So, you want the NRA/pro-gun side to compromise...?

[M14 Shooter]

Laugh harder - YouTube

Very articulate! Well argued! I guess we should really take you guys seriously now, eh?

How is public safety increased by disarming people who havent and will probably not commit any crimes, while criminals ignore any law you manage to pass?

Hey! those guns are illegal now! stop doing what your doing!!!

Hey!, You are a criminal! Don't do anything Criminal to get a gun!!!!

Hey!, Dont commit armed robbery because with the gun your using we tack on an additional 3 months on top of the 20-25 years you do because of the actual armed robbery!

Indeed. There's no reason to take any such "offer" seriously, if for no other reason that it is a claim of a potential benefit that cannot be quantified.

 

[Nosmo King]

Laugh harder - YouTube

Very articulate! Well argued! I guess we should really take you guys seriously now, eh?

How is public safety increased by disarming people who havent and will probably not commit any crimes, while criminals ignore any law you manage to pass?

Hey! those guns are illegal now! stop doing what your doing!!!

Hey!, You are a criminal! Don't do anything Criminal to get a gun!!!!

Hey!, Dont commit armed robbery because with the gun your using we tack on an additional 3 months on top of the 20-25 years you do because of the actual armed robbery!

What is the virtue of a semi automatic weapon equipped with a high capacity magazine? Should such weapons no longer be sold, manufactured, imported, and distributed, how long would the current supply serve the need of the dreaded criminal? When was the last time you actually defended yourself or property by firing a semi automatic weapon with a high capacity magazine?

If there are more guns on the streets, how does that serve the public safety? We do not extinguish fires with gasoline, but pro gun lobbyists (working in concert with gun manufacturers) seem to think that the gasoline analogy works well for guns.

 

[martybegan]

Very articulate! Well argued! I guess we should really take you guys seriously now, eh?

How is public safety increased by disarming people who havent and will probably not commit any crimes, while criminals ignore any law you manage to pass?

Hey! those guns are illegal now! stop doing what your doing!!!

Hey!, You are a criminal! Don't do anything Criminal to get a gun!!!!

Hey!, Dont commit armed robbery because with the gun your using we tack on an additional 3 months on top of the 20-25 years you do because of the actual armed robbery!

What is the virtue of a semi automatic weapon equipped with a high capacity magazine? Should such weapons no longer be sold, manufactured, imported, and distributed, how long would the current supply serve the need of the dreaded criminal? When was the last time you actually defended yourself or property by firing a semi automatic weapon with a high capacity magazine?

If there are more guns on the streets, how does that serve the public safety? We do not extinguish fires with gasoline, but pro gun lobbyists (working in concert with gun manufacturers) seem to think that the gasoline analogy works well for guns.

Its not about a virtue of a given weapon, it is about the "people's" desire to own one.
Considering so few crimes are actually committed with them, why is there such a focus on them? Wouldnt a handgun ban be FAR more effective (using your logic, not mine) in preventing the violence we see every day? I KNOW why gun control addicts favor it, because its the low hanging fruit on the way to even more bans.

And by the way, I have never used a firearm to defend myself, just like I have never needed to invoke the 1st amendment to protect my right to free speech, or my 4th amendment right to require a warrant for searching my property, nor my 5th amendment right against self incrimination> I have never used my right to a jury trial or counsel under the 6th amendment. I have been involved in a civil trial, so I have used my 7th amednment right, but I have had no need so far for my 8th amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment.

So because I havent used ANY of those other rights up until this point, I should be OK with them being removed?

 

[Nosmo King]

How is public safety increased by disarming people who havent and will probably not commit any crimes, while criminals ignore any law you manage to pass?

Hey! those guns are illegal now! stop doing what your doing!!!

Hey!, You are a criminal! Don't do anything Criminal to get a gun!!!!

Hey!, Dont commit armed robbery because with the gun your using we tack on an additional 3 months on top of the 20-25 years you do because of the actual armed robbery!

What is the virtue of a semi automatic weapon equipped with a high capacity magazine? Should such weapons no longer be sold, manufactured, imported, and distributed, how long would the current supply serve the need of the dreaded criminal? When was the last time you actually defended yourself or property by firing a semi automatic weapon with a high capacity magazine?

