Rational discourse on gun control

[MaryL]

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.

Are you the self appointed Aristotle of the board now? I am a total uniformed idiot because YOU say so? Still, I use the same rational sense that Jefferson did, and I fail to see why an internet link is a prerequisite to prove basic common sense? WHY do you folks ALWAYS insist on LINKS? 2+2 =4, since when did that need a link?

 

[Divine Wind]

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.

You're the one who is writing that, dear.

 

[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

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.

How is the 2nd Amendment being abused.....? Please explain that.......

There were 200 million guns in the 1990s........there are now 357,000,000 guns in private hands in 2016.......and the gun murder rate dropped 49%......

How does that show that guns are being abused? Do you understand those numbers and what they show?

The old, women, the weak, the outnumbered...all survive violent criminal attack when they use guns....it is the most effective tool......

According to the Department of Justice.....under bill clinton......Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack...saving lives...and even stopping mass public shootings.....

Do you want 1,500,000 more victims of violent criminals....more rapes, robberies and murders....?

Color me skeptical on that, from my experience, firearms are used to perpetrate crimes, rarely to prevent them. And that myth of crime prevention feeds this entire debate. No, guns do NOT prevent crime, they cause it. Theoretically and ideally they should, but reality says otherwise.

Do you realize that we had 200 million guns in the 1990s....and now have 357 million guns in 2016.....and according to the Bureau of Crime Statistics and the FBI...gun murder went down 49%.....so you are wrong there....

And I have listed the studies on gun self defense....40 years of them from both private and government researchers who confirm high numbers for defensive gun use.......

You have no information that supports your position...you are just guessing.....and making it up....and yet you want us to take your advice on gun control?

 

[2aguy]

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...it is an argument backed up by statistics and actual research.....with actual real world truth woven in......you just have your opinion...

 

[yiostheoy]

Are you the self appointed Aristotle of the board now? I am a total uniformed idiot because YOU say so? Still, I use the same rational sense that Jefferson did, and I fail to see why an internet link is a prerequisite to prove basic common sense? WHY do you folks ALWAYS insist on LINKS? 2+2 =4, since when did that need a link?

I have studied Aristotle extensively, correct.

Aristotle was the first philosopher to categorize fallacies.

You MaryL really need to study and memorize this list.

Then you need to STOP using fallacies in your thinking and in your arguing.

I'm sure you can do it.

You don't strike me as stupid.

You simply appear to be uninformed about fallacies so you use them yourself all the time.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Pete7469]

Yes....he would have required every home to have an AR-15 or a similar rifle because he would know about 12 million innocent men, women and children of Europe murdered in gas chambers by their government..simply because the ruling minority did not like them.....he would also know about Mexico, right now...where the police and the military, the ones who own the only gun store in Mexico, murder 10s of thousands of Mexican citizens with the drug cartels.....he would also know about the Armenian Genocide, the Rwandan Genocide, the atrocities of the communists murdering 100 million people around the world...

So he would have mandated every home have 2 rifles, several pistols and a lot of ammunition......that being the whole point to the 2nd Amendment.....

Well said 2AGuy, and you did it far more politely than I would have.

Such midget minded jabbering drives me nuts. As if these bed wetters have the cognitive capacity to think for themselves, they bestow themselves with some gift I suppose that lets them channel the spirit of Jefferson who:

sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man

There is no way in hell Jefferson who also said:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Would support the NFA that prevents anyone from buying machine guns without excessive taxes, let alone the GCA of 1986 that made owning new REAL ******* "ASSAULT WEAPONS" nearly impossible.

So Sorry MaryL, again your bullshit has been THOROUGHLY refuted, rebuked and ridiculed. The founders wrote the 2A to mean exactly what it says for the very reasons they implied in all of their historical writings. If they were even slightly concerned with "mass murders" as you sniveling moonbats insist, there would have been laws against storing excessive powder, making grenades (they did have those as crude as they were) cannons, or manufacturing bombs of any sort.

 

[Pete7469]

No...it is an argument backed up by statistics and actual research.....with actual real world truth woven in......you just have your opinion...

And it's a stupid ******* opinion.

When you draw conclusion absent of facts and entirely on emotion that's one thing.

When you refuse to consider your opinion is flawed when faced with facts and continue to deny reality, your opinions are stupid and not worth much more time than it takes to call you a fuckin retard.

