Observations regarding the anti-gun crowd

M14 Shooter

The Light of Truth
Sep 26, 2007
37,248
10,484
1,340
Bridge, USS Enterprise
What -I- find most amusing about the anti-gun crowd - especially the anti-gun crowd on this board - is your inabaility to engage in a knowledgeable, reasoned conversation about the issue. Your posts are full of strawmen, abject ignorance, unsound reasoning, non-sequitur and ad hom, all of which, of course, are useless for a meaningful conversation among adults.

If you are -so- right, why can you not present a sound, knowledgeable argument to back your position?
 
I agree, most anti-gun people are ignorant about guns (probably because they're obviously less likely to own themselves). I'm against making any new guns illegal-I think the guns that are currently available to the public are reasonable, and at a good level. Where I think we need to change things is that I don't think we should be able to bring a gun to public events-that's asking for trouble, and yes we should have security at those events in place so people can't get guns in.

We already ban guns at schools, and courthouses-and I think by allowing people to carry guns at those places isn't wise.

So in other words: I think people are the problem-not the guns. And there should only be a very small amount of places where we publicly limit where people can bring in guns, I just think that pubic political events happens to be one.

(private property I think it should be up to the owners of the property).

edit: so there's no non-liberal, but not really conservative either 2 cents on the issue.
 
Last edited:
Mini, I'm not anti-gun. I don't own one and never have, but I've considered it and if I wanted one, it's nice to know I could.

What I find aggravating is the pro-gun crew seems unwilling to discuss reasonable restrictions. Why must assault weapons be legal? Why do you need to be allowed to carry guns in churches, schools, government buildings or bars?

And I greatly fear the day they produce a plastic gun that does not show up on an x-ray, which seems inevitable to me.
 
What I find aggravating is the pro-gun crew seems unwilling to discuss reasonable restrictions.
This is not at all true. Like most pro-gun people, I am willing to dicsuss any restriction that:
-Keeps guns from criminals
-Does not infringe on the right to arms.
Have any suggestions?

Why must assault weapons be legal?
To ban them infringes on the right to arms, especially in that 'assault weapons' are -exactly- the sort of "arms" the 2nd was created to protect.

Why do you need to be allowed to carry guns in churches, schools, government buildings...
As we see, repeatedly, these places are not immune to violent crime. Thus, the need.

And I greatly fear the day they produce a plastic gun that does not show up on an x-ray, which seems inevitable to me
The pressures involved in the discharge of a firearm are rather dramatic, and so what you fear is quite far away.
 
Of the 5 most deadly multiple shootings around the world in recent history, 4 have occurred in Europe in countries with strict gun control laws.

All, with exception of this recent Tuscon shooting, have occurred in places where it is illegal to carry a gun. Trouble is...the criminals know it...they don't care about the law.
 
What I find aggravating is the pro-gun crew seems unwilling to discuss reasonable restrictions.
This is not at all true. Like most pro-gun people, I am willing to dicsuss any restriction that:
-Keeps guns from criminals
-Does not infringe on the right to arms.
Have any suggestions?

I think we could restrict who can sell firearms. I can go into the flea market up the road from me tomorrow and purchase a used firearm with no background checks, or criminal checks. They'd ask for my ID, to prove age, and that's pretty much it. This is how criminals can get their hands on guns easier. (this is just in Florida, I don't know the laws for other states).

I don't think it's unreasonable: do it like you do a liquor license. You make it so people have to follow protocols at making sure who's purchasing the gun is allowed to have one (aka-not a criminal), runs the ID, or information from the person into a statewide database, and they can instantly see if that person has been convicted of a felony before.

You also don't take the rights away from any law-abiding citizen. Like with alcohol you can purchase it from a place that has a liquor license, and as long as that place follows the law, they wont run into any problems with their license to sell.

Remember: the constitution states we have the rights to own firearms-not sell them.

