Gun Control - What's the Problem?

[Slade3200]

There is no right to vote.

Americans Don’t Have a Constitutional Right to Vote — Is It Time for a Change?

There Is No Right To Vote | Current Affairs

Keep running with that one! Haha

That is kind of silly because if there was a right to vote, then felons could not be denied.
But originally women could not vote, and males who did not own land could not vote.
There is no history of voting being considered an absolute right, because it is not in the Bill of Rights.

When you break our laws and get arrested you forfeit some of your rights

The ONLY way rights can be forfeit is when it is absolutely necessary in order to defend the rights of others.
But preventing ex-felons from having the right of self defense can not be shown to make anyone else any safer.
So while you could say they forfeit their right to self defense while in prison, that is to protect the guards, and does not infringe because the guards then protect the inmates. That is not true once the person has finished their sentence and they are released. So it can then no longer be justifiable to prevent their right of self defense.

It is more accurate to say that unalienable Rights can be suspended when a person is serving a sentence for an actual crime. Constitutionally speaking, the individual should be able to retain their Rights at the end of a prison sentence.

If we let people out of prison, we're saying they've been punished; that they have repaid their debt to society; that they are rehabilitated. If the government cannot say that, they have NO business sending dangerous people back into our streets.

Ever hear of parol? A probationary period where felons get released but are still closely monitored? Do you consider that illegal or a bad idea as well?

 

[Slade3200]

I’m not saying anything about taking guns away from responsible people. Please let that sink in, I’m tired of repeating myself

If you are not promoting taking guns away from responsible people, then why would you be taking about any additional federal firearms laws, when clearly there already are way too many?
We know what the causes of crime, suicide, mass murder, etc., are, and weapons accessibility is definitely NOT one of them.

If you do not want to take guns from responsible people, then you would be against all federal firearm laws, not just because the federal government is supposed to be denied jurisdiction by the Bill of Rights, but because it is distant, arrogant, and generally abusive.

When there is an increase in senseless violence like mass murders, suicides, etc., there is definitely serious things wrong. Attempts to suppress the symptoms, so that the serious problems are not addressed and ignored instead, would be criminally irresponsible. One would only do that by more gun control, if the problems with society were deliberate and the intent was to make them even worse.

Look at some of California's approach to firearms. They made the SKS illegal, even though it is only a 10 shot internal magazine. Clearly the ONLY reason for singling out the benign SKS is that it was selling for only $88. So then the motivation by the state of California has to be to deliberately discriminate against poor people. There can be no other motive.

Banning certain guns is not taking guns away. You can still get guns. Having regulations to make sure we are selling guns to responsible people is not taking guns away from responsible people. I don’t get what your problem is. I live in California. I have a dozen guns. Almost all my friends have guns. It’s really not a big deal

Wrong.
The proposed Assault Weapons Ban is deliberately targeting the most popular and affordable of all weapons because if the volume economy of scale.
They not only want to make tens of millions of current gun owners into criminals, but they want to put most gun makers out of business by making their currently legal and popular products, illegal.
That violates the 4th and 5th amendment because it takes away livelihood without due compensation.

The reason why private sales currently do not do background checks, is because the BATF refuses to do them.
People selling privately, want to conduct background checks, but the BATF will only conduct them for a person with a Federal Firearms License. And that adds an addition $20 to any transaction.

And since the reality is that there is no such thing as an assault weapon, and pistols, shotguns, and all small rifles have been used as assault weapons, the slippery slope will allow them to confiscate ALL firearms then eventually.

That’s another interesting point however when I see a situation like in Dayton... where a stoner bought body armor and a 100 round mag for his psycho buddy who shot nearly 40 people in 32 seconds... well that kind of weaponry is totally unnecessary and reckless to sell like that in my opinion. So y’all fighting to deregulate guns should probably hold your breath for a bit... at least wait for the blood to dry.

In the fantasy world of liberals citizens should not own guns. Let us suppose that a shooter was limited to a .357 revolver. And let us say that a shooter carries two of these .357 revolvers to a mass shooting and gets all 12 shots to be fatal. Would that be acceptable in the fight against gun violence?

The problem is NOT firearms. The problem is people. And most mass shooters are young kids - and they have sent warning signals for quite some time before committing an act of violence. It's strange, but nobody wants to talk about the prevention side of this discussion.

