CDZ Gun Control

Wry Catcher

Diamond Member
Aug 3, 2009
51,322
6,469
1,860
San Francisco Bay Area
What in my arguments for rational gun control is incorrect or dishonest or made badly?

The arguments against me have been mostly emotional and disregard the history of gun controls which existed for most of our nation's history. The majority of posts by those opposed to all controls on guns are limited to personal attacks on my intelligence or character.

Thus I've decided the CZ may be the only place for an honest discussion on gun control.

I'm not the least bit intimidated by those obsessed with guns, who have no argument other than: The 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct, their fear of tyrannical government and their (irrational?) fears of going out in public unarmed.

I've taken on the first wo with reasoned remarks which have never been proved wrong.

1. There are already laws against the civilian population owning or having in their possession weapons of war unrestricted by law and or regulated.

Thus the Second Amendment is NOT sacrosanct as so many believe.

2. Only an idiot believes the possession of arms readily affordable and available to the current civilian population are sufficient to repeal a military or para military force of our government.

We live in a time when the government is temporary, and the people (at least those allowed to vote) can choose the civilian population who govern us, and control our military and para military agencies.

[THE GREATER THREAT TO OURSELVES AND OUR FAMILIES IS WHEN THE VOTE IS SUPPRESSED BY OVERT OR COVERT MEANS - BETTER TO WORRY ABOUT THE IMPACT ON OUR LIBERTY BY THE REALITY OF CU & McCUTCHEON V. FEC AND THE CURRENT EFFORTS BY SOME STATES TO LIMIT THE RIGHT TO VOTE BASED ON THE CANARD OF VOTER FRAUD]

Further more gun control does not outlaws guns, it regulates them. Licensing, registration and restrictions on specific forms of arms are already on the books. And yet loopholes exists, obviously, given who have had guns in their possession legally, and the horrors that they have inflicted in Connecticut, Virginia, Texas, Colorado, etc. etc.

3. I support a licensed person who can pass a background check and thereafter remains legally able to be a responsible gun owner has the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun.

4. Responsible people understand that not everyone should own, possess or ever have a gun in their custody or control.

So, responsible people, any ideas?
 
Reasonable gun control that wont restrict the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens and actually help something?
Does that exist?
 
What in my arguments for rational gun control is incorrect or dishonest or made badly?

The arguments against me have been mostly emotional and disregard the history of gun controls which existed for most of our nation's history. The majority of posts by those opposed to all controls on guns are limited to personal attacks on my intelligence or character.

Thus I've decided the CZ may be the only place for an honest discussion on gun control.

I'm not the least bit intimidated by those obsessed with guns, who have no argument other than: The 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct, their fear of tyrannical government and their (irrational?) fears of going out in public unarmed.

I've taken on the first wo with reasoned remarks which have never been proved wrong.

1. There are already laws against the civilian population owning or having in their possession weapons of war unrestricted by law and or regulated.

Thus the Second Amendment is NOT sacrosanct as so many believe.

2. Only an idiot believes the possession of arms readily affordable and available to the current civilian population are sufficient to repeal a military or para military force of our government.

We live in a time when the government is temporary, and the people (at least those allowed to vote) can choose the civilian population who govern us, and control our military and para military agencies.

[THE GREATER THREAT TO OURSELVES AND OUR FAMILIES IS WHEN THE VOTE IS SUPPRESSED BY OVERT OR COVERT MEANS - BETTER TO WORRY ABOUT THE IMPACT ON OUR LIBERTY BY THE REALITY OF CU & McCUTCHEON V. FEC AND THE CURRENT EFFORTS BY SOME STATES TO LIMIT THE RIGHT TO VOTE BASED ON THE CANARD OF VOTER FRAUD]

Further more gun control does not outlaws guns, it regulates them. Licensing, registration and restrictions on specific forms of arms are already on the books. And yet loopholes exists, obviously, given who have had guns in their possession legally, and the horrors that they have inflicted in Connecticut, Virginia, Texas, Colorado, etc. etc.

