Big Green Egg - EGGhead Forum - The Ultimate Cooking Experience...
Welcome to the EGGhead Forum - a great place to visit and packed with tips and EGGspert advice! You can also join the conversation and get more information and amazing kamado recipes by following Big Green Egg at:

Want to see how the EGG is made? Click to Watch

Facebook  |  Twitter  |  Instagram  |  Pinterest  |  Youtube  |  Vimeo
Share your photos by tagging us and using the hashtag #BigGreenEgg.

'No Way To Prevent This,' says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

1131416181921

Comments

  • TEXASBGE2018TEXASBGE2018 Posts: 3,732
    edited August 11
    Uvalde was a tragedy. Every mass shooting is. I've got multiple firearms and would have zero problem making them more difficult to obtain. But if those of you on the left side of the spectrum think magically changing laws is going to make bad people with bad intent unable to get their hands on guns you are gonna be sorely disappointed. The reason every other country doesn't have this problem is because mostly it's not glorified in their daily lives like it is here. "Navy Seals are [email protected]" "everyone can be Jason Bourne" it's on every friggin tv show and movie. We look at it as a toy when a firearm is a tool. Thank Hollywood for that mess. 

    Mainly, The problem is a loss of morality in this country. That problem knows no political lines either. There are morons on both sides and they have pushed the moral majority into silence. Calling republicans "magatards" or democrats "demoncrats" is just stupid playground stuff. 

    You wanna fix this issue, don't be an alcoholic, don't do drugs, don't beat your wife or husband, don't look down on others for their profession, don't cut people off in your car, quit making Kim Kardashian or Donald Trump or Joe Biden your friggin idols. Be a parent to your kids and show them how to behave civilized, show them what it means to help others, talk to them about their lives and for gods sake show them love. THAT will fix this problem. I bet if someone did analysis on mass shooters, one of the issues listed above was present. Kids from loving homes, who are taught kindness and morals from parents that talk to them regularly about their problems don't become mass shooters


    Rockwall, Tx    LBGE, Minimax, 22" Blackstone, Pizza Party Bollore. Cast Iron Hoarder.

  • Uvalde was a tragedy. Every mass shooting is. I've got multiple firearms and would have zero problem making them more difficult to obtain. But if those of you on the left side of the spectrum think magically changing laws is going to make bad people with bad intent unable to get their hands on guns you are gonna be sorely disappointed. 
    I don't think anyone on "the left" believes a change to the laws would make bad people disappear from the Earth.  This is what's called a straw man argument.

    Rather, it seems to me the argument is that some reasonable gun laws should be put in place.  That not every Tom **** and Harry who wants a military-grade weapon or even a hand cannon ought to be able to buy one with relatively little trouble.  Will such laws eliminate all mass shootings?  No.  Will they save some lives at the relatively low price of making it more difficult for some folks to buy deadly toys?  Yes, that seems clear, and so we ought to do that.  Just like we have done in lots of other settings where federal regulations step in.  
  • TEXASBGE2018TEXASBGE2018 Posts: 3,732
    Uvalde was a tragedy. Every mass shooting is. I've got multiple firearms and would have zero problem making them more difficult to obtain. But if those of you on the left side of the spectrum think magically changing laws is going to make bad people with bad intent unable to get their hands on guns you are gonna be sorely disappointed. 
    I don't think anyone on "the left" believes a change to the laws would make bad people disappear from the Earth.  This is what's called a straw man argument.

    Rather, it seems to me the argument is that some reasonable gun laws should be put in place.  That not every Tom **** and Harry who wants a military-grade weapon or even a hand cannon ought to be able to buy one with relatively little trouble.  Will such laws eliminate all mass shootings?  No.  Will they save some lives at the relatively low price of making it more difficult for some folks to buy deadly toys?  Yes, that seems clear, and so we ought to do that.  Just like we have done in lots of other settings where federal regulations step in.  
    Hence my 3rd sentence where I say Fine make it more difficult, but it won't go away. You want to solve the problem see my last paragraph.


    Rockwall, Tx    LBGE, Minimax, 22" Blackstone, Pizza Party Bollore. Cast Iron Hoarder.

