Soft Heads In Senate Gun Control Hearing

[PaulS1950]

There is no right to abortion unless the child presents a danger of life or limb to the mother. Only under those circumstances is the right of self defense tied to an abortion.

Rights do not extend from government. Rites exist from the point of birth. The government was made by our constitution to protect those rights.

The government has no power to restrict the number of rounds, type of gun, or number of guns and amount of ammunition that you keep and bear.
They are going beyond the powers granted them in the constitution. The sates and people have a right and duty to protect themselves and the constitution from unconstitutional acts by the federal government.

 

[idb]

Of requriing permission from the state to exercise your rights?
Of -course- you don't.

So, you agree that every person should be allowed to own a gun regardless of mental state or intended use

Non-sequitur, strawman.
Please DO feel free to try again,

Not at all.
Your argument appears to be that it's every American's natural-born right to own a gun.
Surely you don't believe that there might be exceptions to that right?

 

[ScienceRocks]

You almost gotta laugh. While the senate was holding hearings related to firearms the freaking president was busy pardoning half a dozen junkies and a guy who was convicted of a gun related crime.

Well, that's his people.

 

[idb]

Ah yes... the state must approve the exercise of our rights.

You DO admit that if this conversation were about any the exercise of any other right, you'd be squealing like a stuck pig - right?

I simply don't see what the big issue is here.
On the one hand a minor inconvenience to responsible gun owners and on the other hand a tool to help keep lethal weapons out of the hands of undesirables.
Where's the problem?
Why isn't that a good thing?

Do you see a problem with requiring a person to present a photo ID to cast a ballot to prevent voter fraud?

Do you see a problem with requiring a woman to wait three days to have an abortion?

Do you see a problem with requiring a Speaker from having to have the Government fact check their speech so that no one gets their feelings hurt or to ensure that they don't inflame the crowd?

Do you see a problem the Government limiting crowd sizes, say to seven people so that riots don't get started?

Do you see a problem with the Government having to approve religious texts so that no one is offended?

Do you see a problem with having to get Government permission to exercise any of your other rights?

Take a good look M14 Shooter.
This is what a straw man argument looks like!!!!!

 

[Grandma]

There is no right to abortion unless the child presents a danger of life or limb to the mother. Only under those circumstances is the right of self defense tied to an abortion.

Rights do not extend from government. Rites exist from the point of birth. The government was made by our constitution to protect those rights.

The government has no power to restrict the number of rounds, type of gun, or number of guns and amount of ammunition that you keep and bear.
They are going beyond the powers granted them in the constitution. The sates and people have a right and duty to protect themselves and the constitution from unconstitutional acts by the federal government.

At the time the Constitution was written, there were basically three types of firearms available: muzzle-loaders that had to be reloaded in a time-consuming manner after each shot, newfangled derringer-type single-shot pistols that only worked at point-blank range, and cannons.

Cannons were NOT included in the right to bear arms, were they? Interesting that bows & arrows weren't included either. Or sharp, pointed sticks. Or slingshots.

Anyway, our Founding Fathers (who, by the way were very human, not nearly so wise and noble as you think or wish to present them) had some other agendas they were working on.

During the Colonial Period, Scotland had the Jacobite Uprising. The second one, actually... At any rate, it was ended by the English, and quite a few Scots came to the Colonies. Rather than mingle in with the still-very-English colonists, many moved into the central and northern Appalachians and no small number intermarried with the local native tribes.

The Indians weren't completely happy about the English colonies taking over what they considered to be everybody's land. Long story short, King George 3 made it known that no one was allowed to settle outside the colonies' boundaries, at their own peril. Meanwhile, up north, the French were settling Canada in lower numbers, mainly those involved in fur trapping and trading. The Indians liked the French guys, they weren't so intrusive.

Not everyone wanted to join the Founders in the Revolutionary War. There were plenty of Tories around, and Hessians, hired guns from Germany.

Once the war was over, the Founders knew they were free to expand into the Western Reserve, as long as they could overrun the French and the Indians. They also knew that there would be Hessian-supportedTory plots to return the United States to England.

You need a lot of firepower for that kind of shit.

Read up on the Tories during the Revolution, and on the French and Indian War. That's where the Founders' heads were at, kids.

 

[Old Rocks]

A hearing was held yesterday in the US Senate to discuss gun control. Assault weapons ban, background checks, etc.

I must say I have never seen a bigger collection of logical fallacies in a single toolbox as I saw in the one the Democrats brought to the fight.