Ok so now you jump to the absolutist argument. How is that relevant at all to what I’ve been saying. I support gun rights so if you want to debate me then use my positions don’t bring in the straw man “Left” that’s weak

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You are assuming that every time a straw buyer is caught that a life is saved?

There is no evidence of that

I’m not assuming that. I never said every time. That’s a fake argument

But the facts are that straw purchase/sales are very hard to convict because the person guilty can just claim it was a theft, so they usually get off. That means only about 1 of 1000 get convicted. But the number of convictions really has no correlation to lives saved. The vast majority of criminals with illegal guns are not shooting people. They more likely are using them to just intimidate, either to defend drug turf, at a robbery where not shots are fired, etc. It likely is wrong to imply that laws actually save any lives. People are going to do what they are going to do, regardless of what laws exist.

Do you think regulations like licensing and traffic laws along with highway patrol save lives on the road?

Not really because at any one time there are thousands of people driving who don't have a license

You’re right, but why don’t you use that as an argument to eliminate all licensing requirements? Get ride of the DMV and highway patrol all together?

Because driving on publicly owned roads is not a right.

Committing battery is not a right -- even with consent. Thus, a person must be licensed by the stated to do so in practicing medicine or in hand-to-hand combat (boxing).

Speaking on behalf of another individual before a court is not a right. Thus, a person must be licensed to do so by the court or court system wherein he/she practices.

We can go on and on.

Keeping an bearing arms is a right that pre-exists government.

.

 

[Slade3200]

I’m not assuming that. I never said every time. That’s a fake argument

But the facts are that straw purchase/sales are very hard to convict because the person guilty can just claim it was a theft, so they usually get off. That means only about 1 of 1000 get convicted. But the number of convictions really has no correlation to lives saved. The vast majority of criminals with illegal guns are not shooting people. They more likely are using them to just intimidate, either to defend drug turf, at a robbery where not shots are fired, etc. It likely is wrong to imply that laws actually save any lives. People are going to do what they are going to do, regardless of what laws exist.

Do you think regulations like licensing and traffic laws along with highway patrol save lives on the road?

Not really because at any one time there are thousands of people driving who don't have a license

You’re right, but why don’t you use that as an argument to eliminate all licensing requirements? Get ride of the DMV and highway patrol all together?

Because as you have been told umpteen times driving is not and will never be a right

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

If your gonna default back to that weak knee jerk argument then stop responding and save your breath. I’ve said several times now that the car comparisons have nothing to with rights vs privilege...that’s a different debate. this debate is about the effectiveness of laws and regulations. Let that sink in and if you still don’t get it then dont engage.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Keep running with that one! Haha

That is kind of silly because if there was a right to vote, then felons could not be denied.
But originally women could not vote, and males who did not own land could not vote.
There is no history of voting being considered an absolute right, because it is not in the Bill of Rights.

When you break our laws and get arrested you forfeit some of your rights

The ONLY way rights can be forfeit is when it is absolutely necessary in order to defend the rights of others.
But preventing ex-felons from having the right of self defense can not be shown to make anyone else any safer.
So while you could say they forfeit their right to self defense while in prison, that is to protect the guards, and does not infringe because the guards then protect the inmates. That is not true once the person has finished their sentence and they are released. So it can then no longer be justifiable to prevent their right of self defense.

It is more accurate to say that unalienable Rights can be suspended when a person is serving a sentence for an actual crime. Constitutionally speaking, the individual should be able to retain their Rights at the end of a prison sentence.

If we let people out of prison, we're saying they've been punished; that they have repaid their debt to society; that they are rehabilitated. If the government cannot say that, they have NO business sending dangerous people back into our streets.

Ever hear of parol? A probationary period where felons get released but are still closely monitored? Do you consider that illegal or a bad idea as well?

Parol is a conditional release. Fuck up on parol and you serve the remainder of your sentence, and probably additional time.

Parol is not required. It is a privilege granted to those who appear to be reformed.

.

 

[Slade3200]

How do they get your address? Regardless it is a registration process.

You have to send in a voter registration form in order for them to get your address to mail back to, but that is not very significant.
You ignored the important parts, which is that any gun control or regulations it prohibited from the federal government by the Bill of Rights.
And while it is fine for your address be used for voter registration, it is not fine for government to have the address of all the guns in the country. Government can be better than criminals or foreign invaders, but government do also have a long history of being abusive themselves. No one should want any government to have too much power or private information.

