Rational discourse on gun control

[yiostheoy]

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.

So in other words you yourself do NOT agree with the 2nd Amendment since you believe all this gun regulation is just fine ??

 

[yiostheoy]

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.

Scalia's write-up of Heller vs DC is the most recent judicial interpretation we have of the 2nd Amendment.

Unfortunately it is all activist.

Scalia does not justify his activist rules. He just states them.

All 9 Justices who ruled on Heller are cowards.

None of them supports the 2nd Amendment fully.

They each edit it.

Scalia edits it to his own liking.

And Ginsberg edits it completely OUT of existence.

 

[yiostheoy]

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.

Gun safes. The solution to gun theft is gun safes.

But the 2nd Amendment does not mention gun safes either.

We probably need a new 2nd Amendment.

 

[yiostheoy]

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.

You really should move to England or to Australia.

You don't belong in the USA or Canada.

Unfortunately this also applies to about 55% of the US population which is also anti gun.

 

[MaryL]

You don't understand Jefferson, do you? He might surprise us all, but I doubt he would mandate gun ownership.

You should at least start giving internet links to your citations for your anti gun views.

Then they might be worth reading.

Also then you would be posting a lot less drivel.

Um, what internet links did Jeferson need to validate HIS opinions? Rational thought and common sense isn't sequestered to the INTERNET.

 

[yiostheoy]

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?

Most people have no idea why we (in the USA) have a Bill Of Rights or even more specifically a 2nd Amendment.

55% of them crap in their pants every time they read the 2nd Amendment, if they ever read it.

 

[yiostheoy]

You don't understand Jefferson, do you? He might surprise us all, but I doubt he would mandate gun ownership.

You should at least start giving internet links to your citations for your anti gun views.

Then they might be worth reading.

Also then you would be posting a lot less drivel.

Um, what internet links did Jeferson need to validate HIS opinions? Rational thought and common sense isn't sequestered to the INTERNET.

Your fallacy is shifting the burden.

See attached. One more fallacy from your mouth/pen/keyboard and I am moving you to the ignore list.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[yiostheoy]

Ok there is now quite a lot of food for thought for the various respondents.

I will look forward to logical well documented replies.

 

[MaryL]

Let's be frank here. There is NO rational discourse on guns here. It's either ACCEPT guns at all cost no matter what. Or Else ...There isn't any debate here. Rational debate would imply some depth of thought and reason. I only see GUNS GUNS GUNS, all I see.

 

[NCC1701]

Let's be frank here. There is NO rational discourse on guns here. It's either ACCEPT guns at all cost no matter what. Or Else ...There isn't any debate here. Rational debate would imply some depth of thought and reason. I only see GUNS GUNS GUNS, all I see.

bullshit liar, there is no 'matter what', guns are less dangerous than alcohol, so if you want to be a controlling ***** then start with that

 

[MaryL]

Let's be frank here. There is NO rational discourse on guns here. It's either ACCEPT guns at all cost no matter what. Or Else ...There isn't any debate here. Rational debate would imply some depth of thought and reason. I only see GUNS GUNS GUNS, all I see.

bullshit liar, there is no 'matter what', guns are less dangerous than alcohol, so if you want to be a controlling ***** then start with that

So far, you are proving my assertion right, I HAVE to accept guns and gun violence and the whole "We need guns to protect us from bad people with guns" bullshit. That is a self sustaining argument I don't buy into, it's silly.

 

[yiostheoy]

Let's be frank here. There is NO rational discourse on guns here. It's either ACCEPT guns at all cost no matter what. Or Else ...There isn't any debate here. Rational debate would imply some depth of thought and reason. I only see GUNS GUNS GUNS, all I see.

bullshit liar, there is no 'matter what', guns are less dangerous than alcohol, so if you want to be a controlling ***** then start with that

So far, you are proving my assertion right, I HAVE to accept guns and gun violence and the whole "We need guns to protect us from bad people with guns" bullshit. That is a self sustaining argument I don't buy into, it's silly.

MaryL you should work on accepting the US Constitution and the Bill Of Rights.

If you cannot then you should move to England or Australia.

 

[yiostheoy]

Let's be frank here. There is NO rational discourse on guns here. It's either ACCEPT guns at all cost no matter what. Or Else ...There isn't any debate here. Rational debate would imply some depth of thought and reason. I only see GUNS GUNS GUNS, all I see.

I will agree that you MaryL are speaking emotionally and not rationally.

 

[NCC1701]

Let's be frank here. There is NO rational discourse on guns here. It's either ACCEPT guns at all cost no matter what. Or Else ...There isn't any debate here. Rational debate would imply some depth of thought and reason. I only see GUNS GUNS GUNS, all I see.

bullshit liar, there is no 'matter what', guns are less dangerous than alcohol, so if you want to be a controlling ***** then start with that

So far, you are proving my assertion right, I HAVE to accept guns and gun violence and the whole "We need guns to protect us from bad people with guns" bullshit. That is a self sustaining argument I don't buy into, it's silly.

no you silly *****, you said we don't NEED guns because guns hurt people so lets back the truck up here, we don't need alcohol either and it kills far more than guns. If you don't start with alcohol instead of guns then you are an unprincipled liar

 

[yiostheoy]