3. I support a licensed person who can pass a background check and thereafter remains legally able to be a responsible gun owner has the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun.

4. Responsible people understand that not everyone should own, possess or ever have a gun in their custody or control.

So, responsible people, any ideas?
In some societies, the male weapon has a significance above and beyond its functional utility. To separate a Scot from his sporan and dirk or to pry an Arab's fingers off his khanjar is to provoke a fight to the death. Freudian theories about the phallic symbol aside, the weapon which symbolizes warrior status cannot be willingly surrendered no matter what the argument.

The Scots Irish immigrants who settled in Appalachia in the latter part of the 18th century came from a culture in which the claymore was a sacred badge of rank. The increasingly available and affordable handguns of the 19th century allowed an echo of knighthood to descend to the lowest levels of rural white society and the mystique, although fading, remains to this day across a large swath of semi-civilized America.
 
What in my arguments for rational gun control is incorrect or dishonest or made badly?

The arguments against me have been mostly emotional and disregard the history of gun controls which existed for most of our nation's history. The majority of posts by those opposed to all controls on guns are limited to personal attacks on my intelligence or character.

Thus I've decided the CZ may be the only place for an honest discussion on gun control.

I'm not the least bit intimidated by those obsessed with guns, who have no argument other than: The 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct, their fear of tyrannical government and their (irrational?) fears of going out in public unarmed.

I've taken on the first wo with reasoned remarks which have never been proved wrong.

1. There are already laws against the civilian population owning or having in their possession weapons of war unrestricted by law and or regulated.

Thus the Second Amendment is NOT sacrosanct as so many believe.

2. Only an idiot believes the possession of arms readily affordable and available to the current civilian population are sufficient to repeal a military or para military force of our government.

We live in a time when the government is temporary, and the people (at least those allowed to vote) can choose the civilian population who govern us, and control our military and para military agencies.

[THE GREATER THREAT TO OURSELVES AND OUR FAMILIES IS WHEN THE VOTE IS SUPPRESSED BY OVERT OR COVERT MEANS - BETTER TO WORRY ABOUT THE IMPACT ON OUR LIBERTY BY THE REALITY OF CU & McCUTCHEON V. FEC AND THE CURRENT EFFORTS BY SOME STATES TO LIMIT THE RIGHT TO VOTE BASED ON THE CANARD OF VOTER FRAUD]

Further more gun control does not outlaws guns, it regulates them. Licensing, registration and restrictions on specific forms of arms are already on the books. And yet loopholes exists, obviously, given who have had guns in their possession legally, and the horrors that they have inflicted in Connecticut, Virginia, Texas, Colorado, etc. etc.

3. I support a licensed person who can pass a background check and thereafter remains legally able to be a responsible gun owner has the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun.

4. Responsible people understand that not everyone should own, possess or ever have a gun in their custody or control.

So, responsible people, any ideas?

Gun control does not work. It never has. All it does is restrict the rights of the law abiding.
 
What in my arguments for rational gun control is incorrect or dishonest or made badly?

The arguments against me have been mostly emotional and disregard the history of gun controls which existed for most of our nation's history. The majority of posts by those opposed to all controls on guns are limited to personal attacks on my intelligence or character.

Thus I've decided the CZ may be the only place for an honest discussion on gun control.

I'm not the least bit intimidated by those obsessed with guns, who have no argument other than: The 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct, their fear of tyrannical government and their (irrational?) fears of going out in public unarmed.

I've taken on the first wo with reasoned remarks which have never been proved wrong.

1. There are already laws against the civilian population owning or having in their possession weapons of war unrestricted by law and or regulated.

Thus the Second Amendment is NOT sacrosanct as so many believe.

2. Only an idiot believes the possession of arms readily affordable and available to the current civilian population are sufficient to repeal a military or para military force of our government.

