Honest and open debate on gun control

[M14 Shooter]

501 posts... no sound responses..

 

[frigidweirdo]

Again, lots of claims and all unsupported. And yes, I am using THAT duff argument that unless you can show that limiting my rights is going to do anything then I see no reason to limit my rights. You want to make the change, not me. It isn't my job to show it won't work, it's yours to show it will.

So yes..... blah blah posts and still nothing.

No, the OP was " (1) prevents criminals from getting guns and (2) does not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm all ears."

So, the whole point of this is you can't do anything that infringes on the right to keep arms. So, it's not about showing that limiting rights is going to do anything at all. It's about whether not limiting right and implementing some kind of gun control is going to work.

So..... how can you limit guns without limiting guns? You tell me.

 

[M14 Shooter]

9 days, more than 500 posts, no sound responses.

 

[PratchettFan]

Again, lots of claims and all unsupported. And yes, I am using THAT duff argument that unless you can show that limiting my rights is going to do anything then I see no reason to limit my rights. You want to make the change, not me. It isn't my job to show it won't work, it's yours to show it will.

So yes..... blah blah posts and still nothing.

No, the OP was " (1) prevents criminals from getting guns and (2) does not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm all ears."

So, the whole point of this is you can't do anything that infringes on the right to keep arms. So, it's not about showing that limiting rights is going to do anything at all. It's about whether not limiting right and implementing some kind of gun control is going to work.

So..... how can you limit guns without limiting guns? You tell me.

So.... if I am understanding you, you don't think it is possible prevent criminals from getting guns without infringing on the rights of the law-abiding. Is that correct?

 

[M14 Shooter]

So.... if I am understanding you, you don't think it is possible prevent criminals from getting guns without infringing on the rights of the law-abiding. Is that correct?

That is -absolutely- correct.

 

[M14 Shooter]

10 days. more than 500 posts, no sound responses.

 

[Derideo_Te]

At some point the OP is going to realize that no one is buying his phony "honest and open debate on gun control" because they all see that he is simply not honest enough to have one in the first place.

 

[PratchettFan]

At some point the OP is going to realize that no one is buying his phony "honest and open debate on gun control" because they all see that he is simply not honest enough to have one in the first place.

That's very easy to say, but the reality is that not one single argument has been made which did not boil down to "we oughta just because". Complaining that it isn't fair because you are expected to back up a statement is ridiculous.

 

[M14 Shooter]

At some point the OP is going to realize that no one is buying his phony "honest and open debate on gun control" because they all see that he is simply not honest enough to have one in the first place.

That's very easy to say, but the reality is that not one single argument has been made which did not boil down to "we oughta just because". Complaining that it isn't fair because you are expected to back up a statement is ridiculous.

Never mind that those putting up those arguments are doing so from ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[Derideo_Te]

At some point the OP is going to realize that no one is buying his phony "honest and open debate on gun control" because they all see that he is simply not honest enough to have one in the first place.

That's very easy to say, but the reality is that not one single argument has been made which did not boil down to "we oughta just because". Complaining that it isn't fair because you are expected to back up a statement is ridiculous.

Never mind that those putting up those arguments are doing so from ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Which just happens to be 100% of everyone who doesn't share your Gun Festish obsession in your delusional opinion.

Everyone else in the world is wrong but the OP!



Your thread is dying because you lack the honesty and integrity to actually have an "honest and open debate on gun control".

Gotta love the irony when an OP sets himself up for failure.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Almost 2 weeks, 510 posts, no sound responses.

 

[RKMBrown]

Almost 2 weeks, 510 posts, no sound responses.

Careful what you ask for. I just may take you up on it for the fun.

As with other products that when used carry large risk... guns owners should also be required to undergo testing and carry liability insurance for cases where the weapon is used in an un-responsible manner. The testing should be rigorous and weed out insane people, as well as risks to society. Since a death may be involved the amount of liability insurance should be significantly large.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Almost 2 weeks, 510 posts, no sound responses.

Careful what you ask for. I just may take you up on it for the fun.
As with other products that when used carry large risk...

Such as....?
Looking for examples.

 

[RKMBrown]

Almost 2 weeks, 510 posts, no sound responses.