Why is it ok to have your address to vote and not for guns?

Because voting is held locally and the best way to prevent people from voting multiple times is to know where they live and where they should be voting

If a town has 500 residents but 5000 people voted in that town then you know there was voter fraud occurring

Agree, it is a smart thing to regulate.... but isn’t the gun argument saying that it’s wrong to regulate our rights?

I gave you a reason why voting is based on address

There is no need to know the address of anyone who owns a gun

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

That’s your opinion. Some Might say that knowing who bought the gun and how to find them would be a useful thing to do if the gun was found to be used to murder somebody.

 

[Slade3200]

Sorry Ray I had to stop at your 90k to 900 k OD rate... that is complete bullshit. Don’t even try to sneak that by

Then try sneaking in the rescinding of drug laws in our country, and see what happens.

We were not discussing recinding all drug laws, but just ending the federal War on Drugs, because it is ILLEGAL!

How is it illegal? You can't tell me the Constitution, because the Constitution doesn't have any guaranteed rights for drugs.

Drug laws have to be federal in order to work. It's just like states that now have legal pot. People in nearby states will just drive to a legal state to buy dope when things get dry in their own state. And if you have a state of people strung out on dope so badly that half the people don't work, it will be the federal government providing them welfare and medical care.

That’s the same argument being used to federalize gun laws. Gilroy shooter drove to Vegas to get his weapon

We already have federal gun laws and we need to enforce those laws before we add more

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Which federal gun laws do you want to enforce? Which ones do you think are most effective?

 

[Slade3200]

I’m not assuming that. I never said every time. That’s a fake argument

But the facts are that straw purchase/sales are very hard to convict because the person guilty can just claim it was a theft, so they usually get off. That means only about 1 of 1000 get convicted. But the number of convictions really has no correlation to lives saved. The vast majority of criminals with illegal guns are not shooting people. They more likely are using them to just intimidate, either to defend drug turf, at a robbery where not shots are fired, etc. It likely is wrong to imply that laws actually save any lives. People are going to do what they are going to do, regardless of what laws exist.

Do you think regulations like licensing and traffic laws along with highway patrol save lives on the road?

Not really because at any one time there are thousands of people driving who don't have a license

You’re right, but why don’t you use that as an argument to eliminate all licensing requirements? Get ride of the DMV and highway patrol all together?

Because driving on publicly owned roads is not a right.

Committing battery is not a right -- even with consent. Thus, a person must be licensed by the stated to do so in practicing medicine or in hand-to-hand combat (boxing).

Speaking on behalf of another individual before a court is not a right. Thus, a person must be licensed to do so by the court or court system wherein he/she practices.

We can go on and on.

Keeping an bearing arms is a right that pre-exists government.

.

I’m done with the “rights” argument. I’ve explained several times how it’s not relevant. It’s a weak minded retort. Do better

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If you are not promoting taking guns away from responsible people, then why would you be taking about any additional federal firearms laws, when clearly there already are way too many?
We know what the causes of crime, suicide, mass murder, etc., are, and weapons accessibility is definitely NOT one of them.

If you do not want to take guns from responsible people, then you would be against all federal firearm laws, not just because the federal government is supposed to be denied jurisdiction by the Bill of Rights, but because it is distant, arrogant, and generally abusive.

When there is an increase in senseless violence like mass murders, suicides, etc., there is definitely serious things wrong. Attempts to suppress the symptoms, so that the serious problems are not addressed and ignored instead, would be criminally irresponsible. One would only do that by more gun control, if the problems with society were deliberate and the intent was to make them even worse.

Look at some of California's approach to firearms. They made the SKS illegal, even though it is only a 10 shot internal magazine. Clearly the ONLY reason for singling out the benign SKS is that it was selling for only $88. So then the motivation by the state of California has to be to deliberately discriminate against poor people. There can be no other motive.

Banning certain guns is not taking guns away. You can still get guns. Having regulations to make sure we are selling guns to responsible people is not taking guns away from responsible people. I don’t get what your problem is. I live in California. I have a dozen guns. Almost all my friends have guns. It’s really not a big deal

Wrong.
The proposed Assault Weapons Ban is deliberately targeting the most popular and affordable of all weapons because if the volume economy of scale.
They not only want to make tens of millions of current gun owners into criminals, but they want to put most gun makers out of business by making their currently legal and popular products, illegal.
That violates the 4th and 5th amendment because it takes away livelihood without due compensation.

