Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No they aren't a relevant point because they DIDN'T happen. ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
..Also remember, conservatives think that public funding shouldn't go to contraception and abortion and the only solution to teen sex is abstinence.
LOL. I'm pretty sure there was no need for contraception at that situation either but that didn't stop you from making a very long post about it. If you are going to set some sort of standard for others, you should follow it yourself. But no matter,
What I said is very relevant. You are only refusing to address the points made. i.e.
Criminals break laws by using guns to commit violence. (Fact)
So lets create more laws to stop the criminals. (The Fallacy)
There is no answer to this this simple dichotomy so gun control advocates must resort to more fallacy, distraction, and even insult to try and make some sort of point.
Last edited by WaldoKitty; 02-10-2015 at 01:00 AM..
If the 2nd amendment doesn't grant us a right (with a qualifier), then why is it there? Was it to be like a grocery list, sort of a "reminder?" Of course it grants us a right.
No, it was a formal statement that gave force of Constitutional law to the framers' belief that the government shall have no authority whatsoever to infringe upon the God-given right to keep and bear arms. The fact that rights are God-given (instead of manmade) was first referenced in the Declaration of Independence: "...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...".
Quote:
Originally Posted by pop251808
Gun shows weren't even legal over 30 years ago
Gun shows have been legal since December 15, 1791 - the date when the both the First Amendment (enumerating the right to peaceably assemble) and the Second Amendment were ratified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pop251808
The fact is, the Supreme Court has never had trouble with reasonable regulation of guns.
Nor did they have trouble affirming slavery, and in its aftermath, the doctrine of separate-but-equal.
I have owned guns all my adult life (I am 57) and got my concealed carry permit in 2008. I carry everywhere I am legally allowed. I have never harmed or threatened anyone. I have been hit twice on the road by other drivers and I did not shoot them. They never knew I was armed. I informed the police officers doing reports, and they simply said "no problem".
The one time I thought someone was breaking into our home in the night, I had my gun ready but I did not fire blindly into the dark. Turned out to be my daughter who had left something in the car earlier. She herself was glad I was ready to defend our home if it had been a bad situation.
If you choose not to own a gun, that is your business. I choose to own guns and that is my business.
There you go again, saying I want you to unarm yourselves. Those who can't think of good arguments do their arguing by repeating endlessly, without even understanding what they're repeating, nor what arguments they're arguing against.
[quote=AtkinsonDan;38360912]Guns and weaponry in general are only tools, they are not the motives/reasons for murder.
Wow, what a brilliant and original insight. Maybe you could invent a slogan to go along with your insight. Such as "guns don't kill people, people kill people."
How does the Washington Post argument explain away those murderers who are physically strong enough to kill other people with their bare hands using such methods as strangulation or body slamming the victim into a stone or concrete wall? Guns and weaponry in general are only tools, they are not the motives/reasons for murder.
Adam Lanza was strong enough to kill six-year-olds with his bare hands. Is that why you support his right to guns?
No, it was a formal statement that gave force of Constitutional law to the framers' belief that the government shall have no authority whatsoever to infringe upon the God-given right to keep and bear arms. The fact that rights are God-given (instead of manmade) was first referenced in the Declaration of Independence: "...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...".
Gun shows have been legal since December 15, 1791 - the date when the both the First Amendment (enumerating the right to peaceably assemble) and the Second Amendment were ratified.
Nor did they have trouble affirming slavery, and in its aftermath, the doctrine of separate-but-equal.
If you want 2nd amendment rights, you need the 2nd amendment. Otherwise, it's just us talking to God, apparently. As a practical matter, the amendment grants us the right; it's not written down anywhere else.
Gun shows weren't around until the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, a federal law which made Gun Shows a practical reality. We're not talking theory here.
As for the Supreme Court and slavery, so what? The constitution affirmed the right to own slaves; should we ignore it too, since it said things we now no longer agree with or created law we no longer live by?
LOL. I'm pretty sure there was no need for contraception at that situation either but that didn't stop you from making a very long post about it. If you are going to set some sort of standard for others, you should follow it yourself. But no matter,
What I said is very relevant. You are only refusing to address the points made. i.e.
Criminals break laws by using guns to commit violence. (Fact)
So lets create more laws to stop the criminals. (The Fallacy)
There is no answer to this this simple dichotomy so gun control advocates must resort to more fallacy, distraction, and even insult to try and make some sort of point.
Nice cut paste job. I wasn't even talking about gun laws in that post. I was replying to the points that the poster made about things that happen more than gun violence and the problems with going with finding solutions to those problems which I do I agree are problems but we have tried at some and failed miserably because of ineptitude by BOTH conservatives AND liberals and cuts by conservatives who don't believe in birth control.
What you have done is tried to refute me by putting words in my mouth and now cutting and pasting points from two different posts replying to two different issues entirely. I suggest reading both posts and figuring out they are not linked.
But here's the thing if you lawfully have a gun, why worry. Nobody is taking them away unless you had a mental issue or were an accessory to a felony?
We should make it harder for violent felons to ever get guns again. Sure some will get them but if we limit guns on the street, we will reduce the problem. We continue busting illegal sales, we do that too. I am not talking add law after law after law,, just laws to cover holes to protect your family and mine.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was replying to the points that the poster made about things that happen more than gun violence and the problems with going with finding solutions to those problems which I do I agree are problems but we have tried at some and failed miserably because of ineptitude by BOTH conservatives AND liberals and cuts by conservatives who don't believe in birth control.