If there are more guns on the streets, how does that serve the public safety? We do not extinguish fires with gasoline, but pro gun lobbyists (working in concert with gun manufacturers) seem to think that the gasoline analogy works well for guns.

Its not about a virtue of a given weapon, it is about the "people's" desire to own one.
Considering so few crimes are actually committed with them, why is there such a focus on them? Wouldnt a handgun ban be FAR more effective (using your logic, not mine) in preventing the violence we see every day? I KNOW why gun control addicts favor it, because its the low hanging fruit on the way to even more bans.

And by the way, I have never used a firearm to defend myself, just like I have never needed to invoke the 1st amendment to protect my right to free speech, or my 4th amendment right to require a warrant for searching my property, nor my 5th amendment right against self incrimination> I have never used my right to a jury trial or counsel under the 6th amendment. I have been involved in a civil trial, so I have used my 7th amednment right, but I have had no need so far for my 8th amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment.

So because I havent used ANY of those other rights up until this point, I should be OK with them being removed?

I don't advocate confiscation of guns. Nor do I advocate the elimination of all guns, even those guns perceived to provide self defense. I do not, however, believe that you or I should have military weaponry at our disposal. A careful reading of my post indicates semi automatic weapons with high capacity magazines. Such weapons belong in the hands of a well regulated militia, not on American street.

 

[martybegan]

What is the virtue of a semi automatic weapon equipped with a high capacity magazine? Should such weapons no longer be sold, manufactured, imported, and distributed, how long would the current supply serve the need of the dreaded criminal? When was the last time you actually defended yourself or property by firing a semi automatic weapon with a high capacity magazine?

If there are more guns on the streets, how does that serve the public safety? We do not extinguish fires with gasoline, but pro gun lobbyists (working in concert with gun manufacturers) seem to think that the gasoline analogy works well for guns.

Its not about a virtue of a given weapon, it is about the "people's" desire to own one.
Considering so few crimes are actually committed with them, why is there such a focus on them? Wouldnt a handgun ban be FAR more effective (using your logic, not mine) in preventing the violence we see every day? I KNOW why gun control addicts favor it, because its the low hanging fruit on the way to even more bans.

And by the way, I have never used a firearm to defend myself, just like I have never needed to invoke the 1st amendment to protect my right to free speech, or my 4th amendment right to require a warrant for searching my property, nor my 5th amendment right against self incrimination> I have never used my right to a jury trial or counsel under the 6th amendment. I have been involved in a civil trial, so I have used my 7th amednment right, but I have had no need so far for my 8th amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment.

So because I havent used ANY of those other rights up until this point, I should be OK with them being removed?

I don't advocate confiscation of guns. Nor do I advocate the elimination of all guns, even those guns perceived to provide self defense. I do not, however, believe that you or I should have military weaponry at our disposal. A careful reading of my post indicates semi automatic weapons with high capacity magazines. Such weapons belong in the hands of a well regulated militia, not on American street.

Then the police should have to give them up as well, being they are not the organized milita. Any rules applying to other civilians needs to apply to the police. They are Peace officers, not military officers or enlisted.

And considering the tiny risk you have of being victim to someone with a semi auto, any ban doesnt make sense based on risk analysis anyway.

 

[Jarlaxle]

[

How many times were those guns used against bad guys where they were only wounded instead of killed?

How many times were the bad guys stopped by the simple brandishment of the gun?

Give us the REST of the story, Joe...

Probably very few, but since your side never produces any statistics on it, I won't bother arguing the fallacy.

Yet another of your LIES. FBI and DOJ numbers have been posted, but you, as usual, pretend they do not exist if they do not fit your preconceived notions.

YOU NEED TO STOP LYING.

 

[Nosmo King]

Its not about a virtue of a given weapon, it is about the "people's" desire to own one.
Considering so few crimes are actually committed with them, why is there such a focus on them? Wouldnt a handgun ban be FAR more effective (using your logic, not mine) in preventing the violence we see every day? I KNOW why gun control addicts favor it, because its the low hanging fruit on the way to even more bans.

And by the way, I have never used a firearm to defend myself, just like I have never needed to invoke the 1st amendment to protect my right to free speech, or my 4th amendment right to require a warrant for searching my property, nor my 5th amendment right against self incrimination> I have never used my right to a jury trial or counsel under the 6th amendment. I have been involved in a civil trial, so I have used my 7th amednment right, but I have had no need so far for my 8th amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment.