The reason why private sales currently do not do background checks, is because the BATF refuses to do them.
People selling privately, want to conduct background checks, but the BATF will only conduct them for a person with a Federal Firearms License. And that adds an addition $20 to any transaction.

And since the reality is that there is no such thing as an assault weapon, and pistols, shotguns, and all small rifles have been used as assault weapons, the slippery slope will allow them to confiscate ALL firearms then eventually.

That’s another interesting point however when I see a situation like in Dayton... where a stoner bought body armor and a 100 round mag for his psycho buddy who shot nearly 40 people in 32 seconds... well that kind of weaponry is totally unnecessary and reckless to sell like that in my opinion. So y’all fighting to deregulate guns should probably hold your breath for a bit... at least wait for the blood to dry.

In the fantasy world of liberals citizens should not own guns. Let us suppose that a shooter was limited to a .357 revolver. And let us say that a shooter carries two of these .357 revolvers to a mass shooting and gets all 12 shots to be fatal. Would that be acceptable in the fight against gun violence?

The problem is NOT firearms. The problem is people. And most mass shooters are young kids - and they have sent warning signals for quite some time before committing an act of violence. It's strange, but nobody wants to talk about the prevention side of this discussion.

Ok so now you jump to the absolutist argument. How is that relevant at all to what I’ve been saying. I support gun rights so if you want to debate me then use my positions don’t bring in the straw man “Left” that’s weak

If everyone would get off their irrational media conditioning about firearms being inherently evil, we can start looking to solutions other than those that deny inalienable rights.

Think about what you are doing. You are freely advocating the complete subversion of a right because you are concerned about a security issue that threatens only 0.0003% of the population.

That is how far this shit has come.

Ask yourself why such a minor risk would be such a huge priority? Who is selling that message?

What could POSSIBLY be the motive?

.

 

[Cellblock2429]

I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.

Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...

Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.


View attachment 59771

/——/ I don’t believe you own guns. And that is just the first issue with your post. But I do own a gun and my family and friends own guns and we see that you gun grabbers’ true agenda is the eventual ban and confiscation.

I own 11. Don’t really care if you believe me or not

/—-/ OK I take your word for it. Just remember with the Red Flag laws, anyone can call the police and say you’re a menace and they will take your guns until you prove yourself stable. Think about that.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

But the facts are that straw purchase/sales are very hard to convict because the person guilty can just claim it was a theft, so they usually get off. That means only about 1 of 1000 get convicted. But the number of convictions really has no correlation to lives saved. The vast majority of criminals with illegal guns are not shooting people. They more likely are using them to just intimidate, either to defend drug turf, at a robbery where not shots are fired, etc. It likely is wrong to imply that laws actually save any lives. People are going to do what they are going to do, regardless of what laws exist.

Do you think regulations like licensing and traffic laws along with highway patrol save lives on the road?

Not really because at any one time there are thousands of people driving who don't have a license

You’re right, but why don’t you use that as an argument to eliminate all licensing requirements? Get ride of the DMV and highway patrol all together?

Because driving on publicly owned roads is not a right.

Committing battery is not a right -- even with consent. Thus, a person must be licensed by the stated to do so in practicing medicine or in hand-to-hand combat (boxing).

Speaking on behalf of another individual before a court is not a right. Thus, a person must be licensed to do so by the court or court system wherein he/she practices.

We can go on and on.

Keeping an bearing arms is a right that pre-exists government.

.

I’m done with the “rights” argument. I’ve explained several times how it’s not relevant. It’s a weak minded retort. Do better

No. Wrong.

The weak-minded are those who are seeking false security at the expense of liberty.

You do better.

.

 

[Slade3200]

Banning certain guns is not taking guns away. You can still get guns. Having regulations to make sure we are selling guns to responsible people is not taking guns away from responsible people. I don’t get what your problem is. I live in California. I have a dozen guns. Almost all my friends have guns. It’s really not a big deal

Wrong.
The proposed Assault Weapons Ban is deliberately targeting the most popular and affordable of all weapons because if the volume economy of scale.
They not only want to make tens of millions of current gun owners into criminals, but they want to put most gun makers out of business by making their currently legal and popular products, illegal.
That violates the 4th and 5th amendment because it takes away livelihood without due compensation.