We live in a time when the government is temporary, and the people (at least those allowed to vote) can choose the civilian population who govern us, and control our military and para military agencies.

[THE GREATER THREAT TO OURSELVES AND OUR FAMILIES IS WHEN THE VOTE IS SUPPRESSED BY OVERT OR COVERT MEANS - BETTER TO WORRY ABOUT THE IMPACT ON OUR LIBERTY BY THE REALITY OF CU & McCUTCHEON V. FEC AND THE CURRENT EFFORTS BY SOME STATES TO LIMIT THE RIGHT TO VOTE BASED ON THE CANARD OF VOTER FRAUD]

Further more gun control does not outlaws guns, it regulates them. Licensing, registration and restrictions on specific forms of arms are already on the books. And yet loopholes exists, obviously, given who have had guns in their possession legally, and the horrors that they have inflicted in Connecticut, Virginia, Texas, Colorado, etc. etc.

3. I support a licensed person who can pass a background check and thereafter remains legally able to be a responsible gun owner has the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun.

4. Responsible people understand that not everyone should own, possess or ever have a gun in their custody or control.

So, responsible people, any ideas?

The issue is every regulation proposed does nothing to prevent bad guys from getting guns, and does everything to annoy and harass law abiding gun owners.

As an example, tell me why in NYC that it should take me 3-6 months and $1000 to get a handgun permit in NYC? What is the justification for that?
 
Reasonable gun control that wont restrict the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens and actually help something?
Does that exist?

Never does. All these laws do is make it harder for people like me to get a gun. A criminal can get a gun in a matter of hours if they know the right people.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #7
Reasonable gun control that wont restrict the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens and actually help something?
Does that exist?

Never does. All these laws do is make it harder for people like me to get a gun. A criminal can get a gun in a matter of hours if they know the right people.

I suppose we won't know if measures to reduce the ease to buy, borrow or steal a gun is imposed. The opinion that nothing will work isn't convincing or even credible.
 
Reasonable gun control that wont restrict the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens and actually help something?
Does that exist?

Never does. All these laws do is make it harder for people like me to get a gun. A criminal can get a gun in a matter of hours if they know the right people.

I suppose we won't know if measures to reduce the ease to buy, borrow or steal a gun is imposed. The opinion that nothing will work isn't convincing or even credible.

The idea "to just try something, or do something" even if we know it won't work isn't convincing either.

Why am i supposed to give up one of my rights to make the work of police officer's easier? Why not ask me to give up my 4th amendment rights, or my right to trial by jury at the same time?
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #9
Reasonable gun control that wont restrict the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens and actually help something?
Does that exist?

Never does. All these laws do is make it harder for people like me to get a gun. A criminal can get a gun in a matter of hours if they know the right people.

I suppose we won't know if measures to reduce the ease to buy, borrow or steal a gun is imposed. The opinion that nothing will work isn't convincing or even credible.

The idea "to just try something, or do something" even if we know it won't work isn't convincing either.

Why am i supposed to give up one of my rights to make the work of police officer's easier? Why not ask me to give up my 4th amendment rights, or my right to trial by jury at the same time?

You don't know what will or won't work to mitigate gun violence. I will admit gun control is not a panacea for violence in America but doing nothing, trying nothing is foolish, selfish and can not stand.

Rational people with normal amounts of empathy are fed up with daily reports of murder, suicide and accidental deaths by gun. The more the NRA and it followers continue to roadblock efforts to reduce gun violence the more likely more restrictive laws will be promulgated.

You are not giving up any Right, you may be inconvenienced by the suggestions I've made over the past months.

The only ones' who will have gun restrictions are those have been convicted of a violent act, placed by civil order in a facility as a danger to them self or others, are on parole or probation or have a documented alcohol or drug addiction. All responsible gun owners support a means to keep gun out of their hands - why don't you?
 
