Gun Control - What's the Problem?

[Slade3200]

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.

.

The car comparison was being used to justify how laws and regulations make dangerous tools safer in the public arena. That was the point of the debate. Not whether it was a right or not. Your trying to take the conversation in a different direction . I’m not going to explain this again. This is like the 5th time now.

Yes guns are a right and driving is a privilege... I get it... not the point of this convo

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

When people have a history of being unstable and a danger to the public then Arming them is a public safety risk. They can get a taser or a baseball bat for their own personal safety. I’m fine with conditions and expirations to that btw

There is only so much protection you have with a bat or taser against a man with a gun. If the person is drugged out, even a taser won't stop them. Just ask any cop.

Well then felons better be smart about the situations they put themselves in. They need to earn back the public trust before we allow them to be armed

They should never be armed again. Too high of a recidivism rate in this country. The guy in PA that shot six cops is a felon.

A company I delivered to was part of a state program years ago. They paid him to employ ex-cons at his plating company. After a short time, the ex-cons got into fist fights, so he hired a security guard to watch over them. Then the security guard was attacked, so the security company sent several security guards. After a while it was costing the company too much money, so he divorced himself from that state program, and now no problems at all.

I too rented to ex-cons, and it was the biggest mistakes I ever made. Now my policy is no renting to felons.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

.

The car comparison was being used to justify how laws and regulations make dangerous tools safer in the public arena. That was the point of the debate. Not whether it was a right or not. Your trying to take the conversation in a different direction . I’m not going to explain this again. This is like the 5th time now.

Yes guns are a right and driving is a privilege... I get it... not the point of this convo

Yes, laws and regulations make dangerous tools safer in the public arena.

So, what your you saying? You want to license the carrying of "dangerous tools" (firearms) in the public arena?

We already do that.

You want to license the keeping of arms in one's personal space, as it appears here.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

Yeah. That sounds like a pretty suspicious bit of nonsense legal arguments.

That sounds like the whole "allodial title" bullshit legal "argument" we commonly hear from dudes who spend their time sitting and typing angry letters to the government beneath a bare light bulb in their single-room, off-grid shack.

.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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

Yeah. That sounds like a pretty suspicious bit of nonsense legal arguments.

That sounds like the whole "allodial title" bullshit legal "argument" we commonly hear from dudes who spend their time sitting and typing angry letters to the government beneath a bare light bulb in their single-room, off-grid shack.

.

You want to play smart ass with me? For real? I've been in courts. I've litigated cases... and WON. I worked in the legal field for several decades. So, you can say bad things against the patriot movement - and I know some of the arguments of which you're alluding to and some have merit.

Read that link. You might not like it, but it is the way it really is.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

When people have a history of being unstable and a danger to the public then Arming them is a public safety risk. They can get a taser or a baseball bat for their own personal safety. I’m fine with conditions and expirations to that btw

There is only so much protection you have with a bat or taser against a man with a gun. If the person is drugged out, even a taser won't stop them. Just ask any cop.

Well then felons better be smart about the situations they put themselves in. They need to earn back the public trust before we allow them to be armed

They should never be armed again. Too high of a recidivism rate in this country. The guy in PA that shot six cops is a felon.

A company I delivered to was part of a state program years ago. They paid him to employ ex-cons at his plating company. After a short time, the ex-cons got into fist fights, so he hired a security guard to watch over them. Then the security guard was attacked, so the security company sent several security guards. After a while it was costing the company too much money, so he divorced himself from that state program, and now no problems at all.

I too rented to ex-cons, and it was the biggest mistakes I ever made. Now my policy is no renting to felons.

I don’t like saying “never” but I understand and agree that recidivism is high and the situation is worth a good debate

 

[Cellblock2429]

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.

/—-/ They had high capacity weapons 100 years ago, nothing new.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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 you use a left wing argument, that is not my fault NOR is it a straw man argument. There are two approaches to the issue:

You can debate how many bullets a gun may hold - 5, 6, 20, 50, 100 rounds and it is a leftist argument. If a man had two .38 Special Charter Arms snub nose revolvers and killed 10 people, the left would rail against Saturday Night Specials. YOU are making a left wing argument. There isn't an acceptable number of people to be killed in a mass shooting. Sooooooo....

You can focus on what guns a person should or should not have (which you cannot control) OR you can put another idea on the table. That's what I did. I can reduce mass shootings by 90 percent without any more taxes, no more bureaucracies, and NO GUN CONTROL.

The powers that be didn't think up the idea and it don't fit on a bumper sticker or in a Tweet. So, you get to play the left's game, on their turf, and with their language.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

Yeah. That sounds like a pretty suspicious bit of nonsense legal arguments.

That sounds like the whole "allodial title" bullshit legal "argument" we commonly hear from dudes who spend their time sitting and typing angry letters to the government beneath a bare light bulb in their single-room, off-grid shack.

.

You want to play smart ass with me? For real? I've been in courts. I've litigated cases... and WON. I worked in the legal field for several decades. So, you can say bad things against the patriot movement - and I know some of the arguments of which you're alluding to and some have merit.

