CDZ gun magazine bullet limits...they only effect law abiding gun owners so why do we need them.

[Skull Pilot]

And... none of these laws prevent people from doing those very things. You make my point.

Are you saying they are 0% effective?

My position is obvious:
Laws cannot prevent actions; a law cannot prevent someone from breaking another law.
Enacting a law that restricts the tights of the law abiding based on the false premise that a law can prevent someone from breaking another law is, at best, nonsensical.

You believe I am wrong?
Why don't you propose a law that will prevent people form committing murder?
Do that and we won't need more gun control.

It's called a murder law. Without them, we'd have a LOT more murders.

I really can't tell if you're serious. There can't be anyone this dumb who also knows how to turn on a computer or phone.

Really?

Murder has been illegal in societies for thousands of years and yet we still have murders. I don't see how you can prove any murder was actually prevented by merely passing a law

Wow.

Please just stop.

Why don't you start backing up the shit you post?

 

[M14 Shooter]

If gun laws are unnecessary because anything can kill, then we should also freely allow all rogue nations to acquire nukes.

Rational, reasoned people refer to this as a non-sequitur.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Sorry but a gun and a virus are not analogous at all

They can both kill

A hammer can kill
A fist can kill
A baseball bat can kill

need I go on?

Only until you get to the point. You're saying a gun is analogous to many dangerous things. True, but that hardly negates my analogy.

Of course it does.

A gun cannot propagate and spread through a population

 

[alang1216]

When your action hams someone or places them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger, sure.
Simple ownership and possession of a firearm does neither of these things

And if someone perceives a danger from a stranger carrying a gun?

 

[GaryDog]

If gun laws are unnecessary because anything can kill, then we should also freely allow all rogue nations to acquire nukes.

Rational, reasoned people refer to this as a non-sequitur.

So, in other words, not you.

 

[GaryDog]

Stop focusing on law abiding gun Owners and focus on the actual problem.....criminals who use guns for crime......

There are repeat offenders for sure and I agree with you that they require tough measures. Unfortunately it's hard to tell the good guys from the future bad guys until it is too late.

What percentage of people who pass every background check to get a CCW permit will all of a sudden turn to a life of crime murder and mayhem?

I'm saying it's such a small percentage as to be statistically irrelevant.

What percentage of people with criminal records will continue to live lives of crime?

A hell of a lot more so focus your efforts there

Red herring fallacy.

WHat's the red herring?

The criminals or the law abiding people?

This "life of crime" bullshit. You're trying to make it about thugs in Chicago, and detract from the thousands of other gun deaths across all races across all geographic areas. I know what this is "code" for.

 

[Skull Pilot]

When your action hams someone or places them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger, sure.
Simple ownership and possession of a firearm does neither of these things

And if someone perceives a danger from a stranger carrying a gun?

If I am carrying concealed you will never know it so there is nothing for you to perceive

 

[M14 Shooter]

When your action hams someone or places them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger, sure.
Simple ownership and possession of a firearm does neither of these things

And if someone perceives a danger from a stranger carrying a gun?

I'm sorry -- you'll have to demonstrate how simple possession of a gun harms anyone or places anyone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
Your question indicates you know you cannot do this.

 

[GaryDog]

When your action hams someone or places them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger, sure.
Simple ownership and possession of a firearm does neither of these things

And if someone perceives a danger from a stranger carrying a gun?

If I am carrying concealed you will never know it so there is nothing for you to perceive

One down, 319,999,999 to go. Thanks for the cute anecdote.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If gun laws are unnecessary because anything can kill, then we should also freely allow all rogue nations to acquire nukes.

Rational, reasoned people refer to this as a non-sequitur.

So, in other words, not you.

Says he who doesn't understand he argued a non-seq.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Stop focusing on law abiding gun Owners and focus on the actual problem.....criminals who use guns for crime......

There are repeat offenders for sure and I agree with you that they require tough measures. Unfortunately it's hard to tell the good guys from the future bad guys until it is too late.

What percentage of people who pass every background check to get a CCW permit will all of a sudden turn to a life of crime murder and mayhem?

I'm saying it's such a small percentage as to be statistically irrelevant.

What percentage of people with criminal records will continue to live lives of crime?