 

[Pete7469]

Oh, I have the picture alright. More people die in preventable car accidents, I understand that. And diseases caused by poor lifestyle choices, smoking, drugs, up there too. We don't need guns, and the harm they do is itself also a public health menace, and denial of that is itself a problem.

Your opinion is shared by about 55% of the US population.

And about 45% of the US population completely disagrees with you.

And as East is east, and West is west, n'ary the twain shall ever meet.

In the meantime you are just blowing hot air.

I'm not sure where your stats come from, but lets just say %45 ADMIT to keeping guns. Any possibility that the other %55 don't tell anyone?

I've never been surveyed, but I'd be dipped in shit before I told anyone I didn't know what I had.

So count me in as a %55'er who keeps his business to himself.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

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

"Gun-lover" is a childishly stupid term.

Because someone wishes to own a military-grade weapon for the remote but increasingly potential need to deal with similarly equipped adversaries -- such as the barbaric sonsabitches who the Germans, the French and the Swedes are presently being oppressed by.

It won't be long before the Muslim terrorists who have infiltrated Europe will have a similar presence here in the U.S. and will be busily obtaining the most lethal types of guns they can get their hands on. So with that in mind, does the concept of self-defense ever occur to you? Or are you one of those who are certain it will never come to that?

What do you think of the idea that it's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Rational discourse on gun control”

…requires that participants in such a discourse acknowledge the settled and accepted fact – a fact of law beyond dispute – that, although inalienable, the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ and subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

Unfortunately, there are irrational extremists who refuse to acknowledge this settled, accepted fact of law, rendering any hope of rational discourse impossible and pointless.

 

[Pete7469]

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.

No we need a truly educated society that can think for itself, not merely regurgitate what they're "educated" to without questioning it.

It was before my time but people quite a bit older than me who admit to having once been "liberals" used to preach "question authority". Now the modern libturd calls you a racist for questioning authority... I digress.

Anyway we need the 2A to become the pure uninfringed right it was intended to be. I realize I'm far on the fringe of the argument here but I don't care. It's the rational perspective.

We should be teaching the very young properly. Not to fool with dangerous shit, not to hurt people who don't deserve it, how to handle dangerous shit when they're old enough, and not to leave dangerous shit laying around for toddlers to get a hold of.

This is real simple people. There wouldn't be anywhere near as many thieves, thugs and scumbags if people 100 years ago had been taking out thieves, thugs and scumbags rather than waiting for police to come clean up their bodies. The problem was all the euroweenie immigrants who had no concept of self defense since it had been denied them in the "motherland" never grasped the concept that their own safety was their responsibility.

Another example of how socialism destroys humanity.

 

[yiostheoy]

“Rational discourse on gun control”

…requires that participants in such a discourse acknowledge the settled and accepted fact – a fact of law beyond dispute – that, although inalienable, the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ and subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

Unfortunately, there are irrational extremists who refuse to acknowledge this settled, accepted fact of law, rendering any hope of rational discourse impossible and pointless.

That's not a "fact".

That's Scalia's "interpretation" -- an interpretation that he gives NO justification for.

It is simply activism falling from his own lips.

Here are some examples of facts:

1 - there are drops of water everywhere outside.

2 - there are clouds in the sky.

Here is an example of an interpretation:

A - it rained.

 

[yiostheoy]

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.

No we need a truly educated society that can think for itself, not merely regurgitate what they're "educated" to without questioning it.

It was before my time but people quite a bit older than me who admit to having once been "liberals" used to preach "question authority". Now the modern libturd calls you a racist for questioning authority... I digress.

Anyway we need the 2A to become the pure uninfringed right it was intended to be. I realize I'm far on the fringe of the argument here but I don't care. It's the rational perspective.

We should be teaching the very young properly. Not to fool with dangerous shit, not to hurt people who don't deserve it, how to handle dangerous shit when they're old enough, and not to leave dangerous shit laying around for toddlers to get a hold of.

This is real simple people. There wouldn't be anywhere near as many thieves, thugs and scumbags if people 100 years ago had been taking out thieves, thugs and scumbags rather than waiting for police to come clean up their bodies. The problem was all the euroweenie immigrants who had no concept of self defense since it had been denied them in the "motherland" never grasped the concept that their own safety was their responsibility.

Another example of how socialism destroys humanity.

Psycho's and other thieves do not think. They just steal.

