what civillians can and cannot choose with which to defend themselves (at the discretion of demoKKKratic politicians of course).

 

[EyeBRollin]

#1 Classic sign of losing an argument. Expand it into the realm of absurdity…

Yet another "straw man" used to advance the agenda of ever-increasing restrictions on what civillians can and cannot choose with which to defend themselves (at the discretion of demoKKKratic politicians of course).

Nope, those were serious questions. Your argument came to the subjective that the restrictions are excessive. But you don’t find combat weapons excessive. What constitutes excessive to you?

 

[Xenom0rph]

Nope, those were serious questions. Your argument came to the subjective that the restrictions are excessive. But you don’t find combat weapons excessive. What constitutes excessive to you?

That wasnt a serious question, it's a typical talking point of the left to make outlandish claims of comparing a firearm to a bomb.

The AR-15 is a civillian semi-automatic rifle. If they are successful in banning AR's, then we can conclude that someday they will target handguns that are also classified as semi-automatics....again, it's the slippery slope of letting over-zealous demoKKKrats pass their restrictive laws based on "you need X for what exactly?"....