Careful what you ask for. I just may take you up on it for the fun.
As with other products that when used carry large risk...

Such as....?
Looking for examples.

Driving a bus.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Almost 2 weeks, 510 posts, no sound responses.

Careful what you ask for. I just may take you up on it for the fun.
As with other products that when used carry large risk...

Such as....?
Looking for examples.

Driving a bus.

Do you need insurance to buy/own a bus? To keep it in your barn? To drive it across your yard?
Do you need a CDL to buy/own a bus? To keep it in your barn? To drive it across your yard?

 

[RKMBrown]

Almost 2 weeks, 510 posts, no sound responses.

Careful what you ask for. I just may take you up on it for the fun.
As with other products that when used carry large risk...

Such as....?
Looking for examples.

Driving a bus.

Do you need insurance to buy/own a bus? To keep it in your barn? To drive it across your yard?
Do you need a CDL to buy/own a bus? To keep it in your barn? To drive it across your yard?

Depends on the state and where your "barn" is. Some states require proof to buy. I'm sure if the bus is not drive-able you may be able to get a waiver for the pile of metal. You are quibbling. The place a BUS is used is the road. The purpose to transport PEOPLE. All of which require licensing and insurance.

Another example is your home. To live on certain properties requires insurance in some states esp. for areas of risk, such as flood plains. Further, depending on your use of the property some uses require licensing by the state or other local communities. For example, building a home on your property running electric, running plumbing, digging a well. Your home is not without government regulations of all kinds.

Think of the gun as a piece of property that requires regulation for the varying purposes that you want it for. Look at hunting... you have to have a license right? Do you want to end hunting licenses?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Almost 2 weeks, 510 posts, no sound responses.

Careful what you ask for. I just may take you up on it for the fun.
As with other products that when used carry large risk...

Such as....?
Looking for examples.

Driving a bus.

Do you need insurance to buy/own a bus? To keep it in your barn? To drive it across your yard?
Do you need a CDL to buy/own a bus? To keep it in your barn? To drive it across your yard?

You are quibbling. The place a BUS is used is the road.

"Ownership" and "use" are different thing; you want to take a require a condition for use and apply it as a condition of ownership. Apples/oranges.

Another example is your home. To live on certain properties requires insurance in some states esp. for areas of risk, such as flood plains.

This time, you're using a condition of a specific scenario to justify a condition for a general scenario/ Apples/oranges.

Further, depending on your use of the property some uses require licensing by the state or other local communities.

Condition of use v condition of ownership. Apples/oranges.

Now...
How does any of this prevent criminals from getting guns?
How does any of this not qualify and a precondition on the exercise of a right not inherent to same -- that is, an infringement.

 

[RKMBrown]

Careful what you ask for. I just may take you up on it for the fun.
As with other products that when used carry large risk...

Such as....?
Looking for examples.

Driving a bus.

Do you need insurance to buy/own a bus? To keep it in your barn? To drive it across your yard?
Do you need a CDL to buy/own a bus? To keep it in your barn? To drive it across your yard?

You are quibbling. The place a BUS is used is the road.

"Ownership" and "use" are different thing; you want to take a require a condition for use and apply it as a condition of ownership. Apples/oranges.

Another example is your home. To live on certain properties requires insurance in some states esp. for areas of risk, such as flood plains.

This time, you're using a condition of a specific scenario to justify a condition for a general scenario/ Apples/oranges.

Further, depending on your use of the property some uses require licensing by the state or other local communities.

Condition of use v condition of ownership. Apples/oranges.

Now...
How does any of this prevent criminals from getting guns?
How does any of this not qualify and a precondition on the exercise of a right not inherent to same -- that is, an infringement.

You want to broad cast over the air? You need a license for that. But wait what about free speech?

You want to sell booze, or apples, or oranges? You need a license for that and liability insurance.

You want to drive a car? You need a license for that and liability insurance.

You want to carry a gun to defend yourself in public? You need a license for that and liability insurance.

You want to dig for water? You need a license for that.

You want to get married? You need a license for that.

You want to go hunting with a gun? You need a license for that and liability insurance.

You want to keep a gun at home for self defense? You need a license for that and liability insurance.

