Be Honest: There is only one real reason to need to carry a gun.

[Ringel05]

Go back and reread your contributions to this thread. Hardly the stuff to encourage debate.

Have I said some things that fall into the "sterotype' category? Probably. Things that are rhetorical? Maybe. But I've also said a lot more. You've chosen to ignore those latter aspects, and write them off under the "oh, if you say one thing that I think is superfluous, then everything you say is such". That is not only a cop out and being lazy, it's also intellectually dishonest.

Ummmm..... now take that and apply it to your own arguments and you might just figure it out.

All of them that I've made in this thread?

Ok, now you're really starting to stretch it...

I already qualified the parameters of my argument earlier, now you want to expand them again?
Okay, I'll make it simple, when one starts basing aspects of their argument on false or partial information, (your use of false stereotypical allusions), it places that person in the same category as those who have used the same argument against them, thereby negating any real argument they might have had. Doesn't negate any provable facts, just the argument in general.

 

[g5000]

bbzzz...you couldn't be more wrong. The only time I even think about guns is on these boards...

So you think it wrong that there should be controls - ie, that there should be background checks to make sure people aren't psychos?

I am as right as can be. It appears you want all of us to have background checks to assuage your fear of psychos with guns.

Absolutely.

Every reason given for wanting to control our liberties is based on fear.

 

[g5000]

You all remember there was a shooting at a mall in Oregon just before the Sandy Hook school shooting?

There was a man in that mall with a concealed weapon. He did not shoot, though. The reasons he gave were that he could not be certain that was only one shooter, and he could not be certain that he had a clear line of fire and would not hit any innocent bystanders.

He was about the same age as the shooter and demonstrated amazing clear thinking and self-control.

If the shooter's gun had not jammed and he was able to keep shooting, who knows what the outcome might have been, but I trust the man with the concealed gun would have acted completely responsibly.

 

[deltex1]

FEAR

Seriously. Think about it. If there was no FEAR of being robbed and/or assaulted there is no reason to carry a gun, right?

We buy auto insurance and wear seat belts because we FEAR that at some point in time we may be involved in an accident. (Ok, and in most cases the law requires it and we fear getting a ticket too.)

Hey!! I'm not knocking it. Illinois will soon finally join everyone else in passing a CC law. When we do that I will get one so I can carry it in any areas known for high crime rates. But since I don't FEAR being robbed and/or assaulted in my small hometown I don't feel the need to carry it around.

Now I also realize that there are those who simply want to carry one around like a playtoy. But I suspect that they are simply making up for other "shortcomings".

So if anyone disagrees that FEAR is the primary motivation to carry a gun please explain why it's not.

.

The ladies always look with fear at the bulge in my pants...they ask what caliber I am carrying and I show them my 9mm under my arm...the they look back at the bulge and smile...

 

[Dr Grump]

I am as right as can be. It appears you want all of us to have background checks to assuage your fear of psychos with guns.

Absolutely.

Every reason given for wanting to control our liberties is based on fear.

Not really. More like common sense...

 

[Politico]

FEAR

Seriously. Think about it. If there was no FEAR of being robbed and/or assaulted there is no reason to carry a gun, right?

We buy auto insurance and wear seat belts because we FEAR that at some point in time we may be involved in an accident. (Ok, and in most cases the law requires it and we fear getting a ticket too.)

Hey!! I'm not knocking it. Illinois will soon finally join everyone else in passing a CC law. When we do that I will get one so I can carry it in any areas known for high crime rates. But since I don't FEAR being robbed and/or assaulted in my small hometown I don't feel the need to carry it around.

Now I also realize that there are those who simply want to carry one around like a playtoy. But I suspect that they are simply making up for other "shortcomings".

So if anyone disagrees that FEAR is the primary motivation to carry a gun please explain why it's not.

.

I'm not afraid of anything. I wear a seatbelt because it's the law. I buy insurance because they make me. And only someone who is clueless about guns would refer to them as playtoys. So we know you don't own any (thank god). As far as why I might be picking one up right this minute? Well to piss off a liberal of course. Here I can prove it.