  • Uvalde was a tragedy. Every mass shooting is. I've got multiple firearms and would have zero problem making them more difficult to obtain. But if those of you on the left side of the spectrum think magically changing laws is going to make bad people with bad intent unable to get their hands on guns you are gonna be sorely disappointed. 
    I don't think anyone on "the left" believes a change to the laws would make bad people disappear from the Earth.  This is what's called a straw man argument.

    Rather, it seems to me the argument is that some reasonable gun laws should be put in place.  That not every Tom **** and Harry who wants a military-grade weapon or even a hand cannon ought to be able to buy one with relatively little trouble.  Will such laws eliminate all mass shootings?  No.  Will they save some lives at the relatively low price of making it more difficult for some folks to buy deadly toys?  Yes, that seems clear, and so we ought to do that.  Just like we have done in lots of other settings where federal regulations step in.  
    Hence my 3rd sentence where I say Fine make it more difficult, but it won't go away. You want to solve the problem see my last paragraph.
    Yes yes, imploring people to be better parents in order to fix society’s problems has always worked so well in the past.  
  • By the way, if you genuinely believe good parenting can fix all of this, I encourage you to read Dave Cullen’s book titled “Columbine”.  He goes into a lot of depth on what motivated Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.

    Contrary to popular belief, these actually weren’t kids who came from broken homes or had parents who didn’t love them.  Quite the opposite.  They were even relatively popular at school.  The main issue was that Eric Harris was a psychopath. End of story.  The kid just wanted to kill people.   No amount of parenting was going to stop that.  There is nurture, but then there is nature.  Sometimes one can only do so much to combat the other.
  • TEXASBGE2018TEXASBGE2018 Posts: 3,732
    edited August 11
    Uvalde was a tragedy. Every mass shooting is. I've got multiple firearms and would have zero problem making them more difficult to obtain. But if those of you on the left side of the spectrum think magically changing laws is going to make bad people with bad intent unable to get their hands on guns you are gonna be sorely disappointed. 
    I don't think anyone on "the left" believes a change to the laws would make bad people disappear from the Earth.  This is what's called a straw man argument.

    Rather, it seems to me the argument is that some reasonable gun laws should be put in place.  That not every Tom **** and Harry who wants a military-grade weapon or even a hand cannon ought to be able to buy one with relatively little trouble.  Will such laws eliminate all mass shootings?  No.  Will they save some lives at the relatively low price of making it more difficult for some folks to buy deadly toys?  Yes, that seems clear, and so we ought to do that.  Just like we have done in lots of other settings where federal regulations step in.  
    Hence my 3rd sentence where I say Fine make it more difficult, but it won't go away. You want to solve the problem see my last paragraph.
    Yes yes, imploring people to be better parents in order to fix society’s problems has always worked so well in the past.  
    Answering to both your posts. Yes if parents actually did it, it would. Would you still have psychopaths? Sure they've been here since the ice age. But the overwhelming majority of these morons have come from broken homes or had absent parents. If a kid has no positive role models in their life or anyone to show them how to handle the pressures of life and then they get to the train wreck we call high school bad shite can happen. We've had guns in this country since it's founding, kids used guns to hunt since that time, but we didn't have school shootings regularly in 1912 like we do today. The cause of that is not guns that hold more bullets the cause is a decay of morals in our society. I will concede that guns that hold more bullets obviously allows for potential higher casualties, but that is a function of the tool, not the cause for the increase in occurrences. Not sure how you can make any other argument to the cause really. Again, make it more difficult to obtain the bad black rifles, fine. I'm not a psychopath or felon so I wouldn't have any problems getting approved. 


    Rockwall, Tx    LBGE, Minimax, 22" Blackstone, Pizza Party Bollore. Cast Iron Hoarder.

  • edited August 11
    Uvalde was a tragedy. Every mass shooting is. I've got multiple firearms and would have zero problem making them more difficult to obtain. But if those of you on the left side of the spectrum think magically changing laws is going to make bad people with bad intent unable to get their hands on guns you are gonna be sorely disappointed. 
    I don't think anyone on "the left" believes a change to the laws would make bad people disappear from the Earth.  This is what's called a straw man argument.

