Explain this to me as if I am a 5 year old.

[DN40SW]

In before hes a perma ban.

I don't think anybody should be banned for asking a lot of stupid questions. If true, this would be a very lonely place.

 

[cobber]

View attachment 265380

No one really NEEDS air conditioning, refrigerators, indoor plumbing, etc. Can we have a reasonable discussion about this?

 

[Brandon]

I don't have the patience for this one today.

 

[DRob]

Picked up this t-shirt at Rural King yesterday.

 

[1nderbeard]

To this 5 year old:

Bad people like to do bad things, and bad people don't care when people tell them it's wrong to do bad things. Even if they know they could get in trouble, they don't follow the rules. So if there are rules that say it's wrong to punch people, they will still go around punching people. And they might punch me or you. It shouldn't be wrong to punch back.

And sometimes, the people who make the rules don't do what they're supposed to do. And sometimes they like to be mean to people, and do really bad things to people. So 200 plus years ago the people that started our country said the citizens of the country should be able to fight back.

And believe it or not, the people who started our country didn't limit at all the tools the people could use. They could have everything the government should have.

See, easy enough a 5 year old could understand?

 

[Hookeye]

I don't think anybody should be banned for asking a lot of stupid questions. If true, this would be a very lonely place.

IMHO these arent questions, they are thinly veiled elitism/ blatant trolling.

 

[cbhausen]

I’m in before the permanent ban on this troll…

 

[wingrider1800]

See, easy enough a 5 year old could understand?

Absolutely, but some still reason like 2 year olds.

 

[Basher]

This guy is a riot! Let him start all the threads he wants. I’d rather him be doing all this “keyboard masturbation” (mentally getting off by venting and underhandedly attacking us) than be off doing something else more damaging to society and our freedoms lol.

The logic of some of these people is pictured below, for your entertainment only. LULZ.

 

[jamil]

I'll keep this simple.

No. I'm not gonna explain it to you like you're a 5 year old. A 5 year old can be convinced there's a Santa Clause. Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy. I'm going to give you benefit of doubt and assume I'm dealing with a rational adult, with adult reasoning abilities, albeit someone who is probably confused by emotion.

Someone please explain to me why civilians need to be allowed to own rifles that were designed for use in war.

You classify "rifles that were design for war" as something you don't think civilians need to be allowed to own. What is specific to the fact they were designed for war that makes them off limits for civilian use? All firearms are dangerous. They all can kill whether they were designed for self defense, hunting, target practice, or war.

Why should that one platform be banned for civilian use? How is it particularly dangerous above all the other guns? Stuff built for military use becomes common use all the time. Does being designed for war make the M1911, M9, M17/M18 more dangerous than other pistols? Glock was originally designed for military purposes? Does that fact make them any more dangerous than any other pistol.

Being designed for military purposes doesn't make something unfit for civilian use. That's just the talking point to make an emotional argument. Talk about alarmist.

And why is it that banning assault rifles would be a "slippery slope" when banning fully automatic rifles is completely acceptable to gun owners?

I'm not making the slippery slope argument. You are. Any time you advocate banning something because you don't think ordinary people can own them without harming themselves or others, you're essentially making a slippery slope argument. Yet an estimated 20 million AR-15 platform rifles are owned by ordinary citizens. It's a very small percentage of people who do nefarious things with these weapons.

The reality is, we have always drawn lines at which civilians are limited by law with regard to which weapons they may own. Artillery pieces and mortars are also disallowed for home defense.

No we haven't. Early on many ordinary citizens owned the same kinds of weapons of war that the military used. But you're kinda mixing things up here. We're not "allowed" to keep and bear arms as if the government has unlimited authority to do that. It's a right.

Artillery pieces and mortars are not all that practical for most home defense, but I suppose that would depend on the home. I have no problem with it. But there are more purposes for owning weapons than just defense. Who are you to tell me what I can own?

You'd like my opinion? Oh, sure. I believe gun manufacturers and the billions spent to lobby and advertise...to reach people like you and me with alarmist nonsense is largely responsible for the rhetoric against controlling assault weapons. Gun companies have become quite wealthy selling AR platform rifles and other weapons of war. Is it because they are patriots? Ha. Yeah, that's it.

WTF? I think you're erasing that benefit of doubt I granted you earlier. This is some really ****ed up reasoning. Alarmist nonsense? To prevent you from telling me I can't own what the **** I want? That's delusional. You think the reason I advocate being able to own what the **** I want has anything to do with gun manufacturers' advertising?

It's a worldview. That worldview is I do what the **** I want, but responsibly, and if I can't be responsible, then there should be laws that apply consequences. I get to do what I want. You get to do what you want. We have rules that prevent me from infringing on your rights through the exercise of my own. And you from infringing on mine through your exercise. That's how a civil society thrives. Not by government nannies.

