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.
We seem to be going around in circles here. Let me recap all of the individual points.
1. Not one pro-gun control person has been able to demonstrate why California's strictest gun control laws in the country are just as effective as Arizona's crappiest gun laws.
2. "The Second Amendment only applies to militias"
False -- Heller vs DC showed the second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms for lawful purposes. The highest authority on the matter (the SCOTUS) has spoken on this, they trump any interpretation by any of us here.
3. "The Second Amendment allows mass shooters to get as many guns as they want and shoot up schools"
False -- see the "lawful purposes" part of the Heller decision.
4. "The Second Amendment refers to being well-regulated"
It does, but "well-regulated" at the time the 2A was written meant "in proper working order". Also that refers to the militia. Even if you thought that meant "properly legislated", we have enough gun laws. And they're working. Gun deaths are down over 50% since the 80's.
5. "Opposing adding more gun laws means you think ALL gun laws are useless"
Ridiculous strawman. No one here is an anarchist, this reducto ad absurdum/slippery slope logical fallacy is like saying "you don't want anything to eat? That must mean you don't want any food ever again". Every pro-gun person here supports gun laws, we disagree on which ones and how many.
6. Gun bans have saved lives in some countries (like Britain) and failed in others (like Australia and Canada). Where it failed, the method of homicide or suicide changed, not the trends.
7. "Even one life lost is too many"
Emotional rhetoric that applies to anything. "Even one alcohol death is too many", should we try to ban alcohol again?
Because schools do such a banner job evaluating students, especially after the right-wing politicians are done gutting all their funding.
My son can walk and talk and read and is a normal kid because a Republican (the Governator!) expanded the budget on early intervention for developmentally delayed under-three and at the elementary level.
We seem to be going around in circles here. Let me recap all of the individual points.
1. Not one pro-gun control person has been able to demonstrate why California's strictest gun control laws in the country are just as effective as Arizona's crappiest gun laws.
How are we measuring this?? To take a page from "your side's" playbook, "different demographics."
2. "The Second Amendment only applies to militias"
False -- Heller vs DC showed the second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms for lawful purposes. The highest authority on the matter (the SCOTUS) has spoken on this, they trump any interpretation by any of us here.
You are correct.
3. "The Second Amendment allows mass shooters to get as many guns as they want and shoot up schools"
False -- see the "lawful purposes" part of the Heller decision.
How about you post the exact text since it obviously means so much to you and seems to be more open to interpretation that you would like to admit. There is no "lawful purpose" of ONE PERSON owning 13 guns that i can think of.
4. "The Second Amendment refers to being well-regulated"
It does, but "well-regulated" at the time the 2A was written meant "in proper working order". Also that refers to the militia. Even if you thought that meant "properly legislated", we have enough gun laws. And they're working. Gun deaths are down over 50% since the 80's.
Gun deaths are down because of the new phenomenon of "crack" during that era.
No way in hell that "well regulated" means "in proper working order!" If it does/did then the government is even more ridiculous than i thought.
It is a GIVEN that a weapon would be "in proper working order." That would be as redundant as saying that only deaf mutes have the right to remain silent!
5. "Opposing adding more gun laws means you think ALL gun laws are useless"
Ridiculous strawman. No one here is an anarchist, this reducto ad absurdum/slippery slope logical fallacy is like saying "you don't want anything to eat? That must mean you don't want any food ever again". Every pro-gun person here supports gun laws, we disagree on which ones and how many.
You have not been paying attention if you think that EVERY "pro-gun" person wants laws to regulate them. Seriously you think this?? Do you even read the opinions of other "pro-gun" people?
Sorry, but you are waaay off base. Show me threads where "pro-gun people are talking about, or even have the intellection capacity to talk about "common sense gun laws." Most cannot. It is all based on emotion and entitlements.
All they know is the collective paranoia of "any laws are taking away my rights!"
6. Gun bans have saved lives in some countries (like Britain) and failed in others (like Australia and Canada). Where it failed, the method of homicide or suicide changed, not the trends.
Homicides are DOWN in Australia.
And suicide attempts via guns are more likely to be lethal than pills, hanging, etc.