    Rather, it seems to me the argument is that some reasonable gun laws should be put in place.  That not every Tom **** and Harry who wants a military-grade weapon or even a hand cannon ought to be able to buy one with relatively little trouble.  Will such laws eliminate all mass shootings?  No.  Will they save some lives at the relatively low price of making it more difficult for some folks to buy deadly toys?  Yes, that seems clear, and so we ought to do that.  Just like we have done in lots of other settings where federal regulations step in.  
    Hence my 3rd sentence where I say Fine make it more difficult, but it won't go away. You want to solve the problem see my last paragraph.
    Yes yes, imploring people to be better parents in order to fix society’s problems has always worked so well in the past.  
    Answering to both your posts. Yes if parents actually did it, it would. Would you still have psychopaths? Sure they've been here since the ice age. But the overwhelming majority of these morons have come from broken homes or had absent parents. If a kid has no positive role models in their life or anyone to show them how to handle the pressures of life and then they get to the train wreck we call high school bad shite can happen. We've had guns in this country since it's founding, kids used guns to hunt since that time, but we didn't have school shootings regularly in 1912 like we do today. The cause of that is not guns that hold more bullets the cause is a decay of morals in our society. I will concede that guns that hold more bullets obviously allows for potential higher casualties, but that is a function of the tool, not the cause for the increase in occurrences. Not sure how you can make any other argument to the cause really. Again, make it more difficult to obtain the bad black rifles, fine. I'm not a psychopath or felon so I wouldn't have any problems getting approved. 
    That is certainly the case, but let's acknowledge a real change that has occurred over the last couple of decades.  That is the sheer number of guns per capita, and the type of weapons.  There have been real and substantial changes in both of those aspects compared to what the US looked like in 1912.  We're the only country that looks anything remotely like that, outside of say those that are constant war-zones.  But you are confusing this observation with the argument that they're the sole cause of why we have mass shootings.  I don't think anyone is arguing that they are - that's just what some people are hearing.  It is likely a combination of things - some we have some hope of  regulating, and others we simply cannot. 

    The guns themselves are just the tool, like you say, a far too convenient one at that.  Given that - why wouldn't we take steps to limit the access to those tools, especially when they otherwise serve no useful purpose to society?  We might not eliminate all mass shootings, sure, but we might reduce them or their impact when they do occur, and no matter what we will reduce overall deaths due to guns just by sheer statistics.  This is backed up by real data - look at gun homicides compared to guns per capita in every country.  It's basically a straight line.  When countries have taken steps to limit firearms, they have seen very real impacts on gun violence.  And it's not like people suddenly start stabbing everyone instead.  That's always been a ridiculous argument - try running through a school with a knife in your hands or even a katana if you want - little kids have at least a shot at outrunning a blade but they can't outrun a bullet.  

    We have actually done this with guns.  We have made it much more difficult to obtain fully automatic weapons in this country compared to other types of firearms.  Those regulations remain in place.  It's surely why we haven't seen someone trot a 50-caliber machine gun onto a school playground or into a park or festival and fire away.  
  • TEXASBGE2018TEXASBGE2018 Posts: 3,732
    Uvalde was a tragedy. Every mass shooting is. I've got multiple firearms and would have zero problem making them more difficult to obtain. But if those of you on the left side of the spectrum think magically changing laws is going to make bad people with bad intent unable to get their hands on guns you are gonna be sorely disappointed. 
    I don't think anyone on "the left" believes a change to the laws would make bad people disappear from the Earth.  This is what's called a straw man argument.