Now I know, and understand that the criminal would just go and get them illegally from other areas, I don't dispute this. But this would at least make it harder for them to get their hands on it. While I think any law abiding citizen should be allowed to own
 
Quick quiz. Which inflicts more damage? 338 Lapua mag or an assault rifle chambered in .223, 5.56. And, are these weapons currently automatic? Awww.....never mind.
 
Last edited:
I think we could restrict who can sell firearms. I can go into the flea market up the road from me tomorrow and purchase a used firearm with no background checks, or criminal checks. They'd ask for my ID, to prove age, and that's pretty much it. This is how criminals can get their hands on guns easier. (this is just in Florida, I don't know the laws for other states).
The difference here is licensed dealers v private sales. Licensed dealers are currently required to follow exsting law regardless where they sell. The 'flea market' example, above, is almost certainly a private sale, and is then under the exact same restrictions as if you were to sell a gun to your brother while standing in your house.
You are suggesting that you should not be able to so sell a gun to your brother?
 
I agree, most anti-gun people are ignorant about guns (probably because they're obviously less likely to own themselves). I'm against making any new guns illegal-I think the guns that are currently available to the public are reasonable, and at a good level. Where I think we need to change things is that I don't think we should be able to bring a gun to public events-that's asking for trouble, and yes we should have security at those events in place so people can't get guns
So in other words: I think people are the problem-not the guns. And there should only be a very small amount of places where we publicly limit where people can bring in guns, I just think that pubic political events happens to be one.

(private property I think it should be up to the owners of the property).

edit: so there's no non-liberal, but not really conservative either 2 cents on the issue.
I may feel the need to be able to protect myself and my family at the public event.
 
I think we could restrict who can sell firearms. I can go into the flea market up the road from me tomorrow and purchase a used firearm with no background checks, or criminal checks. They'd ask for my ID, to prove age, and that's pretty much it. This is how criminals can get their hands on guns easier. (this is just in Florida, I don't know the laws for other states).
The difference here is licensed dealers v private sales. Licensed dealers are currently required to follow exsting law regardless where they sell. The 'flea market' example, above, is almost certainly a private sale, and is then under the exact same restrictions as if you were to sell a gun to your brother while standing in your house.
You are suggesting that you should not be able to so sell a gun to your brother?

You're right, if I go to a store-they have to do a background check-but I think you're missing my point here. I think if you want to do private selling to the general public you should have to do background checks. But not all private sales are the same, depending on what you're selling. Because you can't have a private sale of alcohol to members of the general public can you? It's illegal to sell beer at a garage sale for example, because you don't have a license to do so. Garage sales are private sales-but are open to the general public, and that's where you run into your problem.

Flea markets are private sales, but are obviously open to the general public. That's a big difference between selling a gun to your brother (which for the record-I think should be legal).
 
Mini, I'm not anti-gun. I don't own one and never have, but I've considered it and if I wanted one, it's nice to know I could.

What I find aggravating is the pro-gun crew seems unwilling to discuss reasonable restrictions. Why must assault weapons be legal?

What precisely is an "assault weapon"? A firearm that looks menacing.

It should be legal because"

1) I may feel the desire or wish as either a collector or someone who wants it for self defense to own one

2) There is a constitutional right to own one.


Why do you need to be allowed to carry guns in churches, schools, government buildings or bars?

Because I may wish to have the ability to protect myself and my fellow congregants.

In fact, I do carry to synagogue. In fact, I asked for a vote from the synagogue, and got the endorsement of the synagogue to carry a handgun concealed.

Why do you wish to take that right away from me?

And I greatly fear the day they produce a plastic gun that does not show up on an x-ray, which seems inevitable to me.

We will cross that bridge when we get into it. In the meantime, I can't even get a bottle of water through the X Ray machine.
 
Last edited:
Quick quiz. Which inflicts more damage? 338 Lapua mag or an assault rifle chambered in .223, 5.56. And, are these weapons currently automatic? Awww.....never mind.

Quick quiz. What has higher alcohol content: a 12oz bud, or a 12 oz. of Sam Adams (boston lager). Well anybody who doesn't know that right right away obviously should not be able allowed to voice their opinions on alcohol laws. And has obviously never drank alcohol before. :cuckoo:

And I greatly fear the day they produce a plastic gun that does not show up on an x-ray, which seems inevitable to me.