Here is the problem that liberals never ever think about:

Some crazy idiot kills a bunch of people with a gun.

Ignorant but well meaning people allow politicians to restrict gun rights.

But gun control does not work so.....

Some crazy idiot kills a bunch of people with a gun.

Ignorant but well meaning people allow politicians to restrict gun rights.

But gun control does not work so.....

Some crazy idiot kills a bunch of people with a gun.

Ignorant but well meaning people allow politicians to restrict gun rights.

Eventually, there are no more gun rights and still some crazy idiot kills a bunch of people with a gun.
 
Reasonable gun control that wont restrict the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens and actually help something?
Does that exist?

Never does. All these laws do is make it harder for people like me to get a gun. A criminal can get a gun in a matter of hours if they know the right people.

I suppose we won't know if measures to reduce the ease to buy, borrow or steal a gun is imposed. The opinion that nothing will work isn't convincing or even credible.

The idea "to just try something, or do something" even if we know it won't work isn't convincing either.

Why am i supposed to give up one of my rights to make the work of police officer's easier? Why not ask me to give up my 4th amendment rights, or my right to trial by jury at the same time?

You don't know what will or won't work to mitigate gun violence. I will admit gun control is not a panacea for violence in America but doing nothing, trying nothing is foolish, selfish and can not stand.

Rational people with normal amounts of empathy are fed up with daily reports of murder, suicide and accidental deaths by gun. The more the NRA and it followers continue to roadblock efforts to reduce gun violence the more likely more restrictive laws will be promulgated.

You are not giving up any Right, you may be inconvenienced by the suggestions I've made over the past months.

The only ones' who will have gun restrictions are those have been convicted of a violent act, placed by civil order in a facility as a danger to them self or others, are on parole or probation or have a documented alcohol or drug addiction. All responsible gun owners support a means to keep gun out of their hands - why don't you?

Actually the media only cares when large groups of white people are shot at, Blacks it seems, can kill each other with abandon without so much as a tear from the media. And the same "solutions" are always proposed, none of which will reduce gun crime.

Again, please tell me why I should have to wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 for a pistol permit for my own house. Tell me why the NYPD can deny me a concealed carry permit "because the feel like it".

I refuse to have a right infringed on because of there mere chance of something positive coming out of it, and I refuse to trust anyone to make any more gun laws until the law above is removed and I can get a pitol permit for a reasonable cost and in a reasonable amount of time.

How about we apply the same restrictions to voting?
 
I think the only gun control that would actually work is a world wide gun ban. No more making them/ammo and door to door searches.
Untill then, illegal guns (the main problem) would still be a problem.
No govt guns
No secret service with guns
No law abiding citizens with guns
No criminals with guns
Then, we could start to work on outlawing katanas and fertilizer.
Anything else is a FOOLS PARTY
 
What in my arguments for rational gun control is incorrect or dishonest or made badly?

The arguments against me have been mostly emotional and disregard the history of gun controls which existed for most of our nation's history. The majority of posts by those opposed to all controls on guns are limited to personal attacks on my intelligence or character.

Thus I've decided the CZ may be the only place for an honest discussion on gun control.

I'm not the least bit intimidated by those obsessed with guns, who have no argument other than: The 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct, their fear of tyrannical government and their (irrational?) fears of going out in public unarmed.

I've taken on the first wo with reasoned remarks which have never been proved wrong.

1. There are already laws against the civilian population owning or having in their possession weapons of war unrestricted by law and or regulated.

Thus the Second Amendment is NOT sacrosanct as so many believe.

2. Only an idiot believes the possession of arms readily affordable and available to the current civilian population are sufficient to repeal a military or para military force of our government.

We live in a time when the government is temporary, and the people (at least those allowed to vote) can choose the civilian population who govern us, and control our military and para military agencies.