    Rather, it seems to me the argument is that some reasonable gun laws should be put in place.  That not every Tom **** and Harry who wants a military-grade weapon or even a hand cannon ought to be able to buy one with relatively little trouble.  Will such laws eliminate all mass shootings?  No.  Will they save some lives at the relatively low price of making it more difficult for some folks to buy deadly toys?  Yes, that seems clear, and so we ought to do that.  Just like we have done in lots of other settings where federal regulations step in.  
    Hence my 3rd sentence where I say Fine make it more difficult, but it won't go away. You want to solve the problem see my last paragraph.
    Yes yes, imploring people to be better parents in order to fix society’s problems has always worked so well in the past.  
    Answering to both your posts. Yes if parents actually did it, it would. Would you still have psychopaths? Sure they've been here since the ice age. But the overwhelming majority of these morons have come from broken homes or had absent parents. If a kid has no positive role models in their life or anyone to show them how to handle the pressures of life and then they get to the train wreck we call high school bad shite can happen. We've had guns in this country since it's founding, kids used guns to hunt since that time, but we didn't have school shootings regularly in 1912 like we do today. The cause of that is not guns that hold more bullets the cause is a decay of morals in our society. I will concede that guns that hold more bullets obviously allows for potential higher casualties, but that is a function of the tool, not the cause for the increase in occurrences. Not sure how you can make any other argument to the cause really. Again, make it more difficult to obtain the bad black rifles, fine. I'm not a psychopath or felon so I wouldn't have any problems getting approved. 
    That is certainly the case, but let's acknowledge a real change that has occurred over the last couple of decades.  That is the sheer number of guns per capita, and the type of weapons.  There have been real and substantial changes in both of those aspects compared to what the US looked like in 1912.  We're the only country that looks anything remotely like that, outside of say those that are constant war-zones.  But you are confusing this observation with the argument that they're the sole cause of why we have mass shootings.  I don't think anyone is arguing that they are - that's just what some people are hearing.  It is likely a combination of things - some we have some hope of  regulating, and others we simply cannot. 

    The guns themselves are just the tool, like you say, a far too convenient one at that.  Given that - why wouldn't we take steps to limit the access to those tools, especially when they otherwise serve no useful purpose to society?  We might not eliminate all mass shootings, sure, but we might reduce them or their impact when they do occur, and no matter what we will reduce overall deaths due to guns just by sheer statistics.  This is backed up by real data - look at gun homicides compared to guns per capita in every country.  It's basically a straight line.  When countries have taken steps to limit firearms, they have seen very real impacts on gun violence.  And it's not like people suddenly start stabbing everyone instead.  That's always been a ridiculous argument - try running through a school with a knife in your hands or even a katana if you want - little kids have at least a shot at outrunning a blade but they can't outrun a bullet.  

    We have actually done this with guns.  We have made it much more difficult to obtain fully automatic weapons in this country compared to other types of firearms.  Those regulations remain in place.  It's surely why we haven't seen someone trot a 50-caliber machine gun onto a school playground or into a park or festival and fire away.  
    We are I think saying the same thing. Without me writing another 5 paragraphs. I'm saying fine make it more difficult no arguing that point. But if we want to have true change we have to fix our obsession with gun culture and fix our morality in this country. We are mostly a bunch of jerks that thanks to tv, film, and video games have become obsessed with guns. You don't have to eliminate gun ownership. But it needs to be limited and restricted.


    Rockwall, Tx    LBGE, Minimax, 22" Blackstone, Pizza Party Bollore. Cast Iron Hoarder.

  • LegumeLegume Posts: 13,274
    Complex, multifaceted problems need multi-faceted mitigations. This is a big circle jerk arguing about which one thing is to blame or the impact of one suggested fix.  There is no 100% fix, this needs to be death by 1000 cuts, some restrictions, some investment in addressing root causes, etc. It has to be a war of attrition, small gains from chipping away and we need to be ok with that, not get lost in “see, it didn’t fix it.” 

    EVEN THEN, we still need to be honest with ourselves and show some accountability and responsibility to others (even those we don’t agree with).  It’s not just fixing the other guy.
  • Good to see our village idiot jumped right back on, just in the middle of the night because he “has a life”
    Awe, did I hurt wittle snowflake by entering the liberal safe place? Lol. So I guess you think everyone should follow your time table and post from 9-5 ? Not everyone has the same schedule bub. 
  • WildmanWilsonWildmanWilson Posts: 348
    edited August 11
    And what a surprise a lib breaks out the race card. Terpderpitude said:
    I got a little chuckle from a news article the other day. There was a mass shooting in Baltimore I believe. It said eight people were shot by “two groups of people”. The story said nothing of race or who these two groups of people were. I found another story on it and stated it was gangs. No one was killed by the way. The sad part is much of the media will not even list it was black gang members who carried it out. They are so PC they can’t even print it. They only wanted to tell everyone there was another mass shooting. They want to sugar coat the fact most of these mass shootings are from these same gangs. Or at least by their definition of what a mass shooting is.
    I always find my own racism funny too.  
    What a surprise that a lib would break out the race card. I mean it’s such a rare tactic. 

