What is better, no guns, or more guns?

[DC Tom]

Just now, ExiledInIllinois said:

Thanks @ALF ? The Village Idiot is out of the pillory.

 

How else is he going to catch Asian Carp?

[ExiledInIllinois]

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

How else is he going to catch Asian Carp?

The Chinese in Chinatown?

[Figster]

19 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

...

 

I presented you with a list of points, each of which will make it very difficult to implement your ideas.

 

I examined your idea, and was considerate enough to think it through, and provide you with a list of very real challenges to it's implementation.

 

I now ask that you reciprocate, and address them, one by one.

 

 

That's not how this works.  You offered a logical fallacy (No True Scotsman) in place of an argument.

 

You've now doubled down with a bare assumption that there is a gun problem (I reject this), and imply that those who disagree on that front, and who disagree that you have the just authority to impose the confiscation/tracking you propose should not be considered law-abiding (I reject this as well).

 

American citizens enjoy the protection of a natural right to bear arms in order to defend their liberty from anyone who might seek to infringe it, be that other individuals or the government.  This right does not come from government.  It is rather completely intrinsic to humanity, and governments can only be legitimate if they propose to protect the natural rights of those individuals they propose to govern through just law.

 

A government which does not propose to protect those rights, but rather chooses to violate them on their own, is tyrannical, and therefore cannot be just or legitimate.

 

Further, the High Law of the land is the US Constitution.  There is no law which can be passed which invalidates or supersedes it.  As such, any law which regulated firearms in the way in which you propose would itself be illegal.

 

The law abiding citizens would be those to held fast to their weaponry, and fought back against your proposed tyranny.  The law breakers would be those violating the Constitution.

 

 

Regulated in the a way I suggest still allows the right to bear firearms.

 

If you want to carry an assault rifle into a heavily populated area shouldn't I have a right to know you are doing it?  

 

 

[Tiberius]

9 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

The AR-15 is not an assault rifle.

I suppose some of you guys consider it simply an anal toy, but it is still an assault rifle. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

7 minutes ago, Figster said:

Regulated in the a way I suggest still allows the right to bear firearms.

 

Your proposition that the government has the just authority to regulate in the way you've described does not preserve the right to bear arms.  It asserts that the government has the right to seize any weapons which individuals refuse to register and chip, and that individuals simply enjoy the privilege of bearing arms, so long as they are in compliance with the government.

 

Rights and privileges are not the same thing.

 

Rights are intrinsic to an individual's humanity, and cannot be separated from him, only violated.

 

Privileges are granted by a benevolent entity, and demand capitulation and subservience.

 

want to carry an assault rifle into a heavily populated area shouldn't I have a right to know you are doing it?

 

Absolutely not.  I have the right to conceal, or to display (open carry), my choice.

 

You have the same choice about your own actions, but you do not enjoy the right to dictate my peaceful decisions.  That's what rights are.

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

I suppose some of you guys consider it simply an anal toy, but it is still an assault rifle. 

 

No, it's not.  Assault rifles have burst and full-auto settings, by definition.  The AR-15 does not, only semi-auto, and does not have burst or full-auto settings.  Ergo, it is not an assault rifle.  It is a semi-automatic rifle with a box magazine.  Just like the Barrett M90, the Dragunov SVD, the Bushmaster M17, etc.  

 

Words have meaning.  Use them properly.

[Tiberius]

24 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

No, it's not.  Assault rifles have burst and full-auto settings, by definition.  The AR-15 does not, only semi-auto, and does not have burst or full-auto settings.  Ergo, it is not an assault rifle.  It is a semi-automatic rifle with a box magazine.  Just like the Barrett M90, the Dragunov SVD, the Bushmaster M17, etc.  

 

Words have meaning.  Use them properly.

It's an assault rifle. You are an idiot 

[IDBillzFan]

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

For starters I would put an immediate end to all government programs which result in perverse decisions incentivizing single motherhood.

 

Helluva start. Lost, of course, on most on the left. Especially those stupid enough to think a GPS on a gun will keep another Antifa nutbag from shooting a bunch of people.

 

 

[Figster]

38 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Your proposition that the government has the just authority to regulate in the way you've described does not preserve the right to bear arms.  It asserts that the government has the right to seize any weapons which individuals refuse to register and chip, and that individuals simply enjoy the privilege of bearing arms, so long as they are in compliance with the government.

 

Rights and privileges are not the same thing.

 

Rights are intrinsic to an individual's humanity, and cannot be separated from him, only violated.

 

Privileges are granted by a benevolent entity, and demand capitulation and subservience.

 

 

 

 

Absolutely not.  I have the right to conceal, or to display (open carry), my choice.

 

You have the same choice about your own actions, but you do not enjoy the right to dictate my peaceful decisions.  That's what rights are.

I concede, 

 

my idea would face an uphill battle, one practically impossible to win.