It was a non-stop freak show by the gun controllers. From Senator Feinstein showing a clip of a modified rifle rapid firing, to sackcloth and ashes worn by people grieving over Sandy Hook.

At one point, closeted drag queen Lindsey Graham (WHAT!?!) asked one of the gun control wannabe's how many rifles had been used in all the murders that kept being cited as reasons to ban assault weapons.

The best the police chief could respond was, "Dead is dead."

Um. Yeah...but dead by a handgun does not get undead by an assault weapons ban, officer!

Graham pointed out that only 2.5 percent of homicides were by rifles, which as it turns out is half the number that were by bare hands.

Every time someone tried to introduce FACTS into the conversation, the gun controllers dragged out the dead bodies of the Sandy Hook children.

Dr. William Begg, who was one of the physicians present in the emergency room on the day of the deadly shooting, told families physicians and nurses tried their best to save their children and advocated on behalf of an assault weapons ban, stronger background check system, and an investment in research for mental health.

“People say that the overall number of assault weapon deaths is small but you know what? Please don’t tell that to the people of Tucson or Aurora or Columbine or Virginia Tech and don’t tell that to the people in Newtown,” Begg said as he choked up and people in the crowd clapped.

Argumentum ad passiones logical fallacy.

I'm sorry, folks, but the Sandy Hook killer did not shoot those kids because he had an AR-15. Those kids would be just as dead with one of Joe Biden's shotguns, and a lot messier. You want traumatic? Just look at a kid who has been shot with a shotgun.


Any "solution" to this problem that is built on false premises and logical fallacies is pre-destined to be an unmitigated failure.

This is theater for the rubes. Roll out the dead kids!

2.5 percent.

I can defend myself quite adaquetly against bare hands. I cannot against someone with a war weopon.

We seem to have reached the place where, rather than addressing the problem, too many guns are in the wrong hands. we are just addressing opposing ideologies.

Fact one. Gun deaths in this nation will soon exceed traffic deaths. Like in less than two years.

Fact two. There are too many guns on the street, and too easy access to guns for crazies and criminals.

Fact three. We have an industry that has a mouthpeice, the NRA, that does not care about the toll that guns take in this society.

Fact four. The NRA, the GOP, and the 'Conservatives' absolutely refuse to enact laws that would require resposibility from gun owners.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Unlike a car in your garage, a gun in your home can kill and maim others.

Cars can't kill/maim others?
Hoiw is it then that cars kill more people than guns?
You said "Just like we do for cars".
I see you want to take that back.
Not a surprise.

I said cars in the garage can't kill, however guns in the home can.

A car in my garage is every bit the same danger to others as a gun in my safe, and vice-versa. No difference.

Cars unlike firearms are not designed to kill, yet we still license both car and the driver.

You really don't want to go down this line of reasoning.
You'll recognize you've had your ass handed to you, and you'll skulk away.
I'll allow you to retract your statement.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So, you agree that every person should be allowed to own a gun regardless of mental state or intended use

Non-sequitur, strawman.
Please DO feel free to try again,

Not at all.

Please show how your statement logically follwos from what I posted.
Else, non-sequitur.

Please show where I said that every person should be allowed to own a gun regardless of mental state or intended use.
Else, strawman.

That you have been reduced to logical fallacies clearlt indicates you have run out of reasoned responses.

 

[Flopper]

Cars can't kill/maim others?
Hoiw is it then that cars kill more people than guns?

You said "Just like we do for cars".
I see you want to take that back.
Not a surprise.

I said cars in the garage can't kill, however guns in the home can.
Cars unlike firearms are not designed to kill, yet we still license both car and the driver.

That's supposed to help pay for the roads, the state doesn't provide me a place to shoot. But they do charge for hunting and fishing licenses.

Hunting and fishing licenses fees are used to mange and protect game and wildlife.

 

[Flopper]

There is no right to abortion unless the child presents a danger of life or limb to the mother. Only under those circumstances is the right of self defense tied to an abortion.

Rights do not extend from government. Rites exist from the point of birth. The government was made by our constitution to protect those rights.

The government has no power to restrict the number of rounds, type of gun, or number of guns and amount of ammunition that you keep and bear.
They are going beyond the powers granted them in the constitution. The sates and people have a right and duty to protect themselves and the constitution from unconstitutional acts by the federal government.

At the time the Constitution was written, there were basically three types of firearms available: muzzle-loaders that had to be reloaded in a time-consuming manner after each shot, newfangled derringer-type single-shot pistols that only worked at point-blank range, and cannons.