7. "Even one life lost is too many"
Emotional rhetoric that applies to anything. "Even one alcohol death is too many", should we try to ban alcohol again?
I hope you use the same logic in your pro-choice arguments and advocating for Planned Parenthood funding!
Conservatives speaking about their "gun entitlements" and "pro-birth" beliefs are the most over the top emotional things to witness in politics.
How many posts here so far? 415? And most of them are somehow "offended" by the reality of this fake news article. Most are attacking the PERSON who proposes ANY regulations as opposed to the actual proposal. Primitive overly emotional people at their finest!
I really just started this thread because i thought it was funny. Its funny (and sad) because it is true.
Last edited by Utopian Slums; 10-08-2015 at 06:31 AM..
We're measuring gun deaths via FBI and CDC data. All demographics, including ethnicity, age cohort, etc. Their numbers are indisputable.
Sorry you feel that way about definitions. Your opinion doesn't change that fact.
I've read the opinions of all pro and anti-gun people here. Not a single pro-gun person here said we should get rid of all gun laws. Show me the quote here if you can find it. Until then, ridiculous strawman.
Homicides were already trending down in Australia. The gun ban didn't change that trend one bit.
I'm a pro-choice moderate, not that it matters. Let's not turn this into a partisanship battle, shall we? Let's just stick to the topic.
We're measuring gun deaths via FBI and CDC data. All demographics, including ethnicity, age cohort, etc. Their numbers are indisputable. Sorry you feel that way about definitions. Your opinion doesn't change that fact.
I've read the opinions of all pro and anti-gun people here. Not a single pro-gun person here said we should get rid of all gun laws. Show me the quote here if you can find it. Until then, ridiculous strawman.
Homicides were already trending down in Australia. The gun ban didn't change that trend one bit.
I'm a pro-choice moderate, not that it matters. Let's not turn this into a partisanship battle, shall we? Let's just stick to the topic.
"Facts?" More like legalese that is open to interpretation when worded so poorly. My opinion counts no less than yours.
There are like 1,000+ posts on this topic right now. I am not reading all of them to pick out quotes for you but off the top of my head, i recall the person who called me an "ignorant person who does not know anything" after i laid out what could be considered some "common sense gun laws.
If you *only* speak up when someone is endorsing additional gun laws to say "no more gun laws," that gives you a good idea of where they stand in regards to the existing laws. You may disagree. I don't. Silence can speak volumes.
You just contradicted the lie given above that "homicides are still up in Australia." That was false. So now you try to justify with "were already on the way down?" Who cares? They ARE CURRENTLY DOWN and it is obvious why.
1. Not one pro-gun control person has been able to demonstrate why California's strictest gun control laws in the country are just as effective as Arizona's crappiest gun laws.
How are we measuring this?? To take a page from "your side's" playbook, "different demographics." If more guns = more homicide as people claim why does this not hold true in so many states and demographic groups?
2. "The Second Amendment only applies to militias"
False -- Heller vs DC showed the second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms for lawful purposes. The highest authority on the matter (the SCOTUS) has spoken on this, they trump any interpretation by any of us here.
You are correct.
3. "The Second Amendment allows mass shooters to get as many guns as they want and shoot up schools"
False -- see the "lawful purposes" part of the Heller decision.
How about you post the exact text since it obviously means so much to you and seems to be more open to interpretation that you would like to admit. There is no "lawful purpose" of ONE PERSON owning 13 guns that i can think of.
Heres a off the top of my head collection of 13
1) Mosin Nagant, 'collectors' piece cheap. cheap to shoot.
2) Pocket Gun. It goes in a pocket great for summer time carry (eg ruger lcp)
3) mid size handgun (eg glock 19). winter carry, range gun
4) 10/22 cheap plinking at the range
5) 308 bolt gun. Hunting, longer distance range shooting
6) Arisaka family heirloom
7) Short Barreled AR, range fun, home defense
8) Standard AR. Range fun, competition shooting
9) .22 pistol. cheap practice at the range
10) 1911, fancy target gun. Bulls-eye shooting
11) Double Barreled shotgun. Duck hunting, trap/skeet shooting
12) 12g pump gun. home defense, hunting
13) M1 Garand. Service Rifle competitions. Family heirloom? Grandads gun. Can be purchased from the government at a discount
There is 13. Every single one of those purposes is lawful. The list can go on. Much like golf clubs different guns serve different purposes. No reason the number owned should be limited.
