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.
You saw your way into the conversation - - thus you started making it your argument.
Claims without evidence are worthless. It's as basic as argumentation comes, not a "rhetorically nonsensical hoop" (Aristotle is rolling over in his grave). How do you prove the absence of "lives being saved" by a gun? How is that quantifiable? How do you know what someone's intention was?
I'm not going to sit around and let blowhard conservatives make claims that can't be substantiated. You show yourself to be a ******, I'm going to call you out on it. If the board's "higher standard" is making claims without defending them, then it's a really crappy board.
You still want people to do your legwork for you. Lazy is lazy, no mater how you spin it or what you name you call someone who points it out.
You were trying to avoid an argument by limiting where your opponent could cite from. You then tried to change the subject by drawing me in, whereas I could care less about the specific part of the discussion that you were having. From the name calling to the requested limitations, its all avoidance. We all make choices. I was merely trying to coach you into being a better forum participant by not setting inane limitations on what answers you will accept. That strategy is for teenagers.
If a citation is presented with zero credibility to the underlying primary source, then you can point that out and in doing so probably win the argument. But the NRA is not a primary source. Yet, you tell someone that they can't cite it? It would be weird if I knew that it wasn't a half-failed attempt at stalling the discussion and half laziness. Point simple.
The real issue is that you likely just don't understand sources and research. Not to embarrass you. However, you keep coming back at me with this. And so there it is.
I will be instructional for me: even my most liberal relations have claimed for 30 years that any gun control will be the deal breaker for them was a Dem. Let's see them put up or shut up.
Well hang on now -- Republicans control govt. If there is finally gun control legislation you are going to blame the Dems.
I get it -- but it is funny.
I can't imagine how there will be any agreement on gun controls.
They can't agree on budget, immigration -- there is no way.
Well hang on now -- Republicans control govt. If there is finally gun control legislation you are going to blame the Dems.
I get it -- but it is funny.
I can't imagine how there will be any agreement on gun controls.
They can't agree on budget, immigration -- there is no way.
The Armageddon to our freedom will happen in 2020. The snowflakes will sweep the elections with the full weight of the millenial generation voting and nominating the most socialist left wing loons possible. That is when we have to choose to see American freedom buried or choose to rise and fight like Americans should. No freedom loving Americans should even consider compromising our freedoms for these un American snowflakes.
We should send armed agents of the government door-to-door to confiscate firearms.
I have pointed out a number of times that this would be an effective way to reduce gun deaths, once the process was complete.
But I didn't say we "should" do it. I just said it to point out just how horrific the consequences would be, rivalling the violence and deaths of this country's first Civil War.
But you're right about how you can't have a civilized conversation about it. Every time I point it out, not one of the people who want govt to have the power to disarm whoever they want, will reply. The crickets get loud and stay loud.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer
Looks like none of the "gun control" pushers are interested in talking about the actual subject of the thread: That their continued requests for "just a few reasonable regulations" are mere steps in their obvious quest to ban all guns, regardless of the result as criminals prey on the populace without consequence.
Back to the subject:
The so-called "gun control" advocates have spent the last several decades proving (inadvertently) that their half measures do not work. "Assault weapons" bans, waiting periods, "gun free" zones, background checks, and all the rest rarely reduce the crime rate, and often result in an increase instead. And yet they keep coming back and saying we need "just a little more" of their "reasonable restrictions".
When they point to countries whose results they like, they invariably point to places like England, Japan, Australia, etc. - countries that have almost completely banned guns from their subjects.
Take the hint.
In fact, complete bans of all guns are the only things that have ever reduced "gun crimes". And they must be accompanied by ruthless confiscation. Advocates who say they want "just some reasonable regulations", know by now they won't work. The only thing they could now be intending, is an eventual complete ban on all guns. While pretending they will do only just a little, to fool you into going along with "just a little". And then next year, just a little more.
Their total gun bans must be accompanied by SWAT teams going door to door to every house and apartment in America, taking people's guns whether they want to give them up or not. They know that many people will object to giving up their guns voluntarily... but a gun ban won't work unless everybody turns in their guns.