 

Thanks for the patience/ good explanation.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

20 minutes ago, Figster said:

I concede, 

 

my idea would face an uphill battle, one practically impossible to win.

 

Thanks for the patience/ good explanation.

Well played. Honorable.

 

"You just went up a notch in my book. You're at notch one."

-Huggy Bear 

[Koko78]

5 hours ago, Figster said:

I'm not sure why any law abiding citizen would have a problem helping eliminate guns ending up in the wrong hands or going where the gun was not intended. ( IMO)

 

Who decides which hands are the "wrong hands", or who is "intended" to get a firearm?

 

The same people who think that everyone who disagrees with them is a white supremacist, racist, actual literal super mecha-Nazi ?

 

3 hours ago, bdutton said:

Also... poor trigger discipline. 3/10 would not bang.

 

What trigger?

[B-Man]

The American people ARE the militia. The individual right OF THE PEOPLE shall not be infringed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/yaf

 

[GaryPinC]

7 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

I'd like you to clarify which poor argument you're making, in order to take it apart for you.

 

Are you arguing that the High Law of the Land is not the Constitution itself, but rather that Constitutional Lawyers are?  Or is your argument that the SCOTUS is incapable of making improper, unconstitutional decisions?  Or maybe it's that the extremely narrow language used in Heller is actually overly broad, and all encompassing, meaning that any bill passed by Congress and signed into law by the President intended to regulate gun ownership supersedes the Second Amendment's explicit decree "shall not be infringed"?  Or perhaps your argument is that the current or future Courts cannot overturn prior rulings which run afoul of Origionalism?

 

 

Nope, all your attempts to characterize my argument are completely off point and irrelevant.

The SCOTUS, the final legal authority on interpreting the Constitution, has ruled that the individual has the right to keep and bear arms and that governments have the right to regulate them and already do.

 

No matter what you think, this IS the legally correct interpretation of the 2nd amendment until that amendment is revoked/changed or a future supreme Court strikes it down.  Which just isn't going to happen.

 

Here's an easy link summarizing federal regulation efforts of guns:https://m.dw.com/en/8-facts-about-gun-control-in-the-us/a-40816418

 

Obviously there's many more state and local laws.  I rejoiced in 2008 with DC vs Heller because SCOTUS finally stepped up and shot down the left's "only for militia" argument and set a legal precedent every lower court must follow.  

 

Requiring training for licensing to buy a gun is not unconstitutional as per the SCOTUS decisions (Heller, McDonald vs Chicago) making your argument 100% wrong.

[GaryPinC]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

The American people ARE the militia. The individual right OF THE PEOPLE shall not be infringed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/yaf

 

But they can be regulated as necessary.  As interpreted by the SCOTUS, allowed under article 3 of the Constitution.

[whatdrought]

3 hours ago, Figster said:

I concede, 

 

my idea would face an uphill battle, one practically impossible to win.

 

Thanks for the patience/ good explanation.

 

This is good ***** right here, and not just cause you’re ceasing an argument I disagree with. I assume you still have your ideas and your presuppositions, like tasker has his, but you’re not gonna beat a dead horse past the conversation and into oblivion. You two don’t have to agree to walk away friends. Seriously well done.

[LikeIGiveADarn]

26 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

This is good ***** right here, and not just cause you’re ceasing an argument I disagree with. I assume you still have your ideas and your presuppositions, like tasker has his, but you’re not gonna beat a dead horse past the conversation and into oblivion. You two don’t have to agree to walk away friends. Seriously well done.

 

***** you! I want blood!!

[whatdrought]

9 minutes ago, LikeIGiveADarn said:

 

***** you! I want blood!!

 

Start a thread asking if Trump colluded and or obstructed. 

[Hedge]

 

 

 

Incoming: the suspect identified as a white supremacist.

 

[ALF]

Trump had phone call with NRA’s LaPierre in wake of massacres

 

President Trump had a phone conversation with the National Rifle Association Chief Executive Wayne LaPierre on Tuesday,  just days after two mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton,  Ohio.

 

The Washington Post, citing unnamed sources, reported that LaPierre told Trump that endorsing tougher background checks -- which the president has reportedly done in private since the February 2018 massacre in Parkland, Fla., that left 17 dead, would not be popular with his voter base.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-had-phone-call-with-nras-lapierre-in-wake-of-massacres

[Nanker]

 Much of his base not only support background checks, required training, and responsible ownership, but have done and are actively improving their own gun safety education. The NRA is a key component of that. I’ve taken several. NRA gun safety classes. I also had background checks, photo ID, and fingerprinting done in MA, and NJ. Though NJ didn’t do a photo ID. Both states issuing body is the local Police Department. 

 

In in spite of me and hundreds of thousands of others doing that, thou SS of criminals circumvent the law and the processes because they don’t care.