So because I havent used ANY of those other rights up until this point, I should be OK with them being removed?

I don't advocate confiscation of guns. Nor do I advocate the elimination of all guns, even those guns perceived to provide self defense. I do not, however, believe that you or I should have military weaponry at our disposal. A careful reading of my post indicates semi automatic weapons with high capacity magazines. Such weapons belong in the hands of a well regulated militia, not on American street.

Then the police should have to give them up as well, being they are not the organized milita. Any rules applying to other civilians needs to apply to the police. They are Peace officers, not military officers or enlisted.

And considering the tiny risk you have of being victim to someone with a semi auto, any ban doesnt make sense based on risk analysis anyway.

Do you think it's a wise policy to have police out gunned?

 

[OODA_Loop]

Do you think it's a wise policy to have police out gunned?

Police are outgunned ? Come on now.

 

[martybegan]

I don't advocate confiscation of guns. Nor do I advocate the elimination of all guns, even those guns perceived to provide self defense. I do not, however, believe that you or I should have military weaponry at our disposal. A careful reading of my post indicates semi automatic weapons with high capacity magazines. Such weapons belong in the hands of a well regulated militia, not on American street.

Then the police should have to give them up as well, being they are not the organized milita. Any rules applying to other civilians needs to apply to the police. They are Peace officers, not military officers or enlisted.

And considering the tiny risk you have of being victim to someone with a semi auto, any ban doesnt make sense based on risk analysis anyway.

Do you think it's a wise policy to have police out gunned?

I think its an unwise policy for either the police or average citizens to be outgunned. But unless you turn the cops into a real military force, they are civilians, with no more rights than the rest of us. If you dont curtail thier rights at the same time as our rights, you create two tiers of citizenship, government citizens and the rest of us.

I don't want myself outgunned just as much as I don't want cops outgunned. however if they push gun control on the masses, they get the same.

 

[Nosmo King]

Do you think it's a wise policy to have police out gunned?

Police are outgunned ? Come on now.

The pro gun crowd is willing to endure an arms race on our streets. They claim if criminals get more potent guns, then the average citizen should get them as well. Should the one responsible organization committed to law and order be outgunned by both criminals and a batch of rednecks in a Dodge Durango calling themselves a "well regulated militia" while they are neither well regulated nor a militia?

 

[martybegan]

Do you think it's a wise policy to have police out gunned?

Police are outgunned ? Come on now.

The pro gun crowd is willing to endure an arms race on our streets. They claim if criminals get more potent guns, then the average citizen should get them as well. Should the one responsible organization committed to law and order be outgunned by both criminals and a batch of rednecks in a Dodge Durango calling themselves a "well regulated militia" while they are neither well regulated nor a militia?

No, what i dont want is a new armed ruling class. We already have that in NYC and other large cities.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Do you think it's a wise policy to have police out gunned?

Police are outgunned ? Come on now.

The pro gun crowd is willing to endure an arms race on our streets. They claim if criminals get more potent guns, then the average citizen should get them as well. Should the one responsible organization committed to law and order be outgunned by both criminals and a batch of rednecks in a Dodge Durango calling themselves a "well regulated militia" while they are neither well regulated nor a militia?

Practically every police cruiser in the US has an "assault rifle". Every cop a standard capacity duty arm. Most agencies have trained teams with fully automatic tactical weapons.

Come on.

 

[Nosmo King]

Police are outgunned ? Come on now.

The pro gun crowd is willing to endure an arms race on our streets. They claim if criminals get more potent guns, then the average citizen should get them as well. Should the one responsible organization committed to law and order be outgunned by both criminals and a batch of rednecks in a Dodge Durango calling themselves a "well regulated militia" while they are neither well regulated nor a militia?

No, what i dont want is a new armed ruling class. We already have that in NYC and other large cities.

You seem to have forgotten something. First, in the saner years when gun makers produced only weapons for sport, every police force out gunned their respective citizen class. Second, what separates America from other nations is our system of jurisprudence and constitutional protections. Fearing the police as an over gunned ruling class is anathema in our system.

Ginning up such fears, as ginning up any and all fears, serves no purpose other than to obfuscate and distract from realistic argument.

 

[Jarlaxle]

No, that is actually so untrue as to be ridiculous! Cops carried fairly weak firepower until recently.