The reason why private sales currently do not do background checks, is because the BATF refuses to do them.
People selling privately, want to conduct background checks, but the BATF will only conduct them for a person with a Federal Firearms License. And that adds an addition $20 to any transaction.

And since the reality is that there is no such thing as an assault weapon, and pistols, shotguns, and all small rifles have been used as assault weapons, the slippery slope will allow them to confiscate ALL firearms then eventually.

That’s another interesting point however when I see a situation like in Dayton... where a stoner bought body armor and a 100 round mag for his psycho buddy who shot nearly 40 people in 32 seconds... well that kind of weaponry is totally unnecessary and reckless to sell like that in my opinion. So y’all fighting to deregulate guns should probably hold your breath for a bit... at least wait for the blood to dry.

In the fantasy world of liberals citizens should not own guns. Let us suppose that a shooter was limited to a .357 revolver. And let us say that a shooter carries two of these .357 revolvers to a mass shooting and gets all 12 shots to be fatal. Would that be acceptable in the fight against gun violence?

The problem is NOT firearms. The problem is people. And most mass shooters are young kids - and they have sent warning signals for quite some time before committing an act of violence. It's strange, but nobody wants to talk about the prevention side of this discussion.

Ok so now you jump to the absolutist argument. How is that relevant at all to what I’ve been saying. I support gun rights so if you want to debate me then use my positions don’t bring in the straw man “Left” that’s weak

If everyone would get off their irrational media conditioning about firearms being inherently evil, we can start looking to solutions other than those that deny inalienable rights.

Think about what you are doing. You are freely advocating the complete subversion of a right because you are concerned about a security issue that threatens only 0.0003% of the population.

That is how far this shit has come.

Ask yourself why such a minor risk would be such a huge priority? Who is selling that message?

What could POSSIBLY be the motive?

.

Well that’s an interesting distortion of my position. Please quote or explain what I’ve said that makes you say that I’m advocating for the complete subversion of a Right...

I can’t wait to see how you wiggle around this...

 

[Slade3200]

I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.

Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...

Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.


View attachment 59771

/——/ I don’t believe you own guns. And that is just the first issue with your post. But I do own a gun and my family and friends own guns and we see that you gun grabbers’ true agenda is the eventual ban and confiscation.

I own 11. Don’t really care if you believe me or not

/—-/ OK I take your word for it. Just remember with the Red Flag laws, anyone can call the police and say you’re a menace and they will take your guns until you prove yourself stable. Think about that.

I’m not worried about being called a menace. The only people who would say so are the nit balls on this board, and even those I don’t think would consider me a violent threat... just annoying

 

[Slade3200]

Do you think regulations like licensing and traffic laws along with highway patrol save lives on the road?

Not really because at any one time there are thousands of people driving who don't have a license

You’re right, but why don’t you use that as an argument to eliminate all licensing requirements? Get ride of the DMV and highway patrol all together?

Because driving on publicly owned roads is not a right.

Committing battery is not a right -- even with consent. Thus, a person must be licensed by the stated to do so in practicing medicine or in hand-to-hand combat (boxing).

Speaking on behalf of another individual before a court is not a right. Thus, a person must be licensed to do so by the court or court system wherein he/she practices.

We can go on and on.

Keeping an bearing arms is a right that pre-exists government.

.

I’m done with the “rights” argument. I’ve explained several times how it’s not relevant. It’s a weak minded retort. Do better

No. Wrong.

The weak-minded are those who are seeking false security at the expense of liberty.

You do better.

.

I do better by sticking to the argument and giving direct answers. You pivoting to the “rights” argument was a cop out

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Wrong.
The proposed Assault Weapons Ban is deliberately targeting the most popular and affordable of all weapons because if the volume economy of scale.
They not only want to make tens of millions of current gun owners into criminals, but they want to put most gun makers out of business by making their currently legal and popular products, illegal.
That violates the 4th and 5th amendment because it takes away livelihood without due compensation.

The reason why private sales currently do not do background checks, is because the BATF refuses to do them.
People selling privately, want to conduct background checks, but the BATF will only conduct them for a person with a Federal Firearms License. And that adds an addition $20 to any transaction.