They are worried about you defending your home against all those invaders that none of use have yet encountered.

There's a defensive gun use thread that would strongly like to disagree with you. Some people never encounter a flat tire. Always good to have a spare. Some people never encounter a home invasion. It happens a lot. And when it happens, if the homeowners have an AR-15 platform rifle handy, and know how to use it, their odds of surviving go up a lot.

If any of my words here could possibly be construed as name-calling, I promise I have not used any such language. I look forward to a thoughtful discussion of this topic and reading the logical and honest posts by members here. If you would like to provide statistics, please include the sources, and it might be best to make the sources something other than "some guy's site on the interweb." Have a great day, fellow gun owners and citizens. I am a USAF veteran who owns a dozen or so firearms.

Do you own a weapon of war?

 

[jamil]

…and a Corsair.

I have to admit. If I had the resources, and the training, I really wouldn't mind having an F16, and a target range for it. There are already laws against harming people with your stuff. No need to ban the stuff.

 

[MrGiggles]

Imma be real with you, chief, the only reason I, personally, need an AR is because they're cool as ****, and that's good enough for me

 

[jamil]

I’m jealous. You should share your hoard with those of us, less fortunate. You know…for equity’s sake.

Expat's stuff is our stuff.

 

[CitizenX]

It would seem mrmiller is incapable of thoughtful discussion and does not posses the necessary faculties to do so, exemplified by his terminology.

 

[Lpherr]

I am a USAF veteran who owns a dozen or so firearms.

Dishonorably discharged?

Shouldn't the title be ...

"Explain this to me as if I am a 5 year old girl"?​

Isn't he/she trying to snatch our guns?

 

[jwamplerusa]

First, read the second portion of my signature block. Then read Judge Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution (1833 printing), specifically paragraphs 1000 and 1001.

You stated in part the below, I have provided my response in below your text, indented.

Someone please explain to me why civilians need to be allowed to own rifles that were designed for use in war.

It is not a matter of need, it is a matter of natural Rights, which our form of government was explicitly restricted from infringing upon. Want to give up that Right, amend the Constitution.​

And why is it that banning assault rifles would be a "slippery slope" when banning fully automatic rifles is completely acceptable to gun owners?

Banning fully automatic rifles is NOT acceptable to THIS citizen. Shall not be infringed means just that. Pretty much all arguments for any form of "registration", regardless of the name it is sold under can be answered by watching this video. ​

The reality is, we have always drawn lines at which civilians are limited by law with regard to which weapons they may own. Artillery pieces and mortars are also disallowed for home defense.

I'm sorry, but here your ignorance of this Nation's history is on full display. Read some biographies and history around the founding of this nation. Private purchase of cannon and other crew served weapons by individuals and small groups was common. As late as the Spanish American war private citizens were purchasing 1895 potatoe diggers for military service. Just read a little about President Theodor Rooosevelt's Rough Riders. @DRob post above in a pretty clear visual representation of where and why the Right to Arms was eventually enshrined into the Constitution as a REQUIREMENT of the original 13 States to gain ratification of the Constitution.​

You'd like my opinion? Oh, sure. I believe gun manufacturers and the billions spent to lobby and advertise...to reach people like you and me with alarmist nonsense is largely responsible for the rhetoric against controlling assault weapons. Gun companies have become quite wealthy selling AR platform rifles and other weapons of war. Is it because they are patriots? Ha. Yeah, that's it. They are worried about you defending your home against all those invaders that none of use have yet encountered. If any of my words here could possibly be construed as name-calling, I promise I have not used any such language.

The above screed demonstrates clearly, you are NOT interested in a thoughtful discussion on the topic of your post. I have vented my frustration on this site as well however; so enjoy yourself.​

So @mrmiller21 care to provide your cogent argument, in full recognition of the 2nd Amendment, of YOUR position? I am not interested in Bloomberg's gun control talking points, they are the language of the subversive not the patriot.

 

[Jaybird1980]

So..... Who won the over under?

 

[MrGiggles]

The worst part of this guy trolling is now these threads are gonna get bumped for the next 50 years as everyone takes their turn to say the same thing over and over

 

[cg21]

He’s gone already? I wish someone would respond to my post I thought it was good. What a disappointment

 

[MCgrease08]

The worst part of this guy trolling is now these threads are gonna get bumped for the next 50 years as everyone takes their turn to say the same thing over and over

Nah, because he's a coward who is going around deleting all of his original posts.

I don't want to see him banned. People can have their minds changed on these topics if they are open minded. But clearly he isn't looking for an honest discussion or any type of education. That's OK. We've had much better trolls on here before him, and we'll have much better trolls on here long after he's gone.