[THE GREATER THREAT TO OURSELVES AND OUR FAMILIES IS WHEN THE VOTE IS SUPPRESSED BY OVERT OR COVERT MEANS - BETTER TO WORRY ABOUT THE IMPACT ON OUR LIBERTY BY THE REALITY OF CU & McCUTCHEON V. FEC AND THE CURRENT EFFORTS BY SOME STATES TO LIMIT THE RIGHT TO VOTE BASED ON THE CANARD OF VOTER FRAUD]

Further more gun control does not outlaws guns, it regulates them. Licensing, registration and restrictions on specific forms of arms are already on the books. And yet loopholes exists, obviously, given who have had guns in their possession legally, and the horrors that they have inflicted in Connecticut, Virginia, Texas, Colorado, etc. etc.

3. I support a licensed person who can pass a background check and thereafter remains legally able to be a responsible gun owner has the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun.

4. Responsible people understand that not everyone should own, possess or ever have a gun in their custody or control.

So, responsible people, any ideas?

Gun control does not work. It never has. All it does is restrict the rights of the law abiding.
What a silly claim! No wonder you cite no evidence; there is none. Many nations have rounded up the arms in civilian circulation after the chaos of a war or a revolution. These countries have significantly lower rates of gun violence than the USA.

Law abiding isn't much of a criterion. The guns used in most of America's mass slaughters were purchased legally i.e. by law abiding citizens. Every gun starts out as a legal gun. The number of families owning a gun has been dropping for decades. The number of guns in circulation continues to rise because guns are more and more the fetish of gun nuts who own dozens of them. Gun ownership has itself become more and more an indicator of mental illness and social dysfunction.
 
Raise the age that young men can buy a gun to the age of 30.

Who does the most mass shootings?
Who acts as straw buyers for criminals?
Who has young children?
Who has to much testoserone for theirs and others own good?

Young men under 30.
They can shoot, hunt, what ever, they just wouldnt be able to purchase a weapon till they were 30.

Cops and soldiers excluded.

Does the 2nd guarantee you an AGE at which you can purchase guns? No, it doesnt.
 
What in my arguments for rational gun control is incorrect or dishonest or made badly?

The arguments against me have been mostly emotional and disregard the history of gun controls which existed for most of our nation's history. The majority of posts by those opposed to all controls on guns are limited to personal attacks on my intelligence or character.

Thus I've decided the CZ may be the only place for an honest discussion on gun control.

I'm not the least bit intimidated by those obsessed with guns, who have no argument other than: The 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct, their fear of tyrannical government and their (irrational?) fears of going out in public unarmed.

I've taken on the first wo with reasoned remarks which have never been proved wrong.

1. There are already laws against the civilian population owning or having in their possession weapons of war unrestricted by law and or regulated.

Thus the Second Amendment is NOT sacrosanct as so many believe.

2. Only an idiot believes the possession of arms readily affordable and available to the current civilian population are sufficient to repeal a military or para military force of our government.

We live in a time when the government is temporary, and the people (at least those allowed to vote) can choose the civilian population who govern us, and control our military and para military agencies.

[THE GREATER THREAT TO OURSELVES AND OUR FAMILIES IS WHEN THE VOTE IS SUPPRESSED BY OVERT OR COVERT MEANS - BETTER TO WORRY ABOUT THE IMPACT ON OUR LIBERTY BY THE REALITY OF CU & McCUTCHEON V. FEC AND THE CURRENT EFFORTS BY SOME STATES TO LIMIT THE RIGHT TO VOTE BASED ON THE CANARD OF VOTER FRAUD]

Further more gun control does not outlaws guns, it regulates them. Licensing, registration and restrictions on specific forms of arms are already on the books. And yet loopholes exists, obviously, given who have had guns in their possession legally, and the horrors that they have inflicted in Connecticut, Virginia, Texas, Colorado, etc. etc.

3. I support a licensed person who can pass a background check and thereafter remains legally able to be a responsible gun owner has the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun.