Hmm baby feel that barrel. Moving my hand down to the grip. Now I'm fondling the safety. Just wanna cock that thing and point it. Here's a cloth. There there baby let me rub you a bit.

 

[Oddball]

Absolutely.

Every reason given for wanting to control our liberties is based on fear.

Not really. More like common sense...

"Common sense" being defined as blaming inanimate objects for the actions of defective people, and passing laws that would not have prevented the acts that are being blamed as the impetus for the lawmaking.

If that's common sense, I'll take insanity, thankyouverymuch.

 

[g5000]

Absolutely.

Every reason given for wanting to control our liberties is based on fear.

Not really. More like common sense...

No they are quite far from common sense. They are based on appeals to emotion, through and through. Just pay attention to the rhetoric of the proponents of any control of our liberties. It's dripping with fear and other negative emotions.

Step one of the control phase: "We must do something!"

Step two: "This is something."

Step three: "We must do this."

 

[TakeAStepBack]

FEAR

Seriously. Think about it. If there was no FEAR of being robbed and/or assaulted there is no reason to carry a gun, right?

We buy auto insurance and wear seat belts because we FEAR that at some point in time we may be involved in an accident. (Ok, and in most cases the law requires it and we fear getting a ticket too.)

Hey!! I'm not knocking it. Illinois will soon finally join everyone else in passing a CC law. When we do that I will get one so I can carry it in any areas known for high crime rates. But since I don't FEAR being robbed and/or assaulted in my small hometown I don't feel the need to carry it around.

Now I also realize that there are those who simply want to carry one around like a playtoy. But I suspect that they are simply making up for other "shortcomings".

So if anyone disagrees that FEAR is the primary motivation to carry a gun please explain why it's not.

.

The ladies always look with fear at the bulge in my pants...they ask what caliber I am carrying and I show them my 9mm under my arm...the they look back at the bulge and smile...

I never understood the tight pants thing.

 

[Dr Grump]

Every reason given for wanting to control our liberties is based on fear.

Not really. More like common sense...

No they are quite far from common sense. They are based on appeals to emotion, through and through. Just pay attention to the rhetoric of the proponents of any control of our liberties. It's dripping with fear and other negative emotions.

So it's not common sense to find out if a person is a psycho or not? You should be able to armed no matter what your mental state? Cool....

 

[Dr Grump]

Every reason given for wanting to control our liberties is based on fear.

Not really. More like common sense...

"Common sense" being defined as blaming inanimate objects for the actions of defective people, and passing laws that would not have prevented the acts that are being blamed as the impetus for the lawmaking.

If that's common sense, I'll take insanity, thankyouverymuch.

How do you know these laws would have not prevented a tragedy.

What do you mean you'd take insanity? You mean your predilection for wanting to live in this Utopian, unachievable perfect society that you expouse is a sane notion?

Hell, as mentioned earlier, due to your standing on this board, not even you believe in what you are saying. You're just as much a power junky as anybody...

 

[Oddball]

FEAR

Seriously. Think about it. If there was no FEAR of being robbed and/or assaulted there is no reason to carry a gun, right?

We buy auto insurance and wear seat belts because we FEAR that at some point in time we may be involved in an accident. (Ok, and in most cases the law requires it and we fear getting a ticket too.)

Hey!! I'm not knocking it. Illinois will soon finally join everyone else in passing a CC law. When we do that I will get one so I can carry it in any areas known for high crime rates. But since I don't FEAR being robbed and/or assaulted in my small hometown I don't feel the need to carry it around.

Now I also realize that there are those who simply want to carry one around like a playtoy. But I suspect that they are simply making up for other "shortcomings".

So if anyone disagrees that FEAR is the primary motivation to carry a gun please explain why it's not.

.

The ladies always look with fear at the bulge in my pants...they ask what caliber I am carrying and I show them my 9mm under my arm...the they look back at the bulge and smile...

