Lets talk about gun control

[Boatswain2PA]

...He responded to that and said it was sloppy and ill considered....

I know. I was asking him why he thought your response was sloppy/ill considered.

The Constitution doesn't say anything about NOT letting 10 year old's run around armed either. Or the insane, etc. It was left up to the state since it isn't spelled out and you won't find much support in letting either of those examples be armed. So the state clearly can play a role and like I said (earlier yesterday) shall issue doesn't violate the Constitution.

If one wants to argue that no state should regulate firearms at all, you will get nothing but laughs from left, right and center with zero chance of getting closer to your goal.

No sane person wants unfettered access to nuclear weapons by crazy people. Likewise no sane person wants to confiscate every gun in America (yes, there are lots of insane leftists in this country who want exactly that!).

We have lots of great, common sense federal gun control laws. We have restrictions on who can own weapons (prohibited persons), and we have restrictions on the type of weapons people can own (Title II weapons).

I think it is well within state's rights to pursue further restrictions if that is what those state legislator's want. Of course, if they are going against what their constituents want then they may want to look at the recall efforts in Colorado.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Anything that puts rounds on target and not on innocent bystanders has my support. Said in another thread properly conducted combat shooting should be required for CCW permits. Not as pressing for home defense ownership, but if you wanna carry in public I'd very much like to make sure you've been taught how to shoot accurately even pumped up on adrenaline.

And I don't care about making people like you feel good. This is a shall issue state, even as liberal as it is. There is no problem with bystanders getting mowed down, people aren't having quick draw contests in the mall. Your emotional state of mind should not rule out anothers' right to defend his or hers or family's life.

Training is always good but mandatory training makes it a state privelge and I don't trust the state. The fact is that crime has gone down where CCW's have been loosened and I've seen no evidence that innocent lives lost have been the result.

And this is an example of the sloppy, ill-considered ‘reasoning’ that makes Second Amendment advocates look ridiculous.

The issue has nothing to do with ‘state privilege’ or ‘trusting the state.’

The issue only concerns compelling advocates of a given gun control measure to justify and support that advocacy with objective, documented facts and evidence.

And absent that evidence, disallow such measures to be put into place.

Period.

What you’ll find is there is indeed no objective, documented facts and evidence that justifies such measures as gun permits and licenses, gun registration, purchase restrictions and waiting periods, or bans on firearms for purely cosmetic reasons as well as magazine design and capacity.

The only thing that matters is what can be proven in court; or in the case of most gun control measures, what can’t be proven.

More guns do not equal more crime. More guns do not equal more deaths. Assault weapons are not more dangerous than non assault weapons. High capacity magazines do not lead to more mass shootings. Locking people up does not reduce crime. Denying people basic rights does not make them safer.

In other words, there is absolutely no possible defense of gun control because it is completely impossible to justify it using actual facts, yet you constantly argue that gun control is justified simply because it exists.