El Paso Shooting (Yes, Again)

[Amarok]

Talk to Twatzilla..

Too bad you missed his point dumbass 

He' s the one that brought it in..

Yup and your tiny brain missed the point 

But somehow you can use any arguement -- unless you hold the "wrong" opinion.

Bullshit the fact you don't even understand the fucking argument casts this down 

The dogma here is politic instead of religious.......

Nah it's skepticism od dogma like the holy gospel of gun nuttery

---

Relentlessly Obstreperous can't define stawman.

Or much else

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It's a people problem.

Every " solution" the anti-gunners come up with will affect ALL gun owners - the majority of which are law abiding - and not the problem in the first place.

Then they act surprised and indignant when the pro- gun side digs in it's heels and prevents the anti's solution.


Want to fix this shit?


Go after the problem children. The assholes who do this shit, shooting places up.



The pro- gun people WILL get behind that..


Or keep trying the same old shit - and nothing will change.

If I could point to a situation where legal, law-abiding gun owners ARE the problem, and proposed a solution that would affect you (but not inconvenience you greatly) while potentially reducing school shootings in the US by 80%, would you be willing to discuss it?

Boru

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Whoever wins the Democratic nomination should pick Obama as a running mate.

Boru

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I don't think he could be elected to the Presidential succession. BRB.

---

Ah, he could be elected, but couldn't take the President position if the term was going to be longer than two years.

"The President of the United States is elected to have that position for a period, or "term", that lasts for four years. The Constitution had no limit on how many times a person could be elected as president. The nation’s first president, George Washington chose not to try to be elected for a third term. This suggested that two terms were enough for any president. Washington’s two-term limit became the unwritten rule for all Presidents until 1940.

In 1940, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt won a third term. He also won a fourth in 1944. Roosevelt was president through the Great Depression of the 1930's and almost all of World War II. He held approval ratings in the mid-50% to the low 60% ranges over his many years in office. Roosevelt died of heart failure in April of 1945, just months after the start of his fourth term. Soon after, Republicans in Congress began the work of creating Amendment XXII. Roosevelt was the first and only President to serve more than two terms.

The amendment was passed by Congress in 1947, and was ratified by the states on February 27, 1951. The Twenty-Second Amendment says a person can only be elected to be president two times for a total of eight years. It does make it possible for a person to serve up to ten years as president. This can happen if a person (most likely the Vice-President) takes over for a president who can no longer serve their term. If this person serves two years or less of the last President’s term, he or she may serve for two more four-year terms. If he or she served more than two years of the last President's term, the new President can serve only one full four-year term. Harry Truman would have been exempt from the amendment having been elected twice before its ratification. He served only two terms before retiring from office."

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty...nstitution

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I don't think he could be elected to the Presidential succession. BRB.

---

Ah, he could be elected, but couldn't take the President position if the term was going to be longer than two years.

"The President of the United States is elected to have that position for a period, or "term", that lasts for four years. The Constitution had no limit on how many times a person could be elected as president. The nation’s first president, George Washington chose not to try to be elected for a third term. This suggested that two terms were enough for any president. Washington’s two-term limit became the unwritten rule for all Presidents until 1940.

In 1940, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt won a third term. He also won a fourth in 1944. Roosevelt was president through the Great Depression of the 1930's and almost all of World War II. He held approval ratings in the mid-50% to the low 60% ranges over his many years in office. Roosevelt died of heart failure in April of 1945, just months after the start of his fourth term. Soon after, Republicans in Congress began the work of creating Amendment XXII. Roosevelt was the first and only President to serve more than two terms.

The amendment was passed by Congress in 1947, and was ratified by the states on February 27, 1951. The Twenty-Second Amendment says a person can only be elected to be president two times for a total of eight years. It does make it possible for a person to serve up to ten years as president. This can happen if a person (most likely the Vice-President) takes over for a president who can no longer serve their term. If this person serves two years or less of the last President’s term, he or she may serve for two more four-year terms. If he or she served more than two years of the last President's term, the new President can serve only one full four-year term. Harry Truman would have been exempt from the amendment having been elected twice before its ratification. He served only two terms before retiring from office."

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty...nstitution

Mostly true.  Obama could run for Vice President, but he couldn't be elected  Vice President. 12th Amendment: '...no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible for that of Vice President...'.

Your Constitution says who can and can't be President or Vice President, it doesn't say a word about who can run.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

Does the constitution matter in 2020?

[notimportant1234]

Cars aren’t designed for the sole purpose of killing things. False analogy.

Talk to Twatzilla..

He' s the one that brought it in...


But somehow you can use any arguement -- unless you hold the "wrong" opinion.


The dogma here is politic instead of religious.......

  

What you don't really get is that everybody here knows that most gun owners don't go on a killing spree. The problem is how do you render victimless a "choice" ( I'm assuming that you are a choise kind of you, the kind of guy that says that people make choices and that's it) made by a person that is willing to kill others. A problem that can't be addressed in such a way that it will not affect all gun owners, because you can't know in advance who is going to commit a murder or a mass murder.

Edit: I know that you will say some stupid shit like, "Guns Don t kill people, people kill people", but I tryed. 

[LadyForCamus]

These are the sorts of arguments that let nutters prattle on endlessly and do nothing to advance the cause of effective gun regulations.

Guns are no more explicitly designed to kill people than a car is.  Some guns, some cars, sure...but so what?

It isn’t what a thing was designed for that’s giving us an issue.  Sporting  rifles were designed for shooting ranges and hunting trips.

That’s what these “assault-style” rifles generally are.

Guns explicitly designed to kill don’t actually cause us much shit.  The majority of handguns are designed for stopping power and ease of use, not lethality.  

That neither are designed for a mass shooting rampage doesn’t stop them from being employed in the same anymore than being designed explicitly for that purpose seems to cause those particular firearms to be well represented in mass shootings.

Let’s run with the car thing.  Suppose we saw that a particular model was overwhelmingly represented in deaths.  We wouldn’t refer to what the car was designed for as to why it should be changed, regulated, or banned.

We’d refer to that.

I take your point. I still think it’s a terrible analogy.

[onlinebiker]

It's a people problem.

Every " solution" the anti-gunners come up with will affect ALL gun owners - the majority of which are law abiding - and not the problem in the first place.

Then they act surprised and indignant when the pro- gun side digs in it's heels and prevents the anti's solution.


Want to fix this shit?


Go after the problem children. The assholes who do this shit, shooting places up.



The pro- gun people WILL get behind that..


Or keep trying the same old shit - and nothing will change.

If I could point to a situation where legal, law-abiding gun owners ARE the problem, and proposed a solution that would affect you (but not inconvenience you greatly) while potentially reducing school shootings in the US by 80%, would you be willing to discuss it?

Boru

Of course.


But anything you come up with will not be assumed as " fact".

Those need to be proven.