4. Responsible people understand that not everyone should own, possess or ever have a gun in their custody or control.

So, responsible people, any ideas?

Gun control does not work. It never has. All it does is restrict the rights of the law abiding.
What a silly claim! No wonder you cite no evidence; there is none. Many nations have rounded up the arms in civilian circulation after the chaos of a war or a revolution. These countries have significantly lower rates of gun violence than the USA.

Law abiding isn't much of a criterion. The guns used in most of America's mass slaughters were purchased legally i.e. by law abiding citizens. Every gun starts out as a legal gun. The number of families owning a gun has been dropping for decades. The number of guns in circulation continues to rise because guns are more and more the fetish of gun nuts who own dozens of them. Gun ownership has itself become more and more an indicator of mental illness and social dysfunction.
What? I'm supposed to cite evidence that something isn't happening?
In some countries GUN violence has decreased, others not. But you make the mistake of only counting GUN violence. I guess you don't care about people getting killed, just not with guns right? It shows you only care about your disarmament agenda.

Guns in the hands of law abiding people have saved countless lives. That is a fact.
 
Raise the age that young men can buy a gun to the age of 30.

Who does the most mass shootings?
Who acts as straw buyers for criminals?
Who has young children?
Who has to much testoserone for theirs and others own good?

Young men under 30.
They can shoot, hunt, what ever, they just wouldnt be able to purchase a weapon till they were 30.

Cops and soldiers excluded.

Does the 2nd guarantee you an AGE at which you can purchase guns? No, it doesnt.

The 2nd states quite clearly that the right to a gun shall not be infringed. This covers all Americans regardless of age.
 
USA-RHODE-DAY2.JPG
 
The world works best when every individual has the means to protect themselves.
 
What in my arguments for rational gun control is incorrect or dishonest or made badly?

The arguments against me have been mostly emotional and disregard the history of gun controls which existed for most of our nation's history. The majority of posts by those opposed to all controls on guns are limited to personal attacks on my intelligence or character.

Thus I've decided the CZ may be the only place for an honest discussion on gun control.

I'm not the least bit intimidated by those obsessed with guns, who have no argument other than: The 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct, their fear of tyrannical government and their (irrational?) fears of going out in public unarmed.

I've taken on the first wo with reasoned remarks which have never been proved wrong.

1. There are already laws against the civilian population owning or having in their possession weapons of war unrestricted by law and or regulated.

Thus the Second Amendment is NOT sacrosanct as so many believe.

2. Only an idiot believes the possession of arms readily affordable and available to the current civilian population are sufficient to repeal a military or para military force of our government.

We live in a time when the government is temporary, and the people (at least those allowed to vote) can choose the civilian population who govern us, and control our military and para military agencies.

[THE GREATER THREAT TO OURSELVES AND OUR FAMILIES IS WHEN THE VOTE IS SUPPRESSED BY OVERT OR COVERT MEANS - BETTER TO WORRY ABOUT THE IMPACT ON OUR LIBERTY BY THE REALITY OF CU & McCUTCHEON V. FEC AND THE CURRENT EFFORTS BY SOME STATES TO LIMIT THE RIGHT TO VOTE BASED ON THE CANARD OF VOTER FRAUD]

Further more gun control does not outlaws guns, it regulates them. Licensing, registration and restrictions on specific forms of arms are already on the books. And yet loopholes exists, obviously, given who have had guns in their possession legally, and the horrors that they have inflicted in Connecticut, Virginia, Texas, Colorado, etc. etc.

3. I support a licensed person who can pass a background check and thereafter remains legally able to be a responsible gun owner has the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun.

4. Responsible people understand that not everyone should own, possess or ever have a gun in their custody or control.

So, responsible people, any ideas?











Gun laws have never reduced crime. Ever. They only criminalize the innocent. By all means punish the hell out of the criminal misuse of guns, but merely banning does nothing to reduce crime. Never has, never will.
 

Forum List

Back
Top