Rational discourse on gun control

[M14 Shooter]

For those of you who seek additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding, I challenge you to a rational discourse on the issue.

To this end, please...
1: State the gun control law you seek (You probably should limit this to just one)
2: Define the problem you seek to correct with this law
3: Demonstrate that this law will indeed correct the problem you define.
4: Explain how, under current jurisprudence, this law does not create an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms
5: Do not resort to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty (Fallacies, after all, are irrational)

Please begin

 

[MisterBeale]

For the left, they want nothing less than this. . .

Why It's Time to Repeal the Second Amendment



Look what globalist Soros is up too. . .

Sign the petition: Repeal the Second Amendment Now

It's unbelievable that folks would be so conditioned by his machinations that they can't think for themselves, it really is.

 

[OldLady]

Universal background checks anytime a gun is transferred (excepting close family members or lending a gun for a short time to a friend). This would not violate any law abiding citizen's right to bear arms. Too many guns are being transferred without proper caution to people who should not have one, either at gun shows or through casual sales. There are gun stores everywhere that can, for a small fee, run a background check for anyone interested in buying a gun. This will not be a problem for law abiding citizens.

 

[NCC1701]

you will have better luck playing pick up sticks with your butt cheeks than getting anything rational from the left

 

[M14 Shooter]

Universal background checks anytime a gun is transferred (excepting close family members or lending a gun for a short time to a friend). This would not violate any law abiding citizen's right to bear arms. Too many guns are being transferred without proper caution to people who should not have one, either at gun shows or through casual sales. There are gun stores everywhere that can, for a small fee, run a background check for anyone interested in buying a gun. This will not be a problem for law abiding citizens.

1: Universal background checks anytime a gun is transferred (excepting close family members or lending a gun for a short time to a friend).
OK...

2: Too many guns are being transferred without proper caution to people who should not have one, either at gun shows or through casual sales.
OK...

3: Demonstrate that this law will indeed correct the problem you define.
Please begin

4: Explain how, under current jurisprudence, this law does not create an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms
Please begin

5: Do not resort to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty
So far so good.

 

[OldLady]

On C-Span this weekend, they televised a conference about research into gun crime. Only 15% of the guns used in Chicago to commit crimes were purchased legally. They traced back as many as they could to the original owner and 75% said the gun had been stolen, however the majority had not been reported to the police. The other reasons were transfer (sale or swap) at gun shows and individual sales. All the guns bought new from the store had a background check and were sold to people who were cleared to have them. They did not commit the crimes. However, they allowed the gun to leave their possession without following through with equal caution. The guns ended up on the street being sold to criminals.
Now, if a gun is stolen, fine, it's not your fault, but it should be reported stolen. Why would you not report such a thing? If it were my tv or my car stereo or my laptop, I would report it. Why would so many people NOT report a stolen gun? My guess is that not all of them were actually "stolen." They were transferred to people who shouldn't have had a gun and the person who sold it knew it.

Keeping the above in mind, if 85% of the guns used to commit crime in Chicago were illegally owned, and if those guns arrived on the street after being transferred without the requirement of a background check, a good way to make those guns go "poof" is to start requiring all gun sales/transfers to have a background check, or hold the last legal owner responsible if the gun is involved in a crime. That would deter people from handing over guns to folks who shouldn't have them or selling them to anyone without a background check.

It would hopefully cut down on the illegally owned guns on the street. This is my own idea, developed after hearing the studies on C-Span. It couldn't be proven without putting it into effect, but I think it makes sense.

I do not believe the Second Amendment means what you believe it means, so you can have that argument with someone who likes to argue about the Constitution. It is very clearly not infringing on the existing rights of law abiding citizens to own a gun if all I am asking for is a background check for all sales/transfers.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Keeping the above in mind, if 85% of the guns used to commit crime in Chicago were illegally owned, and if those guns arrived on the street after being transferred without the requirement of a background check, a good way to make those guns go "poof" is to start requiring all gun sales/transfers to have a background check, or hold the last legal owner responsible if the gun is involved in a crime. That would deter people from handing over guns to folks who shouldn't have them or selling them to anyone without a background check.

Why do you think people dealing in stolen or "illegal" guns, would run background check on their customers?
How do you prove that any given transfer was required to have a background check, but did not?
Absent these things, how will your idea solve the problem you specified?

It is very clearly not infringing on the existing rights of law abiding citizens to own a gun if all I am asking for is a background check for all sales/transfers.

Demonstrate this to be true.

 

[OldLady]

I think there would be less guns for a dealer in stolen/illegal guns to sell on the streets if the legal owners were more careful in their transfer.

I have no idea what you want me to "demonstrate" about that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think there would be less guns for a dealer in stolen/illegal guns to sell on the streets if the legal owners were more careful in their transfer.

