OK, I just woke up to news that there has been ANOTHER mass shooting in the US, this time in Dayton Ohio... 9 dead, 16 injured

[Goukosan 2,460]

3 minutes ago, JONBpc said:

Ok , than carry on with him 

I am.... just explaining to you the discussion or should I say his lack of discussing of that topic. 

Edited August 6, 2019 by Goukosan

[Remij 5,082]

Just now, JONBpc said:

Ok , the feeling you get ? 

 

That's enough of this. Think what you want man .

Yea.  The constant excuses.  You say you're for it... but always say it's impossible as well.\

 

I tell you I don't think it is... and your response is "you don't live here"....

 

Yet neither of us have shot guns to protect our homes.  

[Goukosan 2,460]

4 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

Why should the amount, type of gun or its use case be a factor in anything?

 

If you're not killing people (bar defense) it's irrelevant.

What's relevant is how gun control laws will take guns away from law abiding citizens or stop them from having guns. 

 

Can you explain to us how that would happen? 

 

 

Edited August 6, 2019 by Goukosan

[Remij 5,082]

1 minute ago, DynamiteCop! said:

Why should the amount, type of gun or its use case be a factor in anything?

 

If you're not killing people (bar defense) it's irrelevant.

Sure it is.  It's completely unnecessary that those guns are needed for "protection"..  The type of gun says a lot about its intended use.  Also, the more guns, the higher the risk of being stolen and sold on the streets to criminals.

 

If someone breaks into your house and wants to kill you... do you have time to get to where all your 10 guns are and load them up and start blazing everything??  Or are you really arguing that one gun wouldn't be enough?

[DynamiteCop 2,169]

Just now, Goukosan said:

What's relevant ks how gun control laws will take guns away from law abiding citizens or stop them from having guns. 

 

Can you explain to us how that would happen? 

 

 

I'll only say this one more time, if you're unwilling to watch that video which walks through California's insane gun control procedures from top to bottom which shows how it hampers legal gun purchasing then we have nothing to discuss. 

[jehurey 3,318]

5 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

Why should the amount, type of gun or its use case be a factor in anything?

 

If you're not killing people (bar defense) it's irrelevant.

You are now changing your argument.

 

You said that the amount of guns purchased in America was a clear sign that many Americans clearly like having them.

 

Now, we clearly see that its a small minority that is stockpiling guns. Which debunks a couple of myths that you are peddling.

[DynamiteCop 2,169]

Just now, Remij_ said:

Sure it is.  It's completely unnecessary that those guns are needed for "protection"..  The type of gun says a lot about its intended use.  Also, the more guns, the higher the risk of being stolen and sold on the streets to criminals.

 

If someone breaks into your house and wants to kill you... do you have time to get to where all your 10 guns are and load them up and start blazing everything??  Or are you really arguing that one gun wouldn't be enough?

Because I don't have to own a gun for one use case and whatever its use case is is not relevant. I don't even need to provide a compelling reason, if I'm not breaking the law and I'm not shooting people the hows, whys or whats are inconsequential. 

 

If I want to own 100 guns I don't have to explain myself, I merely have to follow the laws. 

[jehurey 3,318]

2 minutes ago, Remij_ said:

Sure it is.  It's completely unnecessary that those guns are needed for "protection"..  The type of gun says a lot about its intended use.  Also, the more guns, the higher the risk of being stolen and sold on the streets to criminals.

 

If someone breaks into your house and wants to kill you... do you have time to get to where all your 10 guns are and load them up and start blazing everything??  Or are you really arguing that one gun wouldn't be enough?

Maybe those people are mutant freaks have 4 arms?????????

 

[JonDnD 3,051]

6 minutes ago, Goukosan said:

I am.... just explaining to you the discussion or should I say his lack of discussing of that topic. 

I'm well aware of that.  I quoted jerry btw,  no you on your last response .

[Goukosan 2,460]

4 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

I'll only say this one more time, if you're unwilling to watch that video which walks through California's insane gun control procedures from top to bottom which shows how it hampers legal gun purchasing then we have nothing to discuss. 

That video shows it being harder to get a gun. 

 

You said.. gun control would take guns from law abiding citizens and stop law abiding citizens from getting a gun. 

 

The video doesn't show that. 

 

So can you actually say how it would happen? or is it you can't even articulate your points? 

Edited August 6, 2019 by Goukosan

[DynamiteCop 2,169]

1 minute ago, jehurey said:

You are now changing your argument.