Let's be frank here. There is NO rational discourse on guns here. It's either ACCEPT guns at all cost no matter what. Or Else ...There isn't any debate here. Rational debate would imply some depth of thought and reason. I only see GUNS GUNS GUNS, all I see.

bullshit liar, there is no 'matter what', guns are less dangerous than alcohol, so if you want to be a controlling ***** then start with that

So far, you are proving my assertion right, I HAVE to accept guns and gun violence and the whole "We need guns to protect us from bad people with guns" bullshit. That is a self sustaining argument I don't buy into, it's silly.

no you silly *****, you said we don't NEED guns because guns hurt people so lets back the truck up here, we don't need alcohol either and it kills far more than guns. If you don't start with alcohol instead of guns then you are an unprincipled liar

She (MaryL ) is using fallacies. Most of her fallacies are "emotional arguments".

Ergo she is a sophist using sophistry.

Unfortunately this is no different than Ginsberg on the SCOTUS.

It is a disease of the mind.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[MaryL]

Let's be frank here. There is NO rational discourse on guns here. It's either ACCEPT guns at all cost no matter what. Or Else ...There isn't any debate here. Rational debate would imply some depth of thought and reason. I only see GUNS GUNS GUNS, all I see.

bullshit liar, there is no 'matter what', guns are less dangerous than alcohol, so if you want to be a controlling ***** then start with that

So far, you are proving my assertion right, I HAVE to accept guns and gun violence and the whole "We need guns to protect us from bad people with guns" bullshit. That is a self sustaining argument I don't buy into, it's silly.

no you silly *****, you said we don't NEED guns because guns hurt people so lets back the truck up here, we don't need alcohol either and it kills far more than guns. If you don't start with alcohol instead of guns then you are an unprincipled liar

Really? Don't see how being a misogynist helps things, either, you want to back up YOUR truck? Respect goes a long way. Let's deal with one issue at a time. Automobiles kill more people of all races and creeds, and drug addiction is also a valid concern. We are talking about firearms here, huckleberry.

 

[NCC1701]

Let's be frank here. There is NO rational discourse on guns here. It's either ACCEPT guns at all cost no matter what. Or Else ...There isn't any debate here. Rational debate would imply some depth of thought and reason. I only see GUNS GUNS GUNS, all I see.

bullshit liar, there is no 'matter what', guns are less dangerous than alcohol, so if you want to be a controlling ***** then start with that

So far, you are proving my assertion right, I HAVE to accept guns and gun violence and the whole "We need guns to protect us from bad people with guns" bullshit. That is a self sustaining argument I don't buy into, it's silly.

no you silly *****, you said we don't NEED guns because guns hurt people so lets back the truck up here, we don't need alcohol either and it kills far more than guns. If you don't start with alcohol instead of guns then you are an unprincipled liar

Really? Don't see how being a misogynist helps things, either, you want to back up YOUR truck? Respect goes a long way. Let's deal with one issue at a time. Automobiles kill more people of all races and creeds, and drug addiction is also a valid concern. We are talking about firearms here, huckleberry.

I have zero respect for anyone presumptuous enough to tell me what I need or don't need. That is flat out communism and deserving of no respect.

If you have principles about keeping people from harm with unnecessary items, then I assume you are a prohibitionist. If not then you are just another left wing hypocrite asshole.

I love women who don't think like you, don't even go down that path,

 

[NCC1701]

Let's be frank here. There is NO rational discourse on guns here. It's either ACCEPT guns at all cost no matter what. Or Else ...There isn't any debate here. Rational debate would imply some depth of thought and reason. I only see GUNS GUNS GUNS, all I see.

bullshit liar, there is no 'matter what', guns are less dangerous than alcohol, so if you want to be a controlling ***** then start with that

So far, you are proving my assertion right, I HAVE to accept guns and gun violence and the whole "We need guns to protect us from bad people with guns" bullshit. That is a self sustaining argument I don't buy into, it's silly.

no you silly *****, you said we don't NEED guns because guns hurt people so lets back the truck up here, we don't need alcohol either and it kills far more than guns. If you don't start with alcohol instead of guns then you are an unprincipled liar

She (MaryL ) is using fallacies. Most of her fallacies are "emotional arguments".

Ergo she is a sophist using sophistry.

Unfortunately this is no different than Ginsberg on the SCOTUS.

It is a disease of the mind.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I can see that, thanks

 

[yiostheoy]

I can see that, thanks

Therefore the best thing is to point out her (MaryL 's) fallacies to her, NCC1701 , and not get emotionally upset with her.

When people consistently use fallacies in their arguing I move them onto my ignore list.

If they are too stupid to recognize what a fallacy is, or if they are so deceitful as to use them consciously, they are a waste of time and they belong on the list.

 

[NCC1701]

I can see that, thanks

Therefore the best thing is to point out her (MaryL 's) fallacies to her, NCC1701 , and not get emotionally upset with her.

When people consistently use fallacies in their arguing I move them onto my ignore list.

If they are too stupid to recognize what a fallacy is, or if they are so deceitful as to use them consciously, they are a waste of time and they belong on the list.

I get it, and that is reasonable, some people's minds are hopeless. ah well, I'll stay in the flames of perdition sometimes