CDZ Gun Control

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Wry Catcher, Dec 22, 2015.

  1. Dan Daly
    Offline

    Dan Daly Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2014
    Messages:
    1,340
    Thanks Received:
    280
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +704
    Red: Leave it to someone inside the beltway to tell us the extent of our freedoms.

    Blue: The only limit to the right to keep and bear arms is that the exercise of those rights do not infringe upon the rights of others. Period. Just because you may be a hoplophobe doesn't mean that the rest of the citizenry must have their rights infringed...it only means that perhaps you should seek help for your mental infirmity.

    Green: Those in your local seem to be of that persuasion.

    Pink: The people were not afraid of their fellow citizens being armed...they were afraid of the armed thugs in the employ of the crown. Being a member of the new crown I can see why you don't want to acknowledge that.

    FYI, nothing in the DOL pertains to any aspect of the 2nd Amendment, which obviously did not yet exist...the DOL is relevant in it's recognition of our unalienable rights...one of which is the right to defend ourselves, our families and our communities by means at least as good as those used by government or criminals. The 2nd Amendment is merely an enumeration of that right...perhaps you need to read the countless essays debating not only the ratification of the Constitution, but also the ratification of the Bill of Rights to understand what the Bill of Rights are. You seem to be a very good example of what some of the Federalists used as an argument against a separate bill of rights....the argument that some ninny might take it as a granter of rights and thus the only rights we had.
     
  2. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    37,323
    Thanks Received:
    4,920
    Trophy Points:
    1,160
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +11,544
    Define "Criminals". If you agree they are those who intentionally violate the laws, we can and must include those who pollute our air, water and soil. Those who would suppress the right of others to vote and deny equal opportunity to all, as well as the street hustler who sells drugs or sex, the robber, rapist, burglar and petty thief.

    How about you? Have you ever ran a red light, rolled through a stop sign, stole a candy bar or smoked a joint?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    37,323
    Thanks Received:
    4,920
    Trophy Points:
    1,160
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +11,544
    Q. Do we live by the principles of freedom that this country was founded upon

    Q. Is boarding a vessel loaded with tea you do not own and tossing the tea into the sea while wearing a mask to hide your identity your idea of Freedom;

    Q. Should the Boston Patriots have been denied their Second Amendment Right based on this single criminal act.
     
  4. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    53,256
    Thanks Received:
    9,193
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +36,024

    And you are wrong….since all of the gun control measures target mature, cogitant, responsible gun owners who own guns while the criminals and mass shooters are not addressed.

    Add to that the fact that gun crime prosecution and low sentencing for gun crimes is the main driver of actual crime ,and the fact that gun crime prosecution under obama is down 33%………they don't care about criminals….when criminals are caught they get their guns….they hate the fact that 356,991,876 million guns are never used in crimes and are untouchable by their control…..that is why gun control is solely directed at normal gun owners. They want to create reasons to be able to bar people from owning guns and reasons they can collect those guns.
     
  5. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    53,256
    Thanks Received:
    9,193
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +36,024
    Well….that is incredibly easy…….if you use a gun to commit a crime you can be arrested and put in jail. That ensures actual justice and tranquility and does not impose retractions on 2nd Amendment rights…..

    Sadly, that isn't what you and the others want. You want to limit the access normal people have to guns in ways that do not address the actual criminals who use guns.
     
  6. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    53,256
    Thanks Received:
    9,193
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +36,024
    And again, you would be wrong. There are 357 million guns in the U.S. In 2014 less than 8,124 were used to commit murder.

    There are 357 million guns in the U.S. and in 2013 (a time of 320 million guns) there were only 505 accidental gun deaths.

    There are 13 million people carrying guns for self defense today…..and again, less than 8,124 guns are used to commit murder and those committing the murder are not the 13 million people carrying guns legally.

    Americans use guns 1.5 million times a year for self defense, according to bill clinton, and only kill 238 violent criminals…the rest run away, are injured or captured.

    So no…..the laws that are being pushed are not geared toward the gun users who lack the noted qualities you mention…since only a tiny percent of guns are used poorly in this country. And to say tiny is really understating how few guns in private hands are misused.


    The gun laws are solely targeted at normal gun owes, not criminals and mass shooters.
     
  7. 320 Years of History
    Offline

    320 Years of History Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Messages:
    6,060
    Thanks Received:
    810
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Washington, D.C.
    Ratings:
    +2,550
    Red:
    That phrase is appropriately used to amplify or clarify your own words/ideas when presenting them to others. It does not give you the imprimatur to put words in my mouth as you've done with the independent clause in that sentence.