 

[Nosmo King]

Police are outgunned ? Come on now.

The pro gun crowd is willing to endure an arms race on our streets. They claim if criminals get more potent guns, then the average citizen should get them as well. Should the one responsible organization committed to law and order be outgunned by both criminals and a batch of rednecks in a Dodge Durango calling themselves a "well regulated militia" while they are neither well regulated nor a militia?

Practically every police cruiser in the US has an "assault rifle". Every cop a standard capacity duty arm. Most agencies have trained teams with fully automatic tactical weapons.

Come on.

And that is all together fitting and proper. But the argument was proffered: should citizens ability to have military style weaponry be eliminated, the police should comply as well. I disagree.

I believe that the police force should indeed have the fire power at hand to defeat the criminal element. And, as that criminal element has easy access to potent weaponry, such weapons should be banned. Sale, distribution, importation and manufacture all banned in the interest of public safety. Were the criminals armed to the teeth before such weapons were widely made and sold? The gun manufacturers are to blame for designing and mass marketing weapons that have no virtues in the sporting world.

 

[martybegan]

The pro gun crowd is willing to endure an arms race on our streets. They claim if criminals get more potent guns, then the average citizen should get them as well. Should the one responsible organization committed to law and order be outgunned by both criminals and a batch of rednecks in a Dodge Durango calling themselves a "well regulated militia" while they are neither well regulated nor a militia?

No, what i dont want is a new armed ruling class. We already have that in NYC and other large cities.

You seem to have forgotten something. First, in the saner years when gun makers produced only weapons for sport, every police force out gunned their respective citizen class. Second, what separates America from other nations is our system of jurisprudence and constitutional protections. Fearing the police as an over gunned ruling class is anathema in our system.

Ginning up such fears, as ginning up any and all fears, serves no purpose other than to obfuscate and distract from realistic argument.

No, thats the real argument for me. In NYC police use gun rights as thier own little patronage game, making it harder for people they don't know, and keeping gun rights for thier own, even when retired. There is even a check mark on the form for a CCW saying "retired cop." Why they should retain the right when retired is beyond me.

Weapons for "sport" does not make sense. And years ago cops had pistols, just like everyone else. Then criminals got better weapons so they upgunned. Citizens were never restricted from having weapons less than cops until recently.

No american should have more rights than another. Its amazing how trusting progressives are of armed government agents, and how naive they are to always assume they will work in your best interests.

 

[martybegan]

The pro gun crowd is willing to endure an arms race on our streets. They claim if criminals get more potent guns, then the average citizen should get them as well. Should the one responsible organization committed to law and order be outgunned by both criminals and a batch of rednecks in a Dodge Durango calling themselves a "well regulated militia" while they are neither well regulated nor a militia?

Practically every police cruiser in the US has an "assault rifle". Every cop a standard capacity duty arm. Most agencies have trained teams with fully automatic tactical weapons.

Come on.

And that is all together fitting and proper. But the argument was proffered: should citizens ability to have military style weaponry be eliminated, the police should comply as well. I disagree.

I believe that the police force should indeed have the fire power at hand to defeat the criminal element. And, as that criminal element has easy access to potent weaponry, such weapons should be banned. Sale, distribution, importation and manufacture all banned in the interest of public safety. Were the criminals armed to the teeth before such weapons were widely made and sold? The gun manufacturers are to blame for designing and mass marketing weapons that have no virtues in the sporting world.

banning them will not restrict access to criminals, only to normal citizens. You cannot unmake semi auto weapons.

The police are not our overlords, much as you appear to want them to be.

 

[Nosmo King]

No, what i dont want is a new armed ruling class. We already have that in NYC and other large cities.

You seem to have forgotten something. First, in the saner years when gun makers produced only weapons for sport, every police force out gunned their respective citizen class. Second, what separates America from other nations is our system of jurisprudence and constitutional protections. Fearing the police as an over gunned ruling class is anathema in our system.

Ginning up such fears, as ginning up any and all fears, serves no purpose other than to obfuscate and distract from realistic argument.

No, thats the real argument for me. In NYC police use gun rights as thier own little patronage game, making it harder for people they don't know, and keeping gun rights for thier own, even when retired. There is even a check mark on the form for a CCW saying "retired cop." Why they should retain the right when retired is beyond me.