    If you want to talk about violence then why not talk about some of the low hanging fruit without trying to not say what the problem is? Inner city gang violence is a real issue. Do you want to help these communities or not? Well, lets address those issues without tiptoeing around because we must be PC instead. 
  • Legume said:
    Complex, multifaceted problems need multi-faceted mitigations. This is a big circle jerk arguing about which one thing is to blame or the impact of one suggested fix.  There is no 100% fix, this needs to be death by 1000 cuts, some restrictions, some investment in addressing root causes, etc. It has to be a war of attrition, small gains from chipping away and we need to be ok with that, not get lost in “see, it didn’t fix it.” 

    EVEN THEN, we still need to be honest with ourselves and show some accountability and responsibility to others (even those we don’t agree with).  It’s not just fixing the other guy.
    Well said.
  • "Typical lib thing to do, calling someone posting a cartoon of a Jew being gassed an actual Nazi."
  • TEXASBGE2018TEXASBGE2018 Posts: 3,732
    And what a surprise a lib breaks out the race card. Terpderpitude said:
    I got a little chuckle from a news article the other day. There was a mass shooting in Baltimore I believe. It said eight people were shot by “two groups of people”. The story said nothing of race or who these two groups of people were. I found another story on it and stated it was gangs. No one was killed by the way. The sad part is much of the media will not even list it was black gang members who carried it out. They are so PC they can’t even print it. They only wanted to tell everyone there was another mass shooting. They want to sugar coat the fact most of these mass shootings are from these same gangs. Or at least by their definition of what a mass shooting is.
    I always find my own racism funny too.  
    What a surprise that a lib would break out the race card. I mean it’s such a rare tactic. 

    If you want to take about violence then why not talk about some of the low hanging fruit without trying to not say what the problem is? Inner city gang violence is a real issue. Do you want to help these communities or not? Well, lets address those issues without tiptoeing around because we must be PC instead. 
    Not sure if you're a troll account or not but I'll respond anyways. Even if you have logical points when you resort to calling people "libs" and "libtards" just like when they call you a "MAGAt" you immediately discredited your own argument. And before you start attacking me know this I'm not remotely liberal as I'm sure some of these folks can attest to. You aren't going to change these folks minds. I learned that a long time ago and now we get along great. Try it.


    Rockwall, Tx    LBGE, Minimax, 22" Blackstone, Pizza Party Bollore. Cast Iron Hoarder.

  • Legume said:
    Complex, multifaceted problems need multi-faceted mitigations. This is a big circle jerk arguing about which one thing is to blame or the impact of one suggested fix.  There is no 100% fix, this needs to be death by 1000 cuts, some restrictions, some investment in addressing root causes, etc. It has to be a war of attrition, small gains from chipping away and we need to be ok with that, not get lost in “see, it didn’t fix it.” 

    EVEN THEN, we still need to be honest with ourselves and show some accountability and responsibility to others (even those we don’t agree with).  It’s not just fixing the other guy.
    I agree it’s a tough problem to solve. The hardest thing to do is stop an individual set on harming another. It’s nearly impossible actually. Someone can stand behind you in a checkout line and shoot or stab you snd there’s nothing you could do. We rely on a persons respect and decency for human life to not carry out taking another’s life. 

    We’ve seen this take place since the beginning of time however. Greed, hate, revenge, fear, intimidation, evil, are all reasons people kill. They will always find a way to do it. How do we change these attitudes and emotions that cause people to kill? That’s the real question. Does taking legal guns from legal people solve this problem? Does taking a car from someone who doesn’t drink and drive stop the person who is going to? I know many just say limit guns. That’s always the easiest thing to say. It’s also the hardest to do. 
  • LegumeLegume Posts: 13,274
    To sum up:  people always have and always will kill people, nearly impossible to stop them, yet how do we change these emotions and attitudes that drive killing that have been around since the beginning of time, but gun control is the hardest thing to do.

    I’m sure you’ll nit pick my summary, but come on, you’re not being very honest here with your thinking.
  • Legume said:
    To sum up:  people always have and always will kill people, nearly impossible to stop them, yet how do we change these emotions and attitudes that drive killing that have been around since the beginning of time, but gun control is the hardest thing to do.