And since the reality is that there is no such thing as an assault weapon, and pistols, shotguns, and all small rifles have been used as assault weapons, the slippery slope will allow them to confiscate ALL firearms then eventually.

That’s another interesting point however when I see a situation like in Dayton... where a stoner bought body armor and a 100 round mag for his psycho buddy who shot nearly 40 people in 32 seconds... well that kind of weaponry is totally unnecessary and reckless to sell like that in my opinion. So y’all fighting to deregulate guns should probably hold your breath for a bit... at least wait for the blood to dry.

In the fantasy world of liberals citizens should not own guns. Let us suppose that a shooter was limited to a .357 revolver. And let us say that a shooter carries two of these .357 revolvers to a mass shooting and gets all 12 shots to be fatal. Would that be acceptable in the fight against gun violence?

The problem is NOT firearms. The problem is people. And most mass shooters are young kids - and they have sent warning signals for quite some time before committing an act of violence. It's strange, but nobody wants to talk about the prevention side of this discussion.

Ok so now you jump to the absolutist argument. How is that relevant at all to what I’ve been saying. I support gun rights so if you want to debate me then use my positions don’t bring in the straw man “Left” that’s weak

If everyone would get off their irrational media conditioning about firearms being inherently evil, we can start looking to solutions other than those that deny inalienable rights.

Think about what you are doing. You are freely advocating the complete subversion of a right because you are concerned about a security issue that threatens only 0.0003% of the population.

That is how far this shit has come.

Ask yourself why such a minor risk would be such a huge priority? Who is selling that message?

What could POSSIBLY be the motive?

.

Well that’s an interesting distortion of my position. Please quote or explain what I’ve said that makes you say that I’m advocating for the complete subversion of a Right...

I can’t wait to see how you wiggle around this...

When you require a license to exercise an inalienable right, it is no longer a right.

PERIOD.

You cannot get around that fact.

Rights are held and exercised by individuals without the need for permission. Read this quote:

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." —Thomas Jefferson

The only limitation on rights is the limits drawn by the equal rights of others. No permission by government is required.

There is no way around that truth.

.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Banning certain guns is not taking guns away. You can still get guns. Having regulations to make sure we are selling guns to responsible people is not taking guns away from responsible people. I don’t get what your problem is. I live in California. I have a dozen guns. Almost all my friends have guns. It’s really not a big deal

Wrong.
The proposed Assault Weapons Ban is deliberately targeting the most popular and affordable of all weapons because if the volume economy of scale.
They not only want to make tens of millions of current gun owners into criminals, but they want to put most gun makers out of business by making their currently legal and popular products, illegal.
That violates the 4th and 5th amendment because it takes away livelihood without due compensation.

The reason why private sales currently do not do background checks, is because the BATF refuses to do them.
People selling privately, want to conduct background checks, but the BATF will only conduct them for a person with a Federal Firearms License. And that adds an addition $20 to any transaction.

And since the reality is that there is no such thing as an assault weapon, and pistols, shotguns, and all small rifles have been used as assault weapons, the slippery slope will allow them to confiscate ALL firearms then eventually.

That’s another interesting point however when I see a situation like in Dayton... where a stoner bought body armor and a 100 round mag for his psycho buddy who shot nearly 40 people in 32 seconds... well that kind of weaponry is totally unnecessary and reckless to sell like that in my opinion. So y’all fighting to deregulate guns should probably hold your breath for a bit... at least wait for the blood to dry.

In the fantasy world of liberals citizens should not own guns. Let us suppose that a shooter was limited to a .357 revolver. And let us say that a shooter carries two of these .357 revolvers to a mass shooting and gets all 12 shots to be fatal. Would that be acceptable in the fight against gun violence?

The problem is NOT firearms. The problem is people. And most mass shooters are young kids - and they have sent warning signals for quite some time before committing an act of violence. It's strange, but nobody wants to talk about the prevention side of this discussion.

Ok so now you jump to the absolutist argument. How is that relevant at all to what I’ve been saying. I support gun rights so if you want to debate me then use my positions don’t bring in the straw man “Left” that’s weak

If everyone would get off their irrational media conditioning about firearms being inherently evil, we can start looking to solutions other than those that deny inalienable rights.