    Blue:
    1. "Somebody" didn't write it; you did.
    2. It's not that I could not rebut the remark I did read for I can and could. The reason I wrote what I did was that the opening sentence's nature was illogical enough, that is, childishly so, that I decided whatever followed it would be based upon it and I had no interest in reading remarks that were based on (in total or in part) a non sequitur assertion introduced at the outset of a post. In other words, the post got off on the "wrong foot," and I just said, "Oh, hell no; I'm not reading the rest when the post starts out with a non sequitur."
    Green:
    What is non sequitur is that one's inability to be trusted to own/carry a firearm has no bearing at all on whether one should be permitted to move about in public. If one quite simply isn't permitted to have a gun, whether one can be trusted to use it responsibly -- in public or in private -- doesn't factor into whether one can be "allowed to roam our streets free." In other words, one's trustworthiness with a gun bears no relationship to whether one should have freedom of movement in the presence of others. On the other hand, if one cannot be trusted to own or carry a firearm, one should not be allowed to move about freely in public while one possesses a gun.

    Pink:
    Yes, so long as they aren't permitted to do so while they have a deadly weapon. I realize we cannot reasonably expect to prevent every irresponsible person from obtaining a gun. What we can do is put provisions in place that law abiding gun sellers and gun owners will follow to the extent that they do not make a gun available to a person who has demonstrable traits suggesting strongly and/or confirming that they cannot be relied upon not to use a gun in a criminal way, not including merely possessing it, which would be criminal for the irresponsible person(s) to possess, but not criminal for folks who've shown no reason why they cannot be trusted to own/carry a gun.

    Purple:
    Background checks are performed in order to determine whether there are events or circumstances in a person's history that suggest strongly or confirm that they are less likely or more likely to be worthy of being trusted to own or carry a gun.

    Day-glow green:
    Really? A whole paragraph devoted at mocking me? The puerile nature of that paragraph provides yet another illustration of the childishness that led me to stop reading the post that opened with the non sequitur statement. If the reason found in my (or anyone else's remarks) is weak, it can easily be refuted on its lack of logical merit. Berating me, however, does nothing to show the lack of merit in my arguments and it does say something about the person who resorted to ad hominem attacks in an attempt to erode the remark's merit.
     
  8. 320 Years of History
    Offline

    320 Years of History Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Messages:
    6,060
    Thanks Received:
    810
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Washington, D.C.
    Ratings:
    +2,550
    You and I are through discussing this matter, at least in this thread. Why?
    1. Red: ad hominem
    2. Blue: Whether I am or not has no bearing on anything outside myself.
    3. Green: ad hominem and where has it been established that I am a member of an old or new "crown?"
    4. What you think the DoI says and what it does say, and about whom it says the things it does say, are are not the same.
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

    That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
    Just in case you may not have gotten the point, it's this: so long as you refrain from presenting rigorously developed arguments, I will refrain from replying to your comments. It's not that I have a problem with debating ideas and principles. It's that I have no desire to do so when the ideas are illogical and/or presented as unsubstantiated assertions.

     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2016
  9. 320 Years of History
    Offline

    320 Years of History Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Messages:
    6,060
    Thanks Received:
    810
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Washington, D.C.
    Ratings:
    +2,550
    It doesn't matter how he defines that term. That Dan Daly has his own personal definition and understanding of what things mean is a meaningful portion of the challenge that has bored me in trying to have a discussion with him. That his remarks have come to bore me has little to do with him and much to do with me; I'm just not keen to engage folks who demonstrate an unwillingness to have a rationally driven discussion.

    One can commit a crime without being found to have been a criminal. There is a distinction between the lay meaning of the term and what is strictly mean by it in a legal context. Since this discussion deals with what should, should not, is or is not allowed by our system of laws, the legal definition is the one that must apply.
     
  10. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    37,323
    Thanks Received:
    4,920
    Trophy Points:
    1,160
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +11,544
    Criminal: "A person who has committed a crime, especially if he is a recidivist or the crime is a serious or violent one. In the eyes of the law, a person is a criminal who has been adjudged guilty of a crime, and he continues to be a criminal so long as the judgment remains in force"
    Ballendtine's Law Dictionary
    3rd, 1969

    I doubt that Mr. Daly has any concept of the legal meaning of the word, he simply echoed the meme of the conservative set.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

content