Cannons were NOT included in the right to bear arms, were they? Interesting that bows & arrows weren't included either. Or sharp, pointed sticks. Or slingshots.

Anyway, our Founding Fathers (who, by the way were very human, not nearly so wise and noble as you think or wish to present them) had some other agendas they were working on.

During the Colonial Period, Scotland had the Jacobite Uprising. The second one, actually... At any rate, it was ended by the English, and quite a few Scots came to the Colonies. Rather than mingle in with the still-very-English colonists, many moved into the central and northern Appalachians and no small number intermarried with the local native tribes.

The Indians weren't completely happy about the English colonies taking over what they considered to be everybody's land. Long story short, King George 3 made it known that no one was allowed to settle outside the colonies' boundaries, at their own peril. Meanwhile, up north, the French were settling Canada in lower numbers, mainly those involved in fur trapping and trading. The Indians liked the French guys, they weren't so intrusive.

Not everyone wanted to join the Founders in the Revolutionary War. There were plenty of Tories around, and Hessians, hired guns from Germany.

Once the war was over, the Founders knew they were free to expand into the Western Reserve, as long as they could overrun the French and the Indians. They also knew that there would be Hessian-supportedTory plots to return the United States to England.

You need a lot of firepower for that kind of shit.

Read up on the Tories during the Revolution, and on the French and Indian War. That's where the Founders' heads were at, kids.

The founders had no idea of the amount of firepower they would be putting in the hands of the public when they adopted the 2nd amendment.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The freedom of a lot of completely law-abiding Americans is going to be further restrained to accomplish nothing more than making a few other people FEEL better.

That's quite a precedent to be setting. Remember where this bar was set, and by whom.

This is nothing new. Making people feel better, without any realized tangible gain, has been the basis of many laws for generations.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The founders had no idea of the amount of firepower they would be putting in the hands of the public when they adopted the 2nd amendment.

They also had no concept of cable news networks, the internet and cell phones.
Your point?

 

[OKTexas]

There is no right to abortion unless the child presents a danger of life or limb to the mother. Only under those circumstances is the right of self defense tied to an abortion.

Rights do not extend from government. Rites exist from the point of birth. The government was made by our constitution to protect those rights.

The government has no power to restrict the number of rounds, type of gun, or number of guns and amount of ammunition that you keep and bear.
They are going beyond the powers granted them in the constitution. The sates and people have a right and duty to protect themselves and the constitution from unconstitutional acts by the federal government.

At the time the Constitution was written, there were basically three types of firearms available: muzzle-loaders that had to be reloaded in a time-consuming manner after each shot, newfangled derringer-type single-shot pistols that only worked at point-blank range, and cannons.

Cannons were NOT included in the right to bear arms, were they? Interesting that bows & arrows weren't included either. Or sharp, pointed sticks. Or slingshots.

Anyway, our Founding Fathers (who, by the way were very human, not nearly so wise and noble as you think or wish to present them) had some other agendas they were working on.

During the Colonial Period, Scotland had the Jacobite Uprising. The second one, actually... At any rate, it was ended by the English, and quite a few Scots came to the Colonies. Rather than mingle in with the still-very-English colonists, many moved into the central and northern Appalachians and no small number intermarried with the local native tribes.

The Indians weren't completely happy about the English colonies taking over what they considered to be everybody's land. Long story short, King George 3 made it known that no one was allowed to settle outside the colonies' boundaries, at their own peril. Meanwhile, up north, the French were settling Canada in lower numbers, mainly those involved in fur trapping and trading. The Indians liked the French guys, they weren't so intrusive.

Not everyone wanted to join the Founders in the Revolutionary War. There were plenty of Tories around, and Hessians, hired guns from Germany.

Once the war was over, the Founders knew they were free to expand into the Western Reserve, as long as they could overrun the French and the Indians. They also knew that there would be Hessian-supportedTory plots to return the United States to England.

You need a lot of firepower for that kind of shit.

Read up on the Tories during the Revolution, and on the French and Indian War. That's where the Founders' heads were at, kids.

The founders had no idea of the amount of firepower they would be putting in the hands of the public when they adopted the 2nd amendment.

They also had no idea what kind of firepower governments would have either, they did however want them to be equitable.

 

[M14 Shooter]

At the time the Constitution was written, there were basically three types of firearms available: muzzle-loaders that had to be reloaded in a time-consuming manner after each shot, newfangled derringer-type single-shot pistols that only worked at point-blank range, and cannons.