Think about what you are doing. You are freely advocating the complete subversion of a right because you are concerned about a security issue that threatens only 0.0003% of the population.

That is how far this shit has come.

Ask yourself why such a minor risk would be such a huge priority? Who is selling that message?

What could POSSIBLY be the motive?

.

Owning a firearm is an unalienable Right NOT an inalienable one. And that is not semantics.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Not really because at any one time there are thousands of people driving who don't have a license

You’re right, but why don’t you use that as an argument to eliminate all licensing requirements? Get ride of the DMV and highway patrol all together?

Because driving on publicly owned roads is not a right.

Committing battery is not a right -- even with consent. Thus, a person must be licensed by the stated to do so in practicing medicine or in hand-to-hand combat (boxing).

Speaking on behalf of another individual before a court is not a right. Thus, a person must be licensed to do so by the court or court system wherein he/she practices.

We can go on and on.

Keeping an bearing arms is a right that pre-exists government.

.

I’m done with the “rights” argument. I’ve explained several times how it’s not relevant. It’s a weak minded retort. Do better

No. Wrong.

The weak-minded are those who are seeking false security at the expense of liberty.

You do better.

.

I do better by sticking to the argument and giving direct answers. You pivoting to the “rights” argument was a cop out

How is that a cop out?

Is it not a right?

Let's start there, shall we?

Don't tell me you're one of the assholes who argued that the right to keep and bear arms is not an individual right, but is exercised collectively by militia, are you?

That is unforgivable and ends all discussion, if that is you.

.

 

[Slade3200]

That’s another interesting point however when I see a situation like in Dayton... where a stoner bought body armor and a 100 round mag for his psycho buddy who shot nearly 40 people in 32 seconds... well that kind of weaponry is totally unnecessary and reckless to sell like that in my opinion. So y’all fighting to deregulate guns should probably hold your breath for a bit... at least wait for the blood to dry.

In the fantasy world of liberals citizens should not own guns. Let us suppose that a shooter was limited to a .357 revolver. And let us say that a shooter carries two of these .357 revolvers to a mass shooting and gets all 12 shots to be fatal. Would that be acceptable in the fight against gun violence?

The problem is NOT firearms. The problem is people. And most mass shooters are young kids - and they have sent warning signals for quite some time before committing an act of violence. It's strange, but nobody wants to talk about the prevention side of this discussion.

Ok so now you jump to the absolutist argument. How is that relevant at all to what I’ve been saying. I support gun rights so if you want to debate me then use my positions don’t bring in the straw man “Left” that’s weak

If everyone would get off their irrational media conditioning about firearms being inherently evil, we can start looking to solutions other than those that deny inalienable rights.

Think about what you are doing. You are freely advocating the complete subversion of a right because you are concerned about a security issue that threatens only 0.0003% of the population.

That is how far this shit has come.

Ask yourself why such a minor risk would be such a huge priority? Who is selling that message?

What could POSSIBLY be the motive?

.

Well that’s an interesting distortion of my position. Please quote or explain what I’ve said that makes you say that I’m advocating for the complete subversion of a Right...

I can’t wait to see how you wiggle around this...

When you require a license to exercise an inalienable right, it is no longer a right.

PERIOD.

You cannot get around that fact.

Rights are held and exercised by individuals without the need for permission. Read this quote:

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." —Thomas Jefferson

The only limitation on rights is the limits drawn by the equal rights of others. No permission by government is required.

There is no way around that truth.

.

Owning a gun both protects your right to life but also can threaten others right to life... especially with the types of weapons we have in modern times where dozens can be shot in 32 seconds! So there is justification within that quote to put limits on the power that we hold. Protection and killing power are both factors.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

That’s another interesting point however when I see a situation like in Dayton... where a stoner bought body armor and a 100 round mag for his psycho buddy who shot nearly 40 people in 32 seconds... well that kind of weaponry is totally unnecessary and reckless to sell like that in my opinion. So y’all fighting to deregulate guns should probably hold your breath for a bit... at least wait for the blood to dry.

In the fantasy world of liberals citizens should not own guns. Let us suppose that a shooter was limited to a .357 revolver. And let us say that a shooter carries two of these .357 revolvers to a mass shooting and gets all 12 shots to be fatal. Would that be acceptable in the fight against gun violence?