4. "The Second Amendment refers to being well-regulated"
It does, but "well-regulated" at the time the 2A was written meant "in proper working order". Also that refers to the militia. Even if you thought that meant "properly legislated", we have enough gun laws. And they're working. Gun deaths are down over 50% since the 80's.
Gun deaths are down because of the new phenomenon of "crack" during that era.
No way in hell that "well regulated" means "in proper working order!" If it does/did then the government is even more ridiculous than i thought.
I have already cited that well regulated means in proper order. This is not an argument you will win.
It is a GIVEN that a weapon would be "in proper working order." That would be as redundant as saying that only deaf mutes have the right to remain silent!
An unarmed people cannot form an armed militia. An unarmed militia is not a militia at all.
5. "Opposing adding more gun laws means you think ALL gun laws are useless"
Ridiculous strawman. No one here is an anarchist, this reducto ad absurdum/slippery slope logical fallacy is like saying "you don't want anything to eat? That must mean you don't want any food ever again". Every pro-gun person here supports gun laws, we disagree on which ones and how many.
You have not been paying attention if you think that EVERY "pro-gun" person wants laws to regulate them. Seriously you think this?? Do you even read the opinions of other "pro-gun" people?
Sorry, but you are waaay off base. Show me threads where "pro-gun people are talking about, or even have the intellection capacity to talk about "common sense gun laws." Most cannot. It is all based on emotion and entitlements.
All they know is the collective paranoia of "any laws are taking away my rights!"
The NFA does take away my rights. Felons being restricted does take away their rights (whether that is good or bad is up for debate tho I would argue non violent felons should not lose their right). Banning specific firearms in common use takes away rights. Never mind 2A rights, how about property rights? If I own something today you cannot just take it away, property rights do not allow for it.
6. Gun bans have saved lives in some countries (like Britain) and failed in others (like Australia and Canada). Where it failed, the method of homicide or suicide changed, not the trends.
Homicides are DOWN in Australia.
And suicide attempts via guns are more likely to be lethal than pills, hanging, etc.
Homicides are also massively down in the US, along side a massive increase in concealed carry (20 years ago very frew states have concealed carry, now pretty much every single one does) and the number of firearms in the US. No, concealed carry has not caused the drop but if more guns= more homicides as your line of thought tends to claim this flies in the face of it.
We seem to be going around in circles here. Let me recap all of the individual points.
1. Not one pro-gun control person has been able to demonstrate why California's strictest gun control laws in the country are just as effective as Arizona's crappiest gun laws.
2. "The Second Amendment only applies to militias"
False -- Heller vs DC showed the second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms for lawful purposes. The highest authority on the matter (the SCOTUS) has spoken on this, they trump any interpretation by any of us here.
3. "The Second Amendment allows mass shooters to get as many guns as they want and shoot up schools"
False -- see the "lawful purposes" part of the Heller decision.
4. "The Second Amendment refers to being well-regulated"
It does, but "well-regulated" at the time the 2A was written meant "in proper working order". Also that refers to the militia. Even if you thought that meant "properly legislated", we have enough gun laws. And they're working. Gun deaths are down over 50% since the 80's.
5. "Opposing adding more gun laws means you think ALL gun laws are useless"
Ridiculous strawman. No one here is an anarchist, this reducto ad absurdum/slippery slope logical fallacy is like saying "you don't want anything to eat? That must mean you don't want any food ever again". Every pro-gun person here supports gun laws, we disagree on which ones and how many.
6. Gun bans have saved lives in some countries (like Britain) and failed in others (like Australia and Canada). Where it failed, the method of homicide or suicide changed, not the trends.
7. "Even one life lost is too many"
Emotional rhetoric that applies to anything. "Even one alcohol death is too many", should we try to ban alcohol again?
translation: following these mass shootings, the Gun Nuts -- predictably, as ever -- "circle the wagons" and become very very very defensive ...
Last edited by Teilhard; 10-08-2015 at 07:29 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.