Cannons were NOT included in the right to bear arms, were they? Interesting that bows & arrows weren't included either. Or sharp, pointed sticks. Or slingshots.

Anyway, our Founding Fathers (who, by the way were very human, not nearly so wise and noble as you think or wish to present them) had some other agendas they were working on.

During the Colonial Period, Scotland had the Jacobite Uprising. The second one, actually... At any rate, it was ended by the English, and quite a few Scots came to the Colonies. Rather than mingle in with the still-very-English colonists, many moved into the central and northern Appalachians and no small number intermarried with the local native tribes.

The Indians weren't completely happy about the English colonies taking over what they considered to be everybody's land. Long story short, King George 3 made it known that no one was allowed to settle outside the colonies' boundaries, at their own peril. Meanwhile, up north, the French were settling Canada in lower numbers, mainly those involved in fur trapping and trading. The Indians liked the French guys, they weren't so intrusive.

Not everyone wanted to join the Founders in the Revolutionary War. There were plenty of Tories around, and Hessians, hired guns from Germany.

Once the war was over, the Founders knew they were free to expand into the Western Reserve, as long as they could overrun the French and the Indians. They also knew that there would be Hessian-supportedTory plots to return the United States to England.

You need a lot of firepower for that kind of shit.

Read up on the Tories during the Revolution, and on the French and Indian War. That's where the Founders' heads were at, kids.

The founders had no idea of the amount of firepower they would be putting in the hands of the public when they adopted the 2nd amendment.

They also had no idea what kind of firepower governments would have either, they did however want them to be equitable.

Given that the militia exists to assist/resist the standing army as necessary, no other sound conclusion is possible.

 

[Flopper]

The founders had no idea of the amount of firepower they would be putting in the hands of the public when they adopted the 2nd amendment.

They also had no concept of cable news networks, the internet and cell phones.
Your point?

The purpose of the amendment was not to provide the public with weapons of mass destruction, but rather to provide citizens protection against a standing army which they strongly opposed. Today there is little opposition to a standing army and people do not purchase guns to protection themselves from that army.

Today, unlike the colonial times, we don't reply on mobs with guns to protect the rights of the individual but rather a legal system.

 

[idb]

Non-sequitur, strawman.
Please DO feel free to try again,

Not at all.

Please show how your statement logically follwos from what I posted.
Else, non-sequitur.

Please show where I said that every person should be allowed to own a gun regardless of mental state or intended use.
Else, strawman.

That you have been reduced to logical fallacies clearlt indicates you have run out of reasoned responses.

Crikey, you sound so reasoned yourself.
Yet, the logical corollary of rejecting any regulation of guns is allowing everyone to own guns...it isn't the direct statements that you make but the logical conclusions from your position that give you away.
You're not hard to figure out really.

 

[idb]

The founders had no idea of the amount of firepower they would be putting in the hands of the public when they adopted the 2nd amendment.

They also had no concept of cable news networks, the internet and cell phones.
Your point?

Well hello, fellow strawman.
Where are these things mentioned in The Constitution?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The founders had no idea of the amount of firepower they would be putting in the hands of the public when they adopted the 2nd amendment.

They also had no concept of cable news networks, the internet and cell phones.
Your point?

Well hello, fellow strawman.
Where are these things mentioned in The Constitution?

They are not -- and yet, even though the founders had no concept of them, the 1st/4th amendment still protects them.

The point is that the "technology of the 18th century" argument always fails.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not at all.

Please show how your statement logically follwos from what I posted.
Else, non-sequitur.

Please show where I said that every person should be allowed to own a gun regardless of mental state or intended use.
Else, strawman.

That you have been reduced to logical fallacies clearlt indicates you have run out of reasoned responses.

Crikey, you sound so reasoned yourself.
Yet, the logical corollary of rejecting any regulation of guns....

When did I reject any regulations of guns?
Oh that's right-- I haven't.

So, you're still arguing staw and non-sequitur.

Please feel free to try again.

 

[idb]

They also had no concept of cable news networks, the internet and cell phones.
Your point?

Well hello, fellow strawman.
Where are these things mentioned in The Constitution?

They are not -- and yet, even though the founders had no concept of them, the 1st/4th amendment still protects them.

The point is that the "technology of the 18th century" argument always fails.

Firearms are mentioned explicitly in the constitution so the actual intent of the writers, the circumstances of the times and the available technology is a relevant discussion.