Jump to content

What is better, no guns, or more guns?

Security
 Share

Recommended Posts

TakeYouToTasker Hall of Famer

TakeYouToTasker

Posted
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, GaryPinC said:

Really?    Supreme Court decision DC vs Heller, upholding the 2nd amendment.  Page 2:

 

"2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."

 

This of the majority opinion supporting the second amendment.  A nice way to show that you are 100% wrong.

 

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?

 

 

Edited by TakeYouToTasker
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 10.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

3rdnlng
3rdnlng
Big Gun
Big Gun

I've seen this before and thought this might be a good place to share since the weekend events.     There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disp

Buffalo_Gal
Buffalo_Gal

I mentioned to hubby (and a few friends) this past weekend that the gun-grabbers make me want to get a pistol license, only problem is I'd actually have to shoot a gun. Hubby assured me I do not have

Posted Images

TakeYouToTasker Hall of Famer

TakeYouToTasker

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, Figster said:

Well they did take the fig out of the Newton.

 

but yes, guns in the hands of criminals in many instances results in harm to the public,

 

If you can add two and two... 

 

Tell me what you think of these realities:

 

There are more guns in the United States than people, and the people who own the guns are overwhelmingly against everything you've proposed, as what you propose is a violation of their rights.

 

Guns have the unique property of lending themselves to the protections of rights which others try to violate.

 

Trying to remove guns from the hands of individuals who believe you are violating their rights by trying to take them away will lead to the largest, and ongoing, amount of gun violence in the history of the country.

 

More than half the country would likely become felons under your proposal.

 

The people you would be charging with confiscation and enforcement are overwhelmingly pro-Second Amendment gun owners themselves.

 

There are many more tangential points, though I'd like you to respond to these first. 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Figster Veteran

Figster

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Tell me what you think of these realities:

 

There are more guns in the United States than people, and the people who own the guns are overwhelmingly against everything you've proposed, as what you propose is a violation of their rights.

 

Guns have the unique property of lending themselves to the protections of rights which others try to violate.

 

Trying to remove guns from the hands of individuals who believe you are violating their rights by trying to take them away will lead to the largest, and ongoing, amount of gun violence in the history of the country.

 

More than half the country would likely become felons under your proposal.

 

The people you would be charging with confiscation and enforcement are overwhelmingly pro-Second Amendment gun owners themselves.

 

There are many more tangential points, though I'd like you to respond to these first. 

 

Only two real ways to fix the gun problem in the US.( IMO) 

 

Control them or remove them. 

 

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)

Edited by Figster
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TakeYouToTasker Hall of Famer

TakeYouToTasker

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Figster said:

Only two ways to fix the gun problem in the US. 

 

Control them or remove them. 

 

Address my points please.

 

Quote

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.

 

This is a No True Scotsman fallacy.  (a logical fallacy)

 

You've presented an assumed point, attempted to insert it without validating through argument; and then asserted that anyone who opposes this assumed point isn't a law abiding citizen.

 

This is not an argument.

 

Address the points I made, and then we can continue.

 

 

 

Edited by TakeYouToTasker
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bdutton RFA

bdutton

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Figster said:

Only two ways to fix the gun problem in the US. 

 

Control them or remove them. 

 

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. 

 

Its not a gun problem.  Its a violence problem.  Multiple factors leading to an escalation in random mass shootings which I have posted in this thread and the other thread already.

 

There has been increased gun control measures enacted since 1968 with zero net effect on reducing the criminal misuse of guns.

If it's not the gun it is other factors that have been overlooked (at best) or ignored (at worst).

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
plenzmd1 Hall of Famer

plenzmd1

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, westside2 said:

It indicates to me, those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

 

4 hours ago, /dev/null said:

That as a resident of a blue state represented twice on the list above (Virginia), I should take proactive steps to protect myself.

OR..how about 8 of the 10 states with the strictest gun laws are not on the list where mass shootings have occured So i would take it  then as a matter of logic that that stricter gun laws prevent mass shootings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
IDBillzFan Hall of Famer

IDBillzFan

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Figster said:

Tell me where your at, at all times, or your punk ass is getting melted down and made into a trash can so you can eat garbage.

 

 

You should take your GPS plan to Bernie! Or better yet, why not take over the empty Chief of Staff position for AOC and you can include it in her New Green Deal! Now with GPS tracking for people who dare to fly by air! Trying to board a plane? We're going to melt you down, you punk ass traveler!

 

Greatest meltdown ever!  Now entering it's third season! :lol:

 

 

 

 

29 minutes ago, Figster said:

Only two ways to fix the gun problem in the US. 

 

Control them or remove them. 

 

Right on! Same with spoons! The only way to stop the spread of obesity is to to put a GPS in all spoons. If you're a fatass going for a double scoop of Ben and Jerry's Antifa Jubiliee, we're going to melt you down, punk!!! :lol:

Edited by IDBillzFan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leh-nerd skin-erd All Pro

leh-nerd skin-erd

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

 

You should take your GPS plan to Bernie! Or better yet, why not take over the empty Chief of Staff position for AOC and you can include it in her New Green Deal! Now with GPS tracking for people who dare to fly by air! Trying to board a plane? We're going to melt you down, you punk ass traveler!