You want a non-functional gun for decorative purposes only? No problem we'll fill the barrel with concrete for ya and file down the firing pin.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Such as....?
Looking for examples.

Driving a bus.

Do you need insurance to buy/own a bus? To keep it in your barn? To drive it across your yard?
Do you need a CDL to buy/own a bus? To keep it in your barn? To drive it across your yard?

You are quibbling. The place a BUS is used is the road.

"Ownership" and "use" are different thing; you want to take a require a condition for use and apply it as a condition of ownership. Apples/oranges.

Another example is your home. To live on certain properties requires insurance in some states esp. for areas of risk, such as flood plains.

This time, you're using a condition of a specific scenario to justify a condition for a general scenario/ Apples/oranges.

Further, depending on your use of the property some uses require licensing by the state or other local communities.

Condition of use v condition of ownership. Apples/oranges.

Now...
How does any of this prevent criminals from getting guns?
How does any of this not qualify and a precondition on the exercise of a right not inherent to same -- that is, an infringement.

You want to broad cast over the air? You need a license for that. But wait what about free speech?

License to use the assigned frequency, not to speak your mind. Apples/oranges

You want to sell booze, or apples, or oranges? You need a license for that and liability insurance

Relevance?.

You want to drive a car? You need a license for that and liability insurance.

Use v ownership. Apples.oranges

You want to carry a gun to defend yourself in public? You need a license for that and liability insurance.

Use v ownership.

You want to go hunting with a gun? You need a license for that and liability insurance.

Use v ownership

You want to keep a gun at home for self defense? You need a license for that and liability insurance.

Based on what you've argued so far, where is the precedent for the constitutionality to require a license and insurance for the basic exercise of a right?
How does any of this prevent criminals from getting guns?

 

[RKMBrown]

Driving a bus.

Do you need insurance to buy/own a bus? To keep it in your barn? To drive it across your yard?
Do you need a CDL to buy/own a bus? To keep it in your barn? To drive it across your yard?

You are quibbling. The place a BUS is used is the road.

"Ownership" and "use" are different thing; you want to take a require a condition for use and apply it as a condition of ownership. Apples/oranges.

Another example is your home. To live on certain properties requires insurance in some states esp. for areas of risk, such as flood plains.

This time, you're using a condition of a specific scenario to justify a condition for a general scenario/ Apples/oranges.

Further, depending on your use of the property some uses require licensing by the state or other local communities.

Condition of use v condition of ownership. Apples/oranges.

Now...
How does any of this prevent criminals from getting guns?
How does any of this not qualify and a precondition on the exercise of a right not inherent to same -- that is, an infringement.

You want to broad cast over the air? You need a license for that. But wait what about free speech?

License to use the assigned frequency, not to speak your mind. Apples/oranges

You want to sell booze, or apples, or oranges? You need a license for that and liability insurance

Relevance?.

You want to drive a car? You need a license for that and liability insurance.

Use v ownership. Apples.oranges

You want to carry a gun to defend yourself in public? You need a license for that and liability insurance.

Use v ownership.

You want to go hunting with a gun? You need a license for that and liability insurance.

Use v ownership

You want to keep a gun at home for self defense? You need a license for that and liability insurance.

Based on what you've argued so far, where is the precedent for the constitutionality to require a license and insurance for the basic exercise of a right?
How does any of this prevent criminals from getting guns?

Your argument is that there is a difference between use and ownership. The self-defense use of any weapon is inherent. If you are a collector prove you can eliminate the use of the weapon. No different than proving the fully automatic capable weapon has been converted to semi-automatic.

Licensing and insuring your weapons is not infringing.

As for the point about criminals not getting a license or insurance... yes, that is correct criminals drive without a license and without insurance. Does that mean we should stop licensing and insurance requirements for everything a criminal might do?

The prevention comes in the form of license checks. Down the road we'll have devices on the firing system that requires an up to date license for the user. Isn't tech wonderful.

As with hunting licenses, the forced licensing reduces the amount of use. Reducing the amount of use reduces the amount of "first" crimes. All criminals have their first crime. If we have licensing, the first crime with a gun will be with one that is licensed in many cases. Thus reducing first crimes due to the licensing requirement reducing how many non-criminals have them before their transition into a life of crime enabled by the use of guns..