The problem is NOT firearms. The problem is people. And most mass shooters are young kids - and they have sent warning signals for quite some time before committing an act of violence. It's strange, but nobody wants to talk about the prevention side of this discussion.

Ok so now you jump to the absolutist argument. How is that relevant at all to what I’ve been saying. I support gun rights so if you want to debate me then use my positions don’t bring in the straw man “Left” that’s weak

If everyone would get off their irrational media conditioning about firearms being inherently evil, we can start looking to solutions other than those that deny inalienable rights.

Think about what you are doing. You are freely advocating the complete subversion of a right because you are concerned about a security issue that threatens only 0.0003% of the population.

That is how far this shit has come.

Ask yourself why such a minor risk would be such a huge priority? Who is selling that message?

What could POSSIBLY be the motive?

.

Well that’s an interesting distortion of my position. Please quote or explain what I’ve said that makes you say that I’m advocating for the complete subversion of a Right...

I can’t wait to see how you wiggle around this...

When you require a license to exercise an inalienable right, it is no longer a right.

PERIOD.

You cannot get around that fact.

Rights are held and exercised by individuals without the need for permission. Read this quote:

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." —Thomas Jefferson

The only limitation on rights is the limits drawn by the equal rights of others. No permission by government is required.

There is no way around that truth.

.

Yes, the government CAN require licenses for inalienable rights You can forfeit them and government can even take them away from you. That is where the left has you, son. You cannot take away nor can a person forfeit an unalienable Right. Long as you use their terminology, they will laugh at your arguments. Learn constitutional language.

Read this link:

Stolen Rights

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Wrong.
The proposed Assault Weapons Ban is deliberately targeting the most popular and affordable of all weapons because if the volume economy of scale.
They not only want to make tens of millions of current gun owners into criminals, but they want to put most gun makers out of business by making their currently legal and popular products, illegal.
That violates the 4th and 5th amendment because it takes away livelihood without due compensation.

The reason why private sales currently do not do background checks, is because the BATF refuses to do them.
People selling privately, want to conduct background checks, but the BATF will only conduct them for a person with a Federal Firearms License. And that adds an addition $20 to any transaction.

And since the reality is that there is no such thing as an assault weapon, and pistols, shotguns, and all small rifles have been used as assault weapons, the slippery slope will allow them to confiscate ALL firearms then eventually.

That’s another interesting point however when I see a situation like in Dayton... where a stoner bought body armor and a 100 round mag for his psycho buddy who shot nearly 40 people in 32 seconds... well that kind of weaponry is totally unnecessary and reckless to sell like that in my opinion. So y’all fighting to deregulate guns should probably hold your breath for a bit... at least wait for the blood to dry.

In the fantasy world of liberals citizens should not own guns. Let us suppose that a shooter was limited to a .357 revolver. And let us say that a shooter carries two of these .357 revolvers to a mass shooting and gets all 12 shots to be fatal. Would that be acceptable in the fight against gun violence?

The problem is NOT firearms. The problem is people. And most mass shooters are young kids - and they have sent warning signals for quite some time before committing an act of violence. It's strange, but nobody wants to talk about the prevention side of this discussion.

Ok so now you jump to the absolutist argument. How is that relevant at all to what I’ve been saying. I support gun rights so if you want to debate me then use my positions don’t bring in the straw man “Left” that’s weak

If everyone would get off their irrational media conditioning about firearms being inherently evil, we can start looking to solutions other than those that deny inalienable rights.

Think about what you are doing. You are freely advocating the complete subversion of a right because you are concerned about a security issue that threatens only 0.0003% of the population.

That is how far this shit has come.

Ask yourself why such a minor risk would be such a huge priority? Who is selling that message?

What could POSSIBLY be the motive?

.

Owning a firearm is an unalienable Right NOT an inalienable one. And that is not semantics.

"The question is often asked, "Is the word in the Declaration of Independence unalienable or is it inalienable?"

"The final version of the Declaration uses the word "unalienable." Some earlier drafts used the word "inalienable," which is the term our modern dictionaries prefer. The two words mean precisely the same thing.

"According to The American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style from Houghton Mifflin Company:

"The unalienable rights that are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence could just as well have been inalienable, which means the same thing. Inalienable or unalienablerefers to that which cannot be given away or taken away."


The Declaration of Independence: Unalienable / Inalinable