CDZ Gun Control

[2aguy]

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. [Insofar as you are] 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.

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.

​

Just a question…what is it with the colors….?

 

[2aguy]

If one cannot be trusted to own or carry a firearm, they should not be allowed to roam our streets free.
....

Non sequitur.

I had to stop reading at that point....

In other words, somebody said something you didn't want to hear and could not rebut. What part, specifically, don't you think is logical? Do you think that people we can't trust with deadly weapons should be allowed to roam the streets? If so, why do you bother with laws preventing felons or the mentally incompetent from owning firearms. Why do you bother with background checks?

Oh wait, what was I thinking...I see you are an inside the beltway genius...of course criminals obey laws, so we can let them roam free...and even let them run the country! Brilliant! Hows that's been working out BTW? Must not be so good...since you are wanting even more laws for the criminals to ignore.

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.

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.

And they are worthless for stopping gun crime. Criminals use people with clean records to get the gun…since there is nothing in their history……mass shooters, pass the background check because there is nothing in their history…
So what does a background check do….one, it costs money in some of these blue states that is excessive, two, it takes time and most of the time the initial refusal is a mistake, delaying the owner from getting the gun..

The biggest thing…..current background checks do not stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns…..which is good for the gun grabbers…that allows them to demand "universal background checks" which will then be circumvented by criminals the same way current checks are gotten past and mass shooters will still be able to pass them…

But……..the gun grabbers can then demand gun registration to allow Universal Background Checks to be possible..because if you don't know who has the gun, you can't know if a background check was done for the transfer….and once they have registration…..then they can ban the guns when they get the political will…..

 

[Kalki]

Read 'The Second Amendment Primer' by Les Adams. It is filled with the American founder's quotes and views on guns and why the right to self-defense is considered necessary. Then, read Blackstone's 'Commentaries on the Laws of England', in particular the section on the development and origin of the concept of the natural human right to self defense and why it was considered a necessity. It was solely due to the fear of authoritarian government, and to enable a last resort for the people to abolish a government that became tyrannical and governed against the will of the people.

The first battle of the Revolutionary War in America between the "rebels" and British soldiers, when the British army was marching to confiscate guns in the town of Concord to prevent the "rebels" from defending their interests against the tyrannical government that did not have their interests.

 

[Kalki]

Read 'The Second Amendment Primer' by Les Adams. It is filled with the American founder's quotes and views on guns and why the right to self-defense is considered necessary. Then, read Blackstone's 'Commentaries on the Laws of England', in particular the section on the development and origin of the concept of the natural human right to self defense and why it was considered a necessity. It was solely due to the fear of authoritarian governments, and to enable a last resort for the people to abolish a government that became tyrannical and governed against the will of the people.

The first battle of the Revolutionary War in America between the "rebels" and British soldiers, was when the British army was marching to confiscate guns in the town of Concord to prevent the "rebels" from defending their interests against the tyrannical government that did not have their interests.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Read 'The Second Amendment Primer' by Les Adams. It is filled with the American founder's quotes and views on guns and why the right to self-defense is considered necessary. Then, read Blackstone's 'Commentaries on the Laws of England', in particular the section on the development and origin of the concept of the natural human right to self defense and why it was considered a necessity. It was solely due to the fear of authoritarian governments, and to enable a last resort for the people to abolish a government that became tyrannical and governed against the will of the people.

The first battle of the Revolutionary War in America between the "rebels" and British soldiers, was when the British army was marching to confiscate guns in the town of Concord to prevent the "rebels" from defending their interests against the tyrannical government that did not have their interests.

None of which is relevant to the issue of gun control. Control is not banishment and does not even imply confiscation except for due cause.

The right to self defense is sacrosanct and the ability to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable / dangerous, violent criminals, drunks and drug addicts and members of criminal gangs is something all rational Americans understand and support.

 

[Kalki]

No, taking guns away is the goal of gun control, but the Soros, Bloombergs, Feinsteins, etc., know they must first train people to think like you first, and remove the guns in little steps, like boiling frogs by slowly turning up the heat. Many of the gun control advocates have openly admitted that a complete confiscation is the goal but they know they cannot do it in one go.

Do the dangerous people have a right to the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, or are there restrictions to them too?

The Soros, Bloombergs, Feinsteins, etc. have trained you to think that a free people have limitations on arms. The truth is if there is someone who cannot be trusted with a gun, because they will use it to violate the rights of another, then that person should not be allowed in society in the first place. If you cannot trust someone when you let them out of their cage, then they do not belong in society in the first place. Pointing at their criminality and denying them the right as a free citizen to own weapons, is a way to steadily and slowly remove these rights from everyone. Every rational person understands that if someone cannot be trusted with a gun, that person does not belong in society.

 

[Wry Catcher]

No, taking guns away is the goal of gun control, but the Soros, Bloombergs, Feinsteins, etc., know they must first train people to think like you first, and remove the guns in little steps, like boiling frogs by slowly turning up the heat. Many of the gun control advocates have openly admitted that a complete confiscation is the goal but they know they cannot do it in one go.

Do the dangerous people have a right to the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, or are there restrictions to them too?

The Soros, Bloombergs, Feinsteins, etc. have trained you to think that a free people have limitations on arms. The truth is if there is someone who cannot be trusted with a gun, because they will use it to violate the rights of another, then that person should not be allowed in society in the first place. If you cannot trust someone when you let them out of their cage, then they do not belong in society in the first place. Pointing at their criminality and denying them the right as a free citizen to own weapons, is a way to steadily and slowly remove these rights from everyone. Every rational person understands that if someone cannot be trusted with a gun, that person does not belong in society.

This ^^^ is not original and is simply a lot of words in creating the logical fallacies common to all who oppose gun controls, known as the Slippery Slope and the Straw Man.

Gun control is not a false dichotomy, no regulations or total confiscation; that is how every single thread on this topic is characterized by those who oppose gun control. It is dishonest and completely fabricated form of rhetoric.

You have no inside knowledge of what the Soros, Bloombergs or Feinsteins plan, and simply make up a worst case scenario which is illogical and in some cases pathological. It is fear mongering and hate mongering, and thus not reasonable or logical.

 

[Kalki]

The gun control advocates are continuously quoted in the NRA publications. What I wrote is an absolute fact. It is not a logic fallacy to point at what the proponents of gun control say themselves, that their true goal is total confiscation. I would suggest studying your enemy (the NRA magazine ) before you comment further. Subscribe to the
'1st Freedom' magazine by the NRA and you will see how much you have been lied to, by the proponents of gun control. The general news media is one-sided stories and half-truths and lies. The only way you will learn this is by studying the literature of those groups you oppose. Don't just do this for guns, do it for everything and every group you oppose. This will make you objective.


Do internet searches for who owns the media. It is in the hands of a very few people who work together. Read 'Propaganda' by Edward Bernays.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Which has nothing at all to do with firearms in common use for traditionally lawful purposes, and especially those sorts of lawful weapons possessed at home that are suitable to militia duty.

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.

It worked for the Iraqi and Afghani insurgents

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.

You cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of universal licensing of gun owners and/or registration of firearms.
Absent that demonstrated necessity, you cannot present a sound argument for the constitutionality of same.

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

No one has argued otherwise.

 

[Kalki]

I argued that if people cannot be trusted with a gun, they do not belong in society in the first place and should not be let out of their cage.

 

[Staidhup]

How about anyone convicted of using a gun in the commission of a crime gets the death penalty? Simple, old school, and to the point.