 

You said that the amount of guns purchased in America was a clear sign that many Americans clearly like having them.

 

Now, we clearly see that its a small minority that is stockpiling guns. Which debunks a couple of myths that you are peddling.

Incorrect, I said that at least half of America was in support of the status quo being maintained. Whether they're owners or not they're in support of those who are and protecting said rights. 

[Remij 5,082]

Just now, DynamiteCop! said:

Because I don't have to own a gun for one use case and whatever its use case is is not relevant. I don't even need to provide a compelling reason, if I'm not breaking the law and I'm not shooting people the hows, whys or whats are inconsequential. 

 

If I want to own 100 guns I don't have to explain myself, I merely have to follow the laws. 

Yea... this is why you think gun control laws are THE WORST!!!  

 

This is why people are saying your laws are fucked up...  Your laws are the fucking problem dipshit... and YOU YOU YOU think that they are essential.  There's no way to justify owning 100 guns for protection...  The fact that you think that putting a law in place that would stop you from owning a specific amount or type of gun actually hinders your ability to protect yourself shows just how fucking retarded you are.

 

DynamiteCop... dude... you seriously have a fucking problem.

[Goukosan 2,460]

Just now, DynamiteCop! said:

Incorrect, I said that at least half of America was in support of the status quo being maintained. Whether they're owners or not they're in support of those who are and protecting said rights. 

here you go again.... which law abiding citizen gun rights are being taken away. 

 

Explain!! 

[JonDnD 3,051]

7 minutes ago, Remij_ said:

Yea.  The constant excuses.  You say you're for it... but always say it's impossible as well.\

 

I tell you I don't think it is... and your response is "you don't live here"....

 

Yet neither of us have shot guns to protect our homes.  

You dont live here tho . You dont live in the climate that we do so you cannot understand the mindset that a lot of people have .

 

It's not excuses . Its opinion . If we ban guns , which I would be FOR , I just dont think things will change how you guys do .

 

And that's fine to disagree . You guys getting all personal about it . Nothing wrong with disagreeing. 

[DynamiteCop 2,169]

Just now, Goukosan said:

That video shows it being harder to get a gun. 

 

You said.. gun control would take guns from lse abiding citizens and stop law abiding citizens from getting a gun. 

 

The video doesn't show that. 

 

So can you actually say how it would happen? or is it you can't even articulate your points? 

No what it shows is an insane process which takes nearly 2 years of back and forth run around, costs, misguided information and incorrect procedure and run around to possibly get approval for a gun permit in the state of California. 

 

[jehurey 3,318]

Just now, DynamiteCop! said:

Incorrect, I said that at least half of America was in support of the status quo being maintained. Whether they're owners or not they're in support of those who are and protecting said rights. 

No, that's not true either.

 

From the biggest pollsters in America, Gallup:

 

[Remij 5,082]

2 minutes ago, jehurey said:

Maybe those people are mutant freaks have 4 arms?????????

 

I think these guys get off on the feeling of power that having a gun gives them.  Even if it's for protection, I think Dynamite imagines a scenario where some dudes come in with machine guns and sacks ready to ransack his gaming room and he's simply not going to have it.  He's got a gun in every room of the house and he's ready to pull off some super hero shit.

 

lmao

[JonDnD 3,051]

2 minutes ago, Goukosan said:

here you go again.... which law abiding citizen gun rights are being taken away. 

 

Explain!! 

His issue may be , from glancing around itt ....that people are proposing taking away everyone's guns 

[DynamiteCop 2,169]

1 minute ago, jehurey said:

No, that's not true either.

 

From the biggest pollsters in America, Gallup:

 

Provide the link with the contextual backing or take a walk, okay. 

[jehurey 3,318]

1 minute ago, Remij_ said:

Yea... this is why you think gun control laws are THE WORST!!!  

 

This is why people are saying your laws are fucked up...  Your laws are the fucking problem dipshit... and YOU YOU YOU think that they are essential.  There's no way to justify owning 100 guns for protection...  The fact that you think that putting a law in place that would stop you from owning a specific amount or type of gun actually hinders your ability to protect yourself shows just how fucking retarded you are.

 

DynamiteCop... dude... you seriously have a fucking problem.

I repeat:

 

[Jim Jeffries]: "There's only one excuse for defending guns."

 

[Jim Jeffreis]: "I like guns"

 

That's really it........Dynocrap is genuinely DEMONSTRATING this to us.