    I’m sure you’ll nit pick my summary, but come on, you’re not being very honest here with your thinking.
    How so?  Are you thinking I should give up my rights for “ the greater good” ? If you’re looking for honest we know taking ARs will do little to help but I’m still asked to give mine up. So whats next? Handguns? If we are honest we know they are by far used for most firearm homicides. Should I give mine up for the greater good? 

    But we are still being honest here… we know there are maybe close to 400 million guns in ownership. It’s too late to think we stand any chance at removing them to any degree. Plus criminals are the ones that will not turn them in. That leave honest gun owners that turn them in and now they are more vulnerable.

     The guy in Japan just killed a politician with a homemade gun you can make from stuff at Lowe’s. People are smart. They can make guns in a machine shop and 3D print them even. It opens up a black market that bad guys will
    use. You know that’s true. 

    I’m just not willing to buy into the “ common sense “ line of thinking because it’s just more laws and more restrictions that do nothing but limit the good guys. 

    I know the argument about registry and having to be issued a license. This is just more limits put on the good guys. The government would ultimately outlaw more guns and would have you on record as an owner of one of the bad guns. The bad guys still walk. 

    If you want to see homicides drop go after the biggest problem. It because of drugs and gangs. Our boarders are wide open to the influx of drugs that fuel these gangs. Let’s crack down on gangs and actually send them to jail rather than back on the streets. If you did this in just four cities the homicides would drop dramatically. No one really cares about those murders though. Or so it seems. 
  • HeavyGHeavyG Posts: 8,950
    HeavyG said:
    HeavyG said:
    HeavyG said:
    caliking said:
    Botch said:
    WildmanWilson said:
    Gun control....let me think...Oh yeah... I think I remember hearing about this somewhere. So besides being unconstitutional...
    Re-read the 2nd Amendment.  There, gun control is a requirement.  
    Let’s not forget the part about “ a  well regulated militia” , which so many conveniently gloss over. 
    You guys really are very one tracked and simple minded. Ever hear of Heller?  The Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia. Also look up "shall not be infringed" while you're at it. Then a homework lesson for all of you is "weapon in common use".  

    And the Heller decision was the first time a SCOTUS had decided that there was an individual right to own a gun - and specifically handguns - for home protection purposes. Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion and he said this:

    “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

    So neither Heller nor any SCOTUS case since has decided that "shall not be infringed" means what you like to believe it means.


    No one ever said the right was unlimited. You can't take that as a shortcut to say you can't have a gun in common use because I say you can't. That's not what unlimited means.

    The case wasn't necessary until more gun grabbers continued to push the issue of gun confiscation and gutting the second amendment. Its people like you that believe you have the right, or at least your government has the right, to strip you and give you a single shot 20 gauge as being "good enough". Heller has stood and been used in other cases to uphold this individual right.

    In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects “arms ‘in common use at the time’ for lawful purposes like self-defense” and arms that are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Such arms are “chosen by American society,” not the government.

    Look up McDonald vs Chicago while you're at it.



    Wildthing says:

    "Also look up "shall not be infringed" while you're at it."

    AND then also says,

    "No one ever said the right was unlimited."

    You strike me as the sorta bloke that says:

    "These illegal immigrants come here and take all our jobs."

    AND also says,

    "These illegal immigrants just come here to collect welfare checks and never work."

    You're a very confused fellow...



    Australia Suicide Rate 2000-2022 | MacroTrends

    This is 2000-2021 Just a few years after the ban started. You can see it dipped then returned up. My data is just fine.

    You also didn't address how banning assault weapon will make a huge difference. I gave you the data showing they have a minimal impact. You even know its true. You just will not admit it. Typical.

    I don't recall me ever even mentioning the Aussies.
    I guess maybe I did and just forgot about it cuz my head is still spinning trying to decipher your "shall not be infringed/No one ever said the right was unlimited" explications cuz...


    The Best Quiz Youll Ever Give S2 E54  Brave New Teaching

    I guess you struggle with the meanings because you never had a grasp on the second amendment and its purpose. Shall not infringe, means the right of the people to own and use, weapons in common use, and no government has the right to take that right from you.

    By not unlimited....Just like the first amendment has some limitations, the second amendment has limitation in that you maybe limited to not using fully automatic machine guns or nuclear warheads. You may not be able to take them into a private business if they so choose. No one said there are absolutely no laws to follow. 