I never understood the tight pants thing.

 

[freedombecki]

FEAR

Seriously. Think about it. If there was no FEAR of being robbed and/or assaulted there is no reason to carry a gun, right?

We buy auto insurance and wear seat belts because we FEAR that at some point in time we may be involved in an accident. (Ok, and in most cases the law requires it and we fear getting a ticket too.)

Hey!! I'm not knocking it. Illinois will soon finally join everyone else in passing a CC law. When we do that I will get one so I can carry it in any areas known for high crime rates. But since I don't FEAR being robbed and/or assaulted in my small hometown I don't feel the need to carry it around.

Now I also realize that there are those who simply want to carry one around like a playtoy. But I suspect that they are simply making up for other "shortcomings".

So if anyone disagrees that FEAR is the primary motivation to carry a gun please explain why it's not.
.

You're taking the negative for political reasons.

Guns give some people the confidence that they can move in unfriendly areas relatively safely when they are intelligently trained and armed against trouble makers.

Others can convince the same people they wouldn't want to harm anyone in a courteous and convincingly direct way.

Rather than disarm good people, why not teach angry people calm ways and lonely people inclusiveness in higher principles. Send them to a Christian Church. Our fathers did. Christianity has changed societies for many years and made ours the giving society it is and a beacon light to those who call upon us. Americans help others and always have throughout our 237 year history. Our churches consider all to be children of the same greater being.

IOW, don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Our founders knew what they were doing, and it's worked wonders.

 

[Oddball]

Not really. More like common sense...

"Common sense" being defined as blaming inanimate objects for the actions of defective people, and passing laws that would not have prevented the acts that are being blamed as the impetus for the lawmaking.

If that's common sense, I'll take insanity, thankyouverymuch.

How do you know these laws would have not prevented a tragedy.

What do you mean you'd take insanity? You mean your predilection for wanting to live in this Utopian, unachievable perfect society that you expouse is a sane notion?

Hell, as mentioned earlier, due to your standing on this board, not even you believe in what you are saying. You're just as much a power junky as anybody...

Because the weapons in question were obtained by following all the laws and were fucking stolen by the perpetrators....Guess what?...The law cannot protect you from the actions of criminals.

I meant I'd take insanity if we were going by you completely naïve and tragically misguided notion of what constitutes "common sense"...I'll stand by that statement.

And my standing on this forum is still irrelevant to anything having to to with the subject.

 

[Dr Grump]

"Common sense" being defined as blaming inanimate objects for the actions of defective people, and passing laws that would not have prevented the acts that are being blamed as the impetus for the lawmaking.

If that's common sense, I'll take insanity, thankyouverymuch.

How do you know these laws would have not prevented a tragedy.

What do you mean you'd take insanity? You mean your predilection for wanting to live in this Utopian, unachievable perfect society that you expouse is a sane notion?

Hell, as mentioned earlier, due to your standing on this board, not even you believe in what you are saying. You're just as much a power junky as anybody...

Because the weapons in question were obtained by following all the laws and were fucking stolen by the perpetrators....Guess what?...The law cannot protect you from the actions of criminals.

I meant I'd take insanity if we were going by you completely naïve and tragically misguided notion of what constitutes "common sense"...I'll stand by that statement.

And my standing on this forum is still irrelevant to anything having to to with the subject.

Yes, but if there were checks and balances in place - and over time - I would suggest plenty of whack jobs would not get their hands on peashooters. Your argument seems to be that if these laws are in place that if one whackjob gets hold of a gun and kills people then the laws have failed miserably without taking into account how many people it would have stopped. Warped logic and best...Insanity at worst. Take your pick.

You have had an anti-govt/authoritarian streak ever since you first started on this board. You seem to hate most laws and any other sort of ordered society that doesn't meet your narrow scope of what a society should be. And yet, you put your hand up to 'enforce' the laws of this board - not once, but twice.... As I said, hypocritical and there for all to see...