You have a solution to a problem.
You need to demonstrate how your solution actually solves the problem.
Thus, the questions I asked.

Why do you think people dealing in stolen or "illegal" guns, would run background check on their customers?
How do you prove that any given transfer was required to have a background check, but did not?
Absent these things, how will your idea solve the problem you specified?

You then claim:
It is very clearly not infringing on the existing rights of law abiding citizens to own a gun if all I am asking for is a background check for all sales/transfers.

If you cannot demonstrate this to be true, then its just your unsupported opinion.

 

[Nosmo King]

For those of you who seek additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding, I challenge you to a rational discourse on the issue.

To this end, please...
1: State the gun control law you seek (You probably should limit this to just one)
2: Define the problem you seek to correct with this law
3: Demonstrate that this law will indeed correct the problem you define.
4: Explain how, under current jurisprudence, this law does not create an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms
5: Do not resort to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty (Fallacies, after all, are irrational)

Please begin

1. The ban on the sale, manufacture, importation, distribution and possession of weapons with a semi-automatic firing system and the ability to be fitted with a magazine containing greater than ten rounds.

2. Drive by shootings, mass shootings. At least let's lower the body count.

3. Criminals are not going to mass produce their own arsenal of such weaponry. Criminals are not going to convert other weapons to serve their purpose. Gang shootings, inner city shootings particularly will be reduced.

4. Your right to bear arms would not be infringed. You can still own all the bolt action rifles, shot guns and revolvers you want. You can still bear arms.

Now, I know that gun lovers will disagree. But what gun lover actually needs a semi-automatic weapon?

 

[MaryL]

For those of you who seek additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding, I challenge you to a rational discourse on the issue.

To this end, please...
1: State the gun control law you seek (You probably should limit this to just one)
2: Define the problem you seek to correct with this law
3: Demonstrate that this law will indeed correct the problem you define.
4: Explain how, under current jurisprudence, this law does not create an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms
5: Do not resort to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty (Fallacies, after all, are irrational)

Please begin

The second amendment is being abused. And as a result, it's causing a menace to the general populace. We NEED firearms to protect us from other people WITH firearms. Right. If this were children fighting over a toy, you would take it away from all of them .You wouldn't let children abuse something they don't need and whine about how "the other kid has IT, we need one TOO" childish games. You take away their toys.

 

[Divine Wind]

Universal background checks anytime a gun is transferred (excepting close family members or lending a gun for a short time to a friend). This would not violate any law abiding citizen's right to bear arms. Too many guns are being transferred without proper caution to people who should not have one, either at gun shows or through casual sales. There are gun stores everywhere that can, for a small fee, run a background check for anyone interested in buying a gun. This will not be a problem for law abiding citizens.

A nice idea, but the problem with that is every time we give concessions to the anti-gun crowd, they use it as as stepping stone to more anti-gun laws.

Example, I've asked several anti-gun proponents on 3 different political forums "If we passed Obama's 2013 gun control, would you be satisfied that our nation has sufficient gun control laws and never, ever ask for additional gun legislation?" None of them ever replied much less reply in the affirmative. The silent point was that, no, they wouldn't be satisfied.

 

[Divine Wind]

The second amendment is being abused. And as a result, it's causing a menace to the general populace. We NEED firearms to protect us from other people WITH firearms. Right. If this were children fighting over a toy, you would take it away from all of them .You wouldn't let children abuse something they don't need and whine about how "the other kid has IT, we need one TOO" childish games. You take away their toys.

What, in your opinion, is the purpose of the Second Amendment? Why do we even have a Bill of Rights?

 

[MaryL]

The second amendment is being abused. And as a result, it's causing a menace to the general populace. We NEED firearms to protect us from other people WITH firearms. Right. If this were children fighting over a toy, you would take it away from all of them .You wouldn't let children abuse something they don't need and whine about how "the other kid has IT, we need one TOO" childish games. You take away their toys.

What, in your opinion, is the purpose of the Second Amendment? Why do we even have a Bill of Rights?

Well, things change. We aren't using flintlocks anymore. And what do you think Jefferson & co, would have done if there were assault rifles and mass murders of pre school children in 1776? Things might be a little different.

 

[Pete7469]

Again,

Law abiding people will pay and have the transfers done legally.

It will add to the cost and inconvenience of what should otherwise be a transaction the government has no right to interfere with.

Those who are willing TO COMMIT MURDER will not abide by the law. If they have to kill the potential seller to avoid the BG check they will do so.

 

[Pete7469]

Well, things change. We aren't using flintlocks anymore. And what do you think Jefferson & co, would have done if there were assault rifles and mass murders of pre school children in 1776? Things might be a little different.