Weapons for "sport" does not make sense. And years ago cops had pistols, just like everyone else. Then criminals got better weapons so they upgunned. Citizens were never restricted from having weapons less than cops until recently.

No american should have more rights than another. Its amazing how trusting progressives are of armed government agents, and how naive they are to always assume they will work in your best interests.

Who provided "better weapons" to the criminals? Who designed, marketed, produced and championed those "better weapons"? Was there once a sane period when such weapons were exclusively in the hands of the military? Should mass marketing trump public safety?

And would you agree that police officers provide a safer community than average citizens? than criminals? Should trained responsible police officers have access to the tools that make their job of protecting and serving easier? Are policemen such a threat that their fire power should be curtailed when all the while the pro gun lobby demands school teachers be armed?

And indeed some Americans do have rights to more potent weapons than others. Unless you can be trusted with the nuclear launch codes, I think it's a good thing that some Americans have access to some weapons while others do not.

 

[Nosmo King]

Practically every police cruiser in the US has an "assault rifle". Every cop a standard capacity duty arm. Most agencies have trained teams with fully automatic tactical weapons.

Come on.

And that is all together fitting and proper. But the argument was proffered: should citizens ability to have military style weaponry be eliminated, the police should comply as well. I disagree.

I believe that the police force should indeed have the fire power at hand to defeat the criminal element. And, as that criminal element has easy access to potent weaponry, such weapons should be banned. Sale, distribution, importation and manufacture all banned in the interest of public safety. Were the criminals armed to the teeth before such weapons were widely made and sold? The gun manufacturers are to blame for designing and mass marketing weapons that have no virtues in the sporting world.

banning them will not restrict access to criminals, only to normal citizens. You cannot unmake semi auto weapons.

The police are not our overlords, much as you appear to want them to be.

Once they are banned, how will criminals get them? Will such a ban reduce the incidents of random shootings on our city streets? Do you think every gun fired by a criminal is actually fired by a criminal master mind? Can it actually be that most guns used in crimes are bought, or stolen and not obtained by circuitous, elaborate means? I'm betting that most gun shot victims were shot by guns obtained on the open market and not by some criminal syndicate with access to a foreign clandestine source.

 

[martybegan]

You seem to have forgotten something. First, in the saner years when gun makers produced only weapons for sport, every police force out gunned their respective citizen class. Second, what separates America from other nations is our system of jurisprudence and constitutional protections. Fearing the police as an over gunned ruling class is anathema in our system.

Ginning up such fears, as ginning up any and all fears, serves no purpose other than to obfuscate and distract from realistic argument.

No, thats the real argument for me. In NYC police use gun rights as thier own little patronage game, making it harder for people they don't know, and keeping gun rights for thier own, even when retired. There is even a check mark on the form for a CCW saying "retired cop." Why they should retain the right when retired is beyond me.

Weapons for "sport" does not make sense. And years ago cops had pistols, just like everyone else. Then criminals got better weapons so they upgunned. Citizens were never restricted from having weapons less than cops until recently.

No american should have more rights than another. Its amazing how trusting progressives are of armed government agents, and how naive they are to always assume they will work in your best interests.

Who provided "better weapons" to the criminals? Who designed, marketed, produced and championed those "better weapons"? Was there once a sane period when such weapons were exclusively in the hands of the military? Should mass marketing trump public safety?

And would you agree that police officers provide a safer community than average citizens? than criminals? Should trained responsible police officers have access to the tools that make their job of protecting and serving easier? Are policemen such a threat that their fire power should be curtailed when all the while the pro gun lobby demands school teachers be armed?

And indeed some Americans do have rights to more potent weapons than others. Unless you can be trusted with the nuclear launch codes, I think it's a good thing that some Americans have access to some weapons while others do not.

Nukes are artillery not arms, and not protected by the 2nd amendment. They are also under MILITARY control, and a well armed standing army is a nessasary compromise of the modern era. The military can keep thier heavy weps. The police should not if we cannot.

And during the 30's thompson tried to sell tommy guns to police departments. They didnt want them. Only when gangsters got thier hands on them did the police want them and the 1934 firearms act put into place.

Police, properly controlled are a good part of society. We should not however create a new class of people with rights over us. We are already almost there with our current crop of politicians. Now take that and add a disarmed populace, and you got trouble.