Read that link. You might not like it, but it is the way it really is.

I read the link. No legal authority is cited in that thread, nor have I seen any legal authority distinguishing inalienable and unalienable.

In fact, I have sources stating that they are different forms of the same fucking word.

Inalienable Rights - Definition, Examples, Cases

Definition of unalienable | Dictionary.com

Those people appear to be confusing un/inalienable rights with "Legal Rights" (those granted by government).

I too have been to Court, MANY TIMES.

.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

.

The car comparison was being used to justify how laws and regulations make dangerous tools safer in the public arena. That was the point of the debate. Not whether it was a right or not. Your trying to take the conversation in a different direction . I’m not going to explain this again. This is like the 5th time now.

Yes guns are a right and driving is a privilege... I get it... not the point of this convo

Yes, laws and regulations make dangerous tools safer in the public arena.

So, what your you saying? You want to license the carrying of "dangerous tools" (firearms) in the public arena?

We already do that.

You want to license the keeping of arms in one's personal space, as it appears here.

.

Personally I’m not totally on board with registration, I like airing out the pros and cons through debate. I do support background checks and regulations on certain weapons but for most issues I enjoy hearing both sides of the argument

 

[Slade3200]

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.

/—-/ They had high capacity weapons 100 years ago, nothing new.

So what?

 

[Rustic]

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.

.

The car comparison was being used to justify how laws and regulations make dangerous tools safer in the public arena. That was the point of the debate. Not whether it was a right or not. Your trying to take the conversation in a different direction . I’m not going to explain this again. This is like the 5th time now.

Yes guns are a right and driving is a privilege... I get it... not the point of this convo

Yes, laws and regulations make dangerous tools safer in the public arena.

So, what your you saying? You want to license the carrying of "dangerous tools" (firearms) in the public arena?

We already do that.

You want to license the keeping of arms in one's personal space, as it appears here.

.

Personally I’m not totally on board with registration, I like airing out the pros and cons through debate. I do support background checks and regulations on certain weapons but for most issues I enjoy hearing both sides of the argument

I am against anything that draws attention to a legal purchase, by law abiding citizens.
Any type of registration is unconstitutional, for good reason. You can’t trust the “man”....

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

.

The car comparison was being used to justify how laws and regulations make dangerous tools safer in the public arena. That was the point of the debate. Not whether it was a right or not. Your trying to take the conversation in a different direction . I’m not going to explain this again. This is like the 5th time now.

Yes guns are a right and driving is a privilege... I get it... not the point of this convo

Yes, laws and regulations make dangerous tools safer in the public arena.

So, what your you saying? You want to license the carrying of "dangerous tools" (firearms) in the public arena?

We already do that.

You want to license the keeping of arms in one's personal space, as it appears here.

.

Personally I’m not totally on board with registration, I like airing out the pros and cons through debate. I do support background checks and regulations on certain weapons but for most issues I enjoy hearing both sides of the argument

Fair enough.

The question becomes the purpose of a background check. If someone's background makes them unsafe to exercise a right, why is that person walking among us in the first place?

Same with registration. What is the purpose?

.

 

[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 you use a left wing argument, that is not my fault NOR is it a straw man argument. There are two approaches to the issue:

You can debate how many bullets a gun may hold - 5, 6, 20, 50, 100 rounds and it is a leftist argument. If a man had two .38 Special Charter Arms snub nose revolvers and killed 10 people, the left would rail against Saturday Night Specials. YOU are making a left wing argument. There isn't an acceptable number of people to be killed in a mass shooting. Sooooooo....

You can focus on what guns a person should or should not have (which you cannot control) OR you can put another idea on the table. That's what I did. I can reduce mass shootings by 90 percent without any more taxes, no more bureaucracies, and NO GUN CONTROL.

The powers that be didn't think up the idea and it don't fit on a bumper sticker or in a Tweet. So, you get to play the left's game, on their turf, and with their language.

OR you can decide not to play the absolutist one side or the other partisan games and simply think independently. Support gun rights and also support regulations that you think make us safer. You can also support external efforts in education and mental health care. #mindblown

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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

Yeah. That sounds like a pretty suspicious bit of nonsense legal arguments.

That sounds like the whole "allodial title" bullshit legal "argument" we commonly hear from dudes who spend their time sitting and typing angry letters to the government beneath a bare light bulb in their single-room, off-grid shack.

.

You want to play smart ass with me? For real? I've been in courts. I've litigated cases... and WON. I worked in the legal field for several decades. So, you can say bad things against the patriot movement - and I know some of the arguments of which you're alluding to and some have merit.

Read that link. You might not like it, but it is the way it really is.

I read the link. No legal authority is cited in that thread, nor have I seen any legal authority distinguishing inalienable and unalienable.

In fact, I have sources stating that they are different different forms of the same fucking word.

Inalienable Rights - Definition, Examples, Cases

Definition of unalienable | Dictionary.com

Those people appear to be confusing un/inalienable rights with "Legal Rights" (those granted by government).