We will cross that bridge when we get into it. In the meantime, I can't even get a bottle of water through the X Ray machine.

I think madeline meant metal detector. And obviously a plastic gun isn't realistic anytime soon.
 
Last edited:
You're right, if I go to a store-they have to do a background check-but I think you're missing my point here. I think if you want to do private selling to the general public you should have to do background checks.
The governemnt can only require this for dealers as only dealers are engaged in "commerce" - that is, commercial sales. Me selling to you is not aa commercial sale, and as such, not commerce.
 
I oppose any gun laws. "Shall Not Be Infringed" is all you need to know.

When you close off public areas you only give the criminals more security to massacre people. And that is the stark reality of any item you want to name. There is a price to pay for freedom, whether it is war, a gun, or driving a car. Stop stealing my rights because you are a coward to pay the price.
 
Last edited:
What I find aggravating is the pro-gun crew seems unwilling to discuss reasonable restrictions.
This is not at all true. Like most pro-gun people, I am willing to dicsuss any restriction that:
-Keeps guns from criminals
-Does not infringe on the right to arms.
Have any suggestions?

I think we could restrict who can sell firearms. I can go into the flea market up the road from me tomorrow and purchase a used firearm with no background checks, or criminal checks. They'd ask for my ID, to prove age, and that's pretty much it. This is how criminals can get their hands on guns easier. (this is just in Florida, I don't know the laws for other states).

I don't think it's unreasonable: do it like you do a liquor license. You make it so people have to follow protocols at making sure who's purchasing the gun is allowed to have one (aka-not a criminal), runs the ID, or information from the person into a statewide database, and they can instantly see if that person has been convicted of a felony before.

You also don't take the rights away from any law-abiding citizen. Like with alcohol you can purchase it from a place that has a liquor license, and as long as that place follows the law, they wont run into any problems with their license to sell.

Remember: the constitution states we have the rights to own firearms-not sell them.

Now I know, and understand that the criminal would just go and get them illegally from other areas, I don't dispute this. But this would at least make it harder for them to get their hands on it. While I think any law abiding citizen should be allowed to own

Legally you can not purchase a handgun from a flea market. If you aren't purchasing it from a private citizen, the "person" must be a FFL, and licensed to sell handguns. You also have to go through a federal background check to get one. Also, you have to register your handgun with the police.

You do have to follow protocols. To buy a long gun you have to pass a background check. To buy a handgun the requirements are stricter.
 
What -I- find most amusing about the anti-gun crowd - especially the anti-gun crowd on this board - is your inabaility to engage in a knowledgeable, reasoned conversation about the issue. Your posts are full of strawmen, abject ignorance, unsound reasoning, non-sequitur and ad hom, all of which, of course, are useless for a meaningful conversation among adults.

If you are -so- right, why can you not present a sound, knowledgeable argument to back your position?

Can you give an example we can look at?
 
Legally you can not purchase a handgun from a flea market. If you aren't purchasing it from a private citizen, the "person" must be a FFL, and licensed to sell handguns. You also have to go through a federal background check to get one. Also, you have to register your handgun with the police.

You do have to follow protocols. To buy a long gun you have to pass a background check. To buy a handgun the requirements are stricter.
Maybe where YOU live.
Here, we dont need to register anything, and the requirements for handguns are the same as long guns.
 
What -I- find most amusing about the anti-gun crowd - especially the anti-gun crowd on this board - is your inabaility to engage in a knowledgeable, reasoned conversation about the issue. Your posts are full of strawmen, abject ignorance, unsound reasoning, non-sequitur and ad hom, all of which, of course, are useless for a meaningful conversation among adults.

If you are -so- right, why can you not present a sound, knowledgeable argument to back your position?

Can you give an example we can look at?
Happily.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-romper-room/149596-politicizing-a-tragedy-307.html#post3203798
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top