 

[M14 Shooter]

FEAR

Seems to me, with as much as we're told that gun-related violent crime so bad that the threat posed by same to society necessitates that the rights of the law abiding must be restricted, the only rational, reasoned response is to carry a gun.

So.... you're clearly and demonstrably wrong.

 

[Ringel05]

How do you know these laws would have not prevented a tragedy.

What do you mean you'd take insanity? You mean your predilection for wanting to live in this Utopian, unachievable perfect society that you expouse is a sane notion?

Hell, as mentioned earlier, due to your standing on this board, not even you believe in what you are saying. You're just as much a power junky as anybody...

Because the weapons in question were obtained by following all the laws and were fucking stolen by the perpetrators....Guess what?...The law cannot protect you from the actions of criminals.

I meant I'd take insanity if we were going by you completely naïve and tragically misguided notion of what constitutes "common sense"...I'll stand by that statement.

And my standing on this forum is still irrelevant to anything having to to with the subject.

Yes, but if there were checks and balances in place - and over time - I would suggest plenty of whack jobs would not get their hands on peashooters. Your argument seems to be that if these laws are in place that if one whackjob gets hold of a gun and kills people then the laws have failed miserably without taking into account how many people it would have stopped. Warped logic and best...Insanity at worst. Take your pick.

You have had an anti-govt/authoritarian streak ever since you first started on this board. You seem to hate most laws and any other sort of ordered society that doesn't meet your narrow scope of what a society should be. And yet, you put your hand up to 'enforce' the laws of this board - not once, but twice.... As I said, hypocritical and there for all to see...

The checks and balances are in place and most gun laws have proven ineffective in deterring crime. So using your own argument, placing more restrictive laws on law-abiding citizens, the VAST number of purchasers and users of firearms in this country, you negate a proven, strong deterrent against crime and some wackjob gets a hold of a gun and kills people then the laws have failed miserably without taking into account how many people it would have stopped. Warped logic and best...Insanity at worst. Take your pick.

 

[Dr Grump]

The checks and balances are in place and most gun laws have proven ineffective in deterring crime. So using your own argument, placing more restrictive laws on law-abiding citizens, the VAST number of purchasers and users of firearms in this country, you negate a proven, strong deterrent against crime and some wackjob gets a hold of a gun and kills people then the laws have failed miserably without taking into account how many people it would have stopped. Warped logic and best...Insanity at worst. Take your pick.

So, you are saying you should no be subject to a background check?

 

[Ringel05]

The checks and balances are in place and most gun laws have proven ineffective in deterring crime. So using your own argument, placing more restrictive laws on law-abiding citizens, the VAST number of purchasers and users of firearms in this country, you negate a proven, strong deterrent against crime and some wackjob gets a hold of a gun and kills people then the laws have failed miserably without taking into account how many people it would have stopped. Warped logic and best...Insanity at worst. Take your pick.

So, you are saying you should no be subject to a background check?

Puleeeease...... stop with the bull shit assumptions and address the post.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The checks and balances are in place and most gun laws have proven ineffective in deterring crime. So using your own argument, placing more restrictive laws on law-abiding citizens, the VAST number of purchasers and users of firearms in this country, you negate a proven, strong deterrent against crime and some wackjob gets a hold of a gun and kills people then the laws have failed miserably without taking into account how many people it would have stopped. Warped logic and best...Insanity at worst. Take your pick.

So, you are saying you should no be subject to a background check?

Background checks are a form of prior restraint.
Prior restraint is an infringement.
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
And so, no, he should not, because doing so infringes upon his rights, which violates the constitutional mandate against same.

Now, any right can be infringed w/o violating the constitution, should the state show that said infringement was enacted pursuant to and is effective in achieving a compelling state interest, and that the infringement is the least restrictive means to that end.

So, if you believe there is such an interest, please feel free to show it, remembering, of course, that "compelling state interest" has a specific meaning that far exceeds "a good idea".