Advocates who say they want a few "reasonable regulations", are either astonishingly ignorant of the results of their own policies, or are lying to you.
I say we turn the tables on the government, and take THEIR guns away...that's far easier than them taking OURS.
Does it improve safety? Absolutely. Not for cops, but hey, you can't have everything. When cops can't carry guns they won't be interested in harassing people over revenue generating schemes and will instead be forced to focus on real crimes, and to do it very judiciously since they won't be able to afford making mistakes.
Does it save money? Absolutely! think of the all the government guns we won't have to buy and all the training and ammo that will be avoided.
Does it make sense? Yep. The Constitution nowhere guarantees the right of public servants to keep and bear arms in the performance of their duties. Its just not in there!
We should send armed agents of the government door-to-door to confiscate firearms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer
I have pointed out a number of times that this would be an effective way to reduce gun deaths, once the process was complete.
But I didn't say we "should" do it. I just said it to point out just how horrific the consequences would be, rivalling the violence and deaths of this country's first Civil War.
But you're right about how you can't have a civilized conversation about it. Every time I point it out, not one of the people who want govt to have the power to disarm whoever they want, will reply. The crickets get loud and stay loud.
I always chuckle when I see the anti-gun crowd suggest this as if it would be a simple exercise. Assuming that any legislator were to attempt it, anyone would be willing to do it, and an activist court would be willing to allow it. By conservative estimates, which are noticeably fallacious to anyone with observation skills, 100,000,000 Americans own firearms. Let's say 90% would go along with a gun ban and turn them in. Out of the remaining 10,000,000 we could possibly say that 90% would not be willing to fight over the matter and would let their firearms be confiscated. We're down to 1% of gun owners who would be willing to fight. That's 1 million firearms owners who are willing to fight to keep their guns - if we're using conservative estimates.
To put that in perspective, the Afghani army that beat Russia like a drum was about 175,000 troops. The forces of ISIS are estimated at the high end to be 200,000. The total active US military force is about 1,500,000.
A ban and confiscate plan would literally be the end of the US as we know it, as it would result in such a bloodbath that we would never recover. And that's if only 1% of firearms owners are the "psychopaths" that the anti-gun crowd likes to pretend they are.
SB 140, authored by Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), seeks to remedy the gun-confiscation backlog that has left thousands of illegal guns on the streets, including those owned by those with criminal convictions or serious mental illness.
The passage of New York’s so-called SAFE Act (“Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act of 2013”) drastically changed the landscape for lawful gun owners in the Empire State. Besides new restrictions on commonly owned semi-automatic rifles the state calls “assault weapons,” bans on magazines, and limits on the number of rounds that could be loaded into a gun, the Act imposed a requirement that handgun license holders be “recertified” every five years, with all licensees completing the initial recertification by January 31, 2018. The recertification form requires that the licensee disclose his or her “name, date of birth, gender, race, residential address, social security number, [and] firearms possessed by such license holder,” along with the listed identifying details (make, model, caliber, and serial number). (“Firearm” under the applicable New York law means a handgun or other gun of a size which may be concealed upon the person.)
A failure to recertify operates as an automatic revocation of the license. Possession of a “firearm” without a valid license is a criminal offense, and the revocation makes the person ineligible to apply for or renew a license. Once a license is revoked, state law mandates that every gun owned or possessed by the licensee be “surrendered” to a law enforcement agency. A New York State Police field guide on the SAFE Act, prepared by attorneys for the Division of State Police, unequivocally instructs officers that when “a licensee becomes ineligible to hold a pistol permit, the Safe Act requires the person to surrender all firearms to police, including all rifles and shotguns for which no license or registration is required.” (Emphasis in the original.)
Should the person fail to comply by turning in every gun, the SAFE Act (codified as NY Penal Law § 400.00(11)(c)) not only authorizes but requires that police officers confiscate such property: the guns “shall be removed and declared a nuisance and any police officer or peace officer acting pursuant to his or her special duties is authorized to remove any and all such weapons.”
Last edited by Roboteer; 02-20-2018 at 01:33 AM..
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.