    The problem you guys have in your little snowflake brains is you take that as a way to just limit whatever you think we don't need. Just like you think its okay to limit speech from the right but you don't. Your feelings isn't what determines the guns I own or what I get to say. Sorry bub. 
    So you start with thinking "shall not infringe" literally means what it says. Now you're thinking that "shall not infringe"  means  that the government can quite properly enact some restrictions on gun usage/ownership.
    Kudos to you for coming around to that obvious conclusion!


    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” ― Philip K. Diçk

    Camped out in the (757/948/804)




  • LegumeLegume Posts: 13,274
    Anything but my guns!

    You don’t seem to have any other thoughts.  Some would call that fear.  I can see how you would be afraid if you believe the things you’re saying - it’s hopeless, you can’t undo all of the guns, you can’t stop guns so we need more guns and you can’t take my guns.

    I would hate to live like that.
  • Dude who really really likes his guns manufactures arguments for why there should never be any restrictions on them, news at 11.
  • dmchicagodmchicago Posts: 4,102
    I’ll give you my guns if you stop saying “bub”. 
    Philly - Kansas City - Houston - Cincinnati - Dallas - Houston - Memphis - Austin - Chicago - Austin

    Large BGE. OONI 16, TOTO Washlet S550e (Now with enhanced Motherly Hugs!)

    "If I wanted my balls washed, I'd go to the golf course!"
    Dennis - Austin,TX
  • edited August 11
    Good to see our village idiot jumped right back on, just in the middle of the night because he “has a life”
    Awe, did I hurt wittle snowflake by entering the liberal safe place? Lol. So I guess you think everyone should follow your time table and post from 9-5 ? Not everyone has the same schedule bub. 
    I really couldn’t care less when you post here.  Who gives a ****?  I was just pointing out the comedy of the guy who said he hardly ever posts cooks on a bbq forum because he has too much of an awesome life making an appearance in a political thread in the middle of the night 😂 I don’t know why you think you hurt my feelings when I’m over here laughing my ass off.  Thanks for playing!
  • BuckeyeForkBuckeyeFork Posts: 175
    I suppose the woke crowd wants to ban nail guns now too.
  • HeavyG said:
    HeavyG said:
    HeavyG said:
    HeavyG said:
    caliking said:
    Botch said:
    WildmanWilson said:
    Gun control....let me think...Oh yeah... I think I remember hearing about this somewhere. So besides being unconstitutional...
    Re-read the 2nd Amendment.  There, gun control is a requirement.  
    Let’s not forget the part about “ a  well regulated militia” , which so many conveniently gloss over. 
    You guys really are very one tracked and simple minded. Ever hear of Heller?  The Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia. Also look up "shall not be infringed" while you're at it. Then a homework lesson for all of you is "weapon in common use".  

    And the Heller decision was the first time a SCOTUS had decided that there was an individual right to own a gun - and specifically handguns - for home protection purposes. Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion and he said this:

    “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

    So neither Heller nor any SCOTUS case since has decided that "shall not be infringed" means what you like to believe it means.


    No one ever said the right was unlimited. You can't take that as a shortcut to say you can't have a gun in common use because I say you can't. That's not what unlimited means.

    The case wasn't necessary until more gun grabbers continued to push the issue of gun confiscation and gutting the second amendment. Its people like you that believe you have the right, or at least your government has the right, to strip you and give you a single shot 20 gauge as being "good enough". Heller has stood and been used in other cases to uphold this individual right.

    In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects “arms ‘in common use at the time’ for lawful purposes like self-defense” and arms that are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Such arms are “chosen by American society,” not the government.

    Look up McDonald vs Chicago while you're at it.



    Wildthing says:

    "Also look up "shall not be infringed" while you're at it."

    AND then also says,

    "No one ever said the right was unlimited."

    You strike me as the sorta bloke that says:

    "These illegal immigrants come here and take all our jobs."

    AND also says,

    "These illegal immigrants just come here to collect welfare checks and never work."

    You're a very confused fellow...



    Australia Suicide Rate 2000-2022 | MacroTrends

    This is 2000-2021 Just a few years after the ban started. You can see it dipped then returned up. My data is just fine.

    You also didn't address how banning assault weapon will make a huge difference. I gave you the data showing they have a minimal impact. You even know its true. You just will not admit it. Typical.