So think again.

 

[yiostheoy]

I'm not sure where your stats come from, but lets just say %45 ADMIT to keeping guns. Any possibility that the other %55 don't tell anyone?

I've never been surveyed, but I'd be dipped in shit before I told anyone I didn't know what I had.

So count me in as a %55'er who keeps his business to himself.

Here:

Guns In America, By The Numbers

 

[Pete7469]

Psycho's and other thieves do not think. They just steal.

So think again.

If the business of theft was as dangerous as it should be, there wouldn't be as many people out there who lack the ability to think.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

And this is consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The Heller Court, however, elected to not address the issue of judicial review with regard to government restrictions on firearms, opting instead to use a populist rationale, where because the vast majority of citizens have made the decision to protect themselves with handguns, no measure prohibiting their possession would pass Constitutional muster, regardless how that measure might be written.

Per Heller, therefore, state prohibitions on the possession of some types of semi-automatic firearms – such as AR platform rifles – have been upheld by the courts as Constitutional; residents of the state still have access to handguns and other long guns, and no Second Amendment violation has taken place.

Last February the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit instructed the District court to review its ruling upholding Maryland’s ban on ‘assault style’ weapons, admonishing the lower court to review the measure subject to strict scrutiny.

Should firearm regulatory measures seeking to ban certain types of firearms be subject to strict scrutiny, it becomes much less likely such laws will survive a court challenge.

 

[LuckyDuck]

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.

While I am 100% pro-gun ownership, I don't agree with the stance that you shouldn't do a background check on close relatives receiving your guns, or giving your friend a gun temporarily. There have been instances where friends have borrowed guns, committed crimes with them and returned them to the owner. Close relatives may also have a mental illness or criminal past and if they are in line to inherit the weapons, they need to be checked out to ensure they are not someone who would not otherwise be eligible for one.

So....you need to get a background check with your friend at the range .....hey, let me shoot that pistol...see if I like it....sorry, we have to pay 25 dollars or more and wait 3 days to get your background check done....you mean like that?

I'm not referring to a situation whereby you are at a firing range with a friend. I'm referring to a friend coming to your home and asking to borrow your gun (saying he/she wants to do a little solitary plunking or range activity).

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

at the time of the drafting of the 2nd Amendment

there was for the time several versions

of advanced weapons or "assault" rifles

the Girardoni being among one of them

it was a repeating military rifle

and was in military service at the time

capable of shooting 22 rounds a minute

knowing this

the framers did not write

the "right to keep and bear arms except for the Girardoni"

so that flintlock angle is just a fallacy of the historically misinformed

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

While I am 100% pro-gun ownership, I don't agree with the stance that you shouldn't do a background check on close relatives receiving your guns, or giving your friend a gun temporarily. There have been instances where friends have borrowed guns, committed crimes with them and returned them to the owner. Close relatives may also have a mental illness or criminal past and if they are in line to inherit the weapons, they need to be checked out to ensure they are not someone who would not otherwise be eligible for one.

So....you need to get a background check with your friend at the range .....hey, let me shoot that pistol...see if I like it....sorry, we have to pay 25 dollars or more and wait 3 days to get your background check done....you mean like that?

I'm not referring to a situation whereby you are at a firing range with a friend. I'm referring to a friend coming to your home and asking to borrow your gun (saying he/she wants to do a little solitary plunking or range activity).

you should know your friend well enough to know if you should borrow them a firearm or not

 

[LuckyDuck]

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.

While I am 100% pro-gun ownership, I don't agree with the stance that you shouldn't do a background check on close relatives receiving your guns, or giving your friend a gun temporarily. There have been instances where friends have borrowed guns, committed crimes with them and returned them to the owner. Close relatives may also have a mental illness or criminal past and if they are in line to inherit the weapons, they need to be checked out to ensure they are not someone who would not otherwise be eligible for one.

So....you need to get a background check with your friend at the range .....hey, let me shoot that pistol...see if I like it....sorry, we have to pay 25 dollars or more and wait 3 days to get your background check done....you mean like that?

I'm not referring to a situation whereby you are at a firing range with a friend. I'm referring to a friend coming to your home and asking to borrow your gun (saying he/she wants to do a little solitary plunking or range activity).

you should know your friend well enough to know if you should borrow them a firearm or not

A lot of people think they know their friends well, however, that's not always the case.