Things change alright.

People used to be far more religious and moral.

They had cannons, grenades and any number of ways to kill lots of people just as quickly.

Bullshit argument about AR's has been refuted ad nauseum.

 

[2aguy]

Universal background checks anytime a gun is transferred (excepting close family members or lending a gun for a short time to a friend). This would not violate any law abiding citizen's right to bear arms. Too many guns are being transferred without proper caution to people who should not have one, either at gun shows or through casual sales. There are gun stores everywhere that can, for a small fee, run a background check for anyone interested in buying a gun. This will not be a problem for law abiding citizens.

And the small fee is a violation........that is why a Poll Tax on the right to vote was not allowed.....it prevented poor blacks from accessing a Right.

How about states with very few gun stores....how do gun owners who want to sell their gun to a friend get the background check done?

Guns are not being transferred without background checks with normal gun owners.......1) criminals are using people who can pass background checks to buy their guns right now...so requiring them for all transfers would still be pointless 2) in order for the background check system to work, you would need to register all guns.....

 

[MaryL]

Well, things change. We aren't using flintlocks anymore. And what do you think Jefferson & co, would have done if there were assault rifles and mass murders of pre school children in 1776? Things might be a little different.

Things change alright.

People used to be far more religious and moral.

They had cannons, grenades and any number of ways to kill lots of people just as quickly.

Bullshit argument about AR's has been refuted ad nauseum.

No, I won't let you try to pull that game here. Not refuted, people like you have this chasing your tail mentality. IF Jefferson had known then what abuse the second amend has led to NOW, things would be different now.

 

[2aguy]

For those of you who seek additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding, I challenge you to a rational discourse on the issue.

To this end, please...
1: State the gun control law you seek (You probably should limit this to just one)
2: Define the problem you seek to correct with this law
3: Demonstrate that this law will indeed correct the problem you define.
4: Explain how, under current jurisprudence, this law does not create an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms
5: Do not resort to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty (Fallacies, after all, are irrational)

Please begin

1. The ban on the sale, manufacture, importation, distribution and possession of weapons with a semi-automatic firing system and the ability to be fitted with a magazine containing greater than ten rounds.

2. Drive by shootings, mass shootings. At least let's lower the body count.

3. Criminals are not going to mass produce their own arsenal of such weaponry. Criminals are not going to convert other weapons to serve their purpose. Gang shootings, inner city shootings particularly will be reduced.

4. Your right to bear arms would not be infringed. You can still own all the bolt action rifles, shot guns and revolvers you want. You can still bear arms.

Now, I know that gun lovers will disagree. But what gun lover actually needs a semi-automatic weapon?

1) Why? France has all of this...and their criminals get those guns easily.

2) No, mass shooters can kill just as easily with shotguns and revolvers....but normal, law abiding people who may need more than 10 rounds will not have them.

Research shows that magazine limits do not change mass shooting casualty counts...so there is no need to ban them.

In 34 years, 1982-2016 there were a total of 157 deaths from rifles with detachable magazines.....

There are 1,500 deaths by knife every single year......

3) Gangs in France have no trouble getting actual, fully automatic rifles....and they have every single gun control law that you want. Britain confiscated guns in the 1990s...their gun crime rate did not change...in fact, it went up 4% last year and their streets are now seeing more and more fully automatic weapons....and they too have everything you want, including banning and confiscating all of their guns......their last mass shooting was done with a shot gun....

 

[2aguy]

For those of you who seek additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding, I challenge you to a rational discourse on the issue.

To this end, please...
1: State the gun control law you seek (You probably should limit this to just one)
2: Define the problem you seek to correct with this law
3: Demonstrate that this law will indeed correct the problem you define.
4: Explain how, under current jurisprudence, this law does not create an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms
5: Do not resort to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty (Fallacies, after all, are irrational)

Please begin

1. The ban on the sale, manufacture, importation, distribution and possession of weapons with a semi-automatic firing system and the ability to be fitted with a magazine containing greater than ten rounds.

2. Drive by shootings, mass shootings. At least let's lower the body count.

3. Criminals are not going to mass produce their own arsenal of such weaponry. Criminals are not going to convert other weapons to serve their purpose. Gang shootings, inner city shootings particularly will be reduced.

4. Your right to bear arms would not be infringed. You can still own all the bolt action rifles, shot guns and revolvers you want. You can still bear arms.

Now, I know that gun lovers will disagree. But what gun lover actually needs a semi-automatic weapon?

I need a semi-auto pistol and rifle...and since it is not an illegal item...you have no say in the matter. You however do not need unlimited access to the internet.....you can very easily go to the library, log in under your own name, and use the computer......