I too have been to Court, MANY TIMES.

.

I can tell you've NEVER been to court on this issue:

"Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights." Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

You cannot surrender or forfeit an unalienable Right.

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

 

[Cellblock2429]

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.

/—-/ They had high capacity weapons 100 years ago, nothing new.

So what?

/——/ I’m responding to this: “especially with the types of weapons we have in modern times where dozens can be shot in 32 seconds!” He’s not the first one to think high capacity weapons are something new.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

.

The car comparison was being used to justify how laws and regulations make dangerous tools safer in the public arena. That was the point of the debate. Not whether it was a right or not. Your trying to take the conversation in a different direction . I’m not going to explain this again. This is like the 5th time now.

Yes guns are a right and driving is a privilege... I get it... not the point of this convo

Yes, laws and regulations make dangerous tools safer in the public arena.

So, what your you saying? You want to license the carrying of "dangerous tools" (firearms) in the public arena?

We already do that.

You want to license the keeping of arms in one's personal space, as it appears here.

.

Personally I’m not totally on board with registration, I like airing out the pros and cons through debate. I do support background checks and regulations on certain weapons but for most issues I enjoy hearing both sides of the argument

Fair enough.

The question becomes the purpose of a background check. If someone's background makes them unsafe to exercise a right, why is that person walking among us in the first place?

Same with registration. What is the purpose?

.

Take an drunk who gets in regular bar fights. Or an ex gang banger or the kid with bipolar disorder and anger issues... there are all kinds of situations where people aren’t spending life in jail but they present a risk factor for violence. I personally don’t think it’s responsible to easily and legally sell guns to those people.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

/—-/ They had high capacity weapons 100 years ago, nothing new.

So what?

/——/ I’m responding to this: “especially with the types of weapons we have in modern times where dozens can be shot in 32 seconds!” He’s not the first one to think high capacity weapons are something new.

I didn’t say they were new. I said I think it irresponsible to sell these kinds of weapons easily and legally. Autos also have high capacity and fire rates and they have been highly regulated for a while now. I think that’s a good thing not bad

 

[Rustic]

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 you use a left wing argument, that is not my fault NOR is it a straw man argument. There are two approaches to the issue:

You can debate how many bullets a gun may hold - 5, 6, 20, 50, 100 rounds and it is a leftist argument. If a man had two .38 Special Charter Arms snub nose revolvers and killed 10 people, the left would rail against Saturday Night Specials. YOU are making a left wing argument. There isn't an acceptable number of people to be killed in a mass shooting. Sooooooo....

You can focus on what guns a person should or should not have (which you cannot control) OR you can put another idea on the table. That's what I did. I can reduce mass shootings by 90 percent without any more taxes, no more bureaucracies, and NO GUN CONTROL.

The powers that be didn't think up the idea and it don't fit on a bumper sticker or in a Tweet. So, you get to play the left's game, on their turf, and with their language.

OR you can decide not to play the absolutist one side or the other partisan games and simply think independently. Support gun rights and also support regulations that you think make us safer. You can also support external efforts in education and mental health care. #mindblown

Of course, Everyone has their own opinion on the subject.
But the fact remains, the system is not broken. Don’t fix what’s not broken.

Legislating on pure emotion, Always ends up as a shit storm of total foolishness and childish behavior.

The average American almost has zero chance of being killed by someone using an AR or the like firearm. And there are millions of ARs and the like in this country, What is the percentage of those being used in violent criminal activity… A percentage of a percentage tops.

This country has much bigger fish to fry

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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 you use a left wing argument, that is not my fault NOR is it a straw man argument. There are two approaches to the issue:

You can debate how many bullets a gun may hold - 5, 6, 20, 50, 100 rounds and it is a leftist argument. If a man had two .38 Special Charter Arms snub nose revolvers and killed 10 people, the left would rail against Saturday Night Specials. YOU are making a left wing argument. There isn't an acceptable number of people to be killed in a mass shooting. Sooooooo....

You can focus on what guns a person should or should not have (which you cannot control) OR you can put another idea on the table. That's what I did. I can reduce mass shootings by 90 percent without any more taxes, no more bureaucracies, and NO GUN CONTROL.

The powers that be didn't think up the idea and it don't fit on a bumper sticker or in a Tweet. So, you get to play the left's game, on their turf, and with their language.

OR you can decide not to play the absolutist one side or the other partisan games and simply think independently. Support gun rights and also support regulations that you think make us safer. You can also support external efforts in education and mental health care. #mindblown

LMAO. You ARE a leftie. Once they get the Red Flag Laws, they will take your weapons without Due Process and then a psychologist or psychiatrist will have to sign off on you getting a gun. Those people are to a man (or woman) anti-gun and your gun Rights are history once you get in their back yard.

With the Republicans cow towing to the left (like you) this is NOT a partisan issue. The only regulations to make us safer is to identify potential shooters before they act and get them the help they need OR keep them in protective custody.