All Hail the Second Amendment

[Silver]

So you would rather have someone be a victim than to let them have the ability to defend himself?

There are other ways of defending one's self than with a gun, genius.

[freedomfromforum]

Good.

So you would rather have someone be a victim than to let them have the ability to defend himself?

Yes. That appears to be his ideology. The fear is strong in this one.

---

So you would rather have someone be a victim than to let them have the ability to defend himself?

There are other ways of defending one's self than with a gun, genius.

Like calling the police..... WHO HAVE GUNS.

---

[*]If ANY citizen is even WRONGLY accused of abuse, his gun rights can be stripped.

Good.

If you were WRONGLY accused of sexual abuse, would you think it was "good" to chemically castrate you?

[Captain Colostomy]

Does 'ban them all' confuse you?

And while it's a truthful sentiment on my part, you should know I said that facetiously. I'm aware that Pandora's Box is impossible to close. Still, yeah...fucking ban the sumbitches.

So you do want America to have the same murder rate as Mexico. Okay.

You are going to have one helluva time proving that that is a foregone conclusion.

Bottom line. More guns=more deaths.

[Silver]

If you were WRONGLY accused of sexual abuse, would you think it was "good" to chemically castrate you?

Most people who think they are wrongly accused by the system are just whining because they could not have their ill-gotten way.

[YoukaiSlave]

So you do want America to have the same murder rate as Mexico. Okay.

You are going to have one helluva time proving that that is a foregone conclusion.

Bottom line. More guns=more deaths.

Switzerland disproves your idiotic assertion. They have more assault rifles per capita than even America, yet they have the lowest crime rate in all of Europe.

[freedomfromforum]

If you were WRONGLY accused of sexual abuse, would you think it was "good" to chemically castrate you?

Most people who think they are wrongly accused by the system are just whining because they could not have their ill-gotten way.

You are speaking from ignorance. I have a close friend who's mentally-ill mother WRONGLY accused him of abuse. All this kind man ever did was love and care for his mother. How dare you even suggest that he'd be guilty of something, simply because you have a suspicious nature. Her falsified accusation cost him his rights that are supposed to be protected under the constitution. That you are in any way an advocate of punishing someone who has done no harm surprises me to no end. Then, to suggest that someone is concealing some nefarious intent... preposterous.

[Silver]

You are speaking from ignorance. I have a close friend who's mentally-ill mother WRONGLY accused him of abuse. All this kind man ever did was love and care for his mother. How dare you even suggest that he'd be guilty of something, simply because you have a suspicious nature. Her falsified accusation cost him his rights that are supposed to be protected under the constitution. That you are in any way an advocate of punishing someone who has done no harm surprises me to no end. Then, to suggest that someone is concealing some nefarious intent... preposterous.

If she was truly mentally ill, that would have been used in court to clear his name. That he was not cleared speaks volumes for your bias concerning the situation with your friend.

There must have been valid evidence of the abuse.

[freedomfromforum]

You are speaking from ignorance. I have a close friend who's mentally-ill mother WRONGLY accused him of abuse. All this kind man ever did was love and care for his mother. How dare you even suggest that he'd be guilty of something, simply because you have a suspicious nature. Her falsified accusation cost him his rights that are supposed to be protected under the constitution. That you are in any way an advocate of punishing someone who has done no harm surprises me to no end. Then, to suggest that someone is concealing some nefarious intent... preposterous.

If she was truly mentally ill, that would have been used in court to clear his name. That he was not cleared speaks volumes for your bias concerning the situation with your friend.

Again, your ignorance is showing. You know nothing of CA state law concerning "threats" that are made against people over the age of 65. "Guilt" is not a necessary consideration, and investigations into the accuracy of accusations are rarely carried out - there was no court case. The objective is to strip guns from citizens by whatever means possible... Including lies and coercion.

In CA, I can accuse you of assault and seek for a restraining order. I have NO NEED to demonstrate that you actually assaulted me. All I have to do is say that "I feel threatened by you" or that "I'm in fear of you" and you'll be handed a three year restraining order which will also prevent you from purchasing a firearm legally. This is your advocacy displayed... Lock em up! Who cares if it's true. If the law says so, he must be guilty. Blah blah blah.

---

There must have been valid evidence of the abuse.

You'd think it would be required, but sadly it is not. All she has to do is SAY it happened, and that she's afraid of him.

[Silver]

The objective is to strip guns from citizens by whatever means possible... Including lies and coercion.

Seems like paranoia derived from the conspiracy that gov'ment tryin' take me guns.

you'll be handed a three year restraining order which will also prevent you from purchasing a firearm legally.

Fine by me. I do not have need of a gun.

[freedomfromforum]

you'll be handed a three year restraining order which will also prevent you from purchasing a firearm legally.

Fine by me. I do not have need of a gun.

(I highlighted a bit for you)
Sure, and you'd probably also be ok with having the stigma attached to your otherwise flawless character, and adding restrictions on where you can and cannot be, and having anonymous online armchair philosophers suspecting you're guilty, while you are not. That you are fine with being found guilty while innocent is very telling. What other things would you impose on me if you had your way? You've already stated that "If you had your way" all guns would be banned.
What about the people who say "If I had my way no one would be gay"? They feel completely justified in their prejudices and biases. Where should we stop "fixing" one another as we burn the world down? Is there a limit? That you don't know my friend, and are quickly willing to trust the system over an individual, thereby even suggesting that he MUST HAVE BEEN GUILTY, demonstrates very clearly how bias contaminates truth.