 

Greatest meltdown ever!  Now entering it's third season! :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

Right on! Same with spoons! The only way to stop the spread of obesity is to to put a GPS in all spoons. If you're a fatass going for a double scoop of Ben and Jerry's Antifa Jubiliee, we're going to melt you down, punk!!! :lol:

You've gone full  Boisie Boy since emigrating to Idaho.  

 

And since someone brought up the Boisie Boy TV show, looks like a beautiful part of the country. Congrats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doc Brown Hall of Famer

Doc Brown

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

The interesting fact is that they actually didn’t get Obamacare through in that window! You’ll recall that when Ted Kennedy died the good people of Massachusetts rose up and elected a republican just so that he could stop the ACA. So the Dem leadership did an end around and never brought the bill back to the floor for a vote, knowing it wouldn’t pass. A story most Americans forget.

Obama, Pelosi, and Reid were slick in navigating the waters to get it passed after Kennedy died as they refused to let it drown. 

 

Another overlooked aspect of getting the bill passed was Obama urging Democratic Senators not to strip Lieberman of his chairmanship on one of the Senate's committees even though he endorsed McCain.  Even though Lieberman pry killed the public option he voted for the final bill and may not have out of spite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Figster Veteran

Figster

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Address my points please.

 

 

This is a No True Scotsman fallacy.  (a logical fallacy)

 

You've presented an assumed point, attempted to insert it without validating through argument; and then asserted that anyone who opposes this assumed point isn't a law abiding citizen.

 

This is not an argument.

 

Address the points I made, and then we can continue.

 

 

 

 

 

The high number of guns in the US is obvious.

 

People refusing to do what might be asked to help remedy the gun problem is an assumed point on your part.

 

( point taken on my post)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Figster
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TakeYouToTasker Hall of Famer

TakeYouToTasker

Posted
Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, Figster said:

What points?

 

The high number of guns in the US is obvious.

 

...

 

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.

 

Quote

People refusing to do what might be asked to help remedy the gun problem is an assumed point on your part.

 

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.

 

 

Edited by TakeYouToTasker
Noting that I've seen your edit.
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leh-nerd skin-erd All Pro

leh-nerd skin-erd

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, ALF said:

 

AR-15  type 

Don't want to hijack the discussion you are having with the other folks, but this question constantly pulls me in different directions. 

 

Why would I not want to buy an AR15, own it lawfully, learn to use it, and keep it for my own safety?  I see news stories constantly about extremists attacking ordinary citizens and the formula seems to be a whole 'lotta extremists--often in masks--attacking one overmatched citizen.  Add to that the challenge of leadership in cities like Baltimore and Portland advising the cops to stand by while the thumping occurs, as if the set-upon party is expendable.  Then, there is  the recent video of law enforcement personnel being doused with water or worse in NYC, and getting back to some our cities, the stand-down orders where violent pos are allowed to destroy personal property unmolested.  Now, we have leading political operatives revealing the names/addresses/employers of American citizens for the sole purpose of intimidation, exposing them to the same type of violent extremists who discussed themselves stabbing an American senator in the heart in his home, and filmed it like disciples of Charles Manson.

 

And that's where we are at....today. The threat to me personally is still relatively low, but certainly higher than it was 10 years ago.  At the same time...

 

The way I see it, the people have nothing to fear from me.  I'm mentally stable (mostly), I work for a living, I judge people on the content of their character, and present a threat to no one.  At the same time, the impression I'm getting is that I'm viewed as an enemy to many people for  the things I think and believe. I own property on a commercial strip not far from a good-sized city, worked hard to get it and harder still to keep it--and while I would hate to see it set ablaze by masked thugs, it's just property.  However, if it's set ablaze by masked thugs when it's occupied by my employees and myself, well, that is a whole 'nother story. 

 

I'd think in the scenarios outlined, 8 rounds is insufficient. What say you? 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TakeYouToTasker Hall of Famer

TakeYouToTasker

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, ALF said:

Do the right thing like New Zealand , outlaw assault rifles and destroy any out there. The police and law obeying citizens will be safer.

 

Nope.  Will be the largest ongoing mass casualty in history.

 

People will not give up their guns.  If you try to violate their rights by taking them there will be massive amounts of bloodshed.

 

The first time someone dies because some government agency comes for their guns, it will demonstrate the absolute necessity of having those guns to protect you from a tyrannical government.

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TakeYouToTasker Hall of Famer

TakeYouToTasker

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

 

Doing something for the sake of doing something is not a viable solution to any problem

 

If you are up to your nostrils in water, with your feet chained to the bottom of a well; pouring more water in would certainly be considered doing something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
/dev/null Hall of Famer

/dev/null

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, ALF said:

 

So how would you solve this problem ?

 

Dunno, but I do know that you cannot un-invent the gun.  Confiscation of 300+ million firearms is a pipe dream, and a bloody one at that.  Prohibition on the sale of new firearms will fail and only create an underground market (see also the prohibition of alcohol in the 20s or current prohibition on illegal narcotics)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...