    I don't recall me ever even mentioning the Aussies.
    I guess maybe I did and just forgot about it cuz my head is still spinning trying to decipher your "shall not be infringed/No one ever said the right was unlimited" explications cuz...


    The Best Quiz Youll Ever Give S2 E54  Brave New Teaching

    I guess you struggle with the meanings because you never had a grasp on the second amendment and its purpose. Shall not infringe, means the right of the people to own and use, weapons in common use, and no government has the right to take that right from you.

    By not unlimited....Just like the first amendment has some limitations, the second amendment has limitation in that you maybe limited to not using fully automatic machine guns or nuclear warheads. You may not be able to take them into a private business if they so choose. No one said there are absolutely no laws to follow. 

    The problem you guys have in your little snowflake brains is you take that as a way to just limit whatever you think we don't need. Just like you think its okay to limit speech from the right but you don't. Your feelings isn't what determines the guns I own or what I get to say. Sorry bub. 
    So you start with thinking "shall not infringe" literally means what it says. Now you're thinking that "shall not infringe"  means  that the government can quite properly enact some restrictions on gun usage/ownership.
    Kudos to you for coming around to that obvious conclusion!


    Since you have a short memory....

    In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects “arms ‘in common use at the time’ for lawful purposes like self-defense” and arms that are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Such arms are “chosen by American society,” not the government.

    See, that's you snowballs problem. You always want the power in the hands of the government rather than the people.
  • dmchicago said:
    I’ll give you my guns if you stop saying “bub”. 
    Anything you say chief. 
  • Good to see our village idiot jumped right back on, just in the middle of the night because he “has a life”
    Awe, did I hurt wittle snowflake by entering the liberal safe place? Lol. So I guess you think everyone should follow your time table and post from 9-5 ? Not everyone has the same schedule bub. 
    I really couldn’t care less when you post here.  Who gives a ****?  I was just pointing out the comedy of the guy who said he hardly ever posts cooks on a bbq forum because he has too much of an awesome life making an appearance in a political thread in the middle of the night 😂 I don’t know why you think you hurt my feelings when I’m over here laughing my ass off.  Thanks for playing!
    See now that a problem...You say you don't care yet go out of your way to make a reply about my schedule and my posting habits. I live in your head libby.
  • Legume said:
    Anything but my guns!

    You don’t seem to have any other thoughts.  Some would call that fear.  I can see how you would be afraid if you believe the things you’re saying - it’s hopeless, you can’t undo all of the guns, you can’t stop guns so we need more guns and you can’t take my guns.

    I would hate to live like that.
    So lets see, your side has the same talking points. "You need to give up your guns" even though you never used them in an illegal way or have bad intent for anyone. Never mind the evil black guns you hate so much are hardly on the homicide radar. You still want to outlaw a style of gun because you have been conditions to think it solves all our problems. Are you people that dense and one tracked that you can't see you solve nothing? 

     Do I ask you to give up your car because someone else used theirs to run over 80 people? Do you have any original ideas at all? 
  • dmchicagodmchicago Posts: 4,102
    dmchicago said:
    I’ll give you my guns if you stop saying “bub”. 
    Anything you say chief. 
    Thanks. I like chief.  
    Philly - Kansas City - Houston - Cincinnati - Dallas - Houston - Memphis - Austin - Chicago - Austin

    Large BGE. OONI 16, TOTO Washlet S550e (Now with enhanced Motherly Hugs!)

    "If I wanted my balls washed, I'd go to the golf course!"
    Dennis - Austin,TX
  • Good to see our village idiot jumped right back on, just in the middle of the night because he “has a life”
    Awe, did I hurt wittle snowflake by entering the liberal safe place? Lol. So I guess you think everyone should follow your time table and post from 9-5 ? Not everyone has the same schedule bub. 
    I really couldn’t care less when you post here.  Who gives a ****?  I was just pointing out the comedy of the guy who said he hardly ever posts cooks on a bbq forum because he has too much of an awesome life making an appearance in a political thread in the middle of the night 😂 I don’t know why you think you hurt my feelings when I’m over here laughing my ass off.  Thanks for playing!
    See now that a problem...You say you don't care yet go out of your way to make a reply about my schedule and my posting habits. I live in your head libby.
    The only place you live is in the dark.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Click here for Forum Use Guidelines.