A hell of a lot more so focus your efforts there

Red herring fallacy.

WHat's the red herring?

The criminals or the law abiding people?

This "life of crime" bullshit. You're trying to make it about thugs in Chicago, and detract from the thousands of other gun deaths across all races across all geographic areas. I know what this is "code" for.

I never mentioned Chicago

There are criminals with records in every state every city every town you that are far far more likely to commit additional crimes than anyone with no history of criminal activity

 

[alang1216]

I gave an example of a "right" which requires a prior test (safety) before it can exercised.

No, you tried to create a false equivalence, probably because you know you have nothing else.
Time/place/manner permits are in no way competency tests, especially the oral/written tests you referred to.

And, I see you quickly gave up the court cases you cited. Smart of you.

I'll stand behind my analogy, you have the right to reject it.

I'm not a lawyer but my reading of the decisions supports my points not yours.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

My position is obvious:
Laws cannot prevent actions; a law cannot prevent someone from breaking another law.
Enacting a law that restricts the tights of the law abiding based on the false premise that a law can prevent someone from breaking another law is, at best, nonsensical.

You believe I am wrong?
Why don't you propose a law that will prevent people form committing murder?
Do that and we won't need more gun control.

If you are looking for a law that will prevent ALL murders you're asking the impossible. If you are looking for a law that will prevent a few murders you're asking something easy.

Outlawing all guns would certainly prevent at least a few murders.

Absolutely, outlawing all guns would obviously prevent at least a few murders.

Kicking blacks out of this country would also dramatically decrease the level of crime in this country.

We can't , and shouldn't, do either for the exact same reasons.

 

[Skull Pilot]

My position is obvious:
Laws cannot prevent actions; a law cannot prevent someone from breaking another law.
Enacting a law that restricts the tights of the law abiding based on the false premise that a law can prevent someone from breaking another law is, at best, nonsensical.

You believe I am wrong?
Why don't you propose a law that will prevent people form committing murder?
Do that and we won't need more gun control.

It's called a murder law. Without them, we'd have a LOT more murders.

I really can't tell if you're serious. There can't be anyone this dumb who also knows how to turn on a computer or phone.

Really?

Murder has been illegal in societies for thousands of years and yet we still have murders. I don't see how you can prove any murder was actually prevented by merely passing a law

Wow.

Please just stop.

Why don't you start backing up the shit you post?

I have to back up the idea that we have a societal purpose for murder laws?

This is why you're impossible to "debate" with. You're a petulant child.

No you have to back up the statement that there are less murders because of the laws

That is what you said

So prove to me the mere passing of a law against murder stopped a murder and n how many murders have been stopped by the mere passing of a law?

 

[Skull Pilot]

When your action hams someone or places them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger, sure.
Simple ownership and possession of a firearm does neither of these things

And if someone perceives a danger from a stranger carrying a gun?

If I am carrying concealed then you will never know it so there is nothing for you to perceive

One down, 319,999,999 to go. Thanks for the cute anecdote.

An If then statement is not an anecdote

 

[alang1216]

Sorry but a gun and a virus are not analogous at all

They can both kill

A hammer can kill
A fist can kill
A baseball bat can kill

need I go on?

Only until you get to the point. You're saying a gun is analogous to many dangerous things. True, but that hardly negates my analogy.

Of course it does.

A gun cannot propagate and spread through a population

A hammer can't shoot a bullet
A fist can't shoot a bullet
A baseball can't shoot a bullet

need I go on?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

My position is obvious:
Laws cannot prevent actions; a law cannot prevent someone from breaking another law.
Enacting a law that restricts the tights of the law abiding based on the false premise that a law can prevent someone from breaking another law is, at best, nonsensical.

You believe I am wrong?
Why don't you propose a law that will prevent people form committing murder?
Do that and we won't need more gun control.

If you are looking for a law that will prevent ALL murders you're asking the impossible. If you are looking for a law that will prevent a few murders you're asking something easy.

Outlawing all guns would certainly prevent at least a few murders.

Absolutely, outlawing all guns would obviously prevent at least a few murders.

Kicking blacks out of this country would also dramatically decrease the level of crime in this country.

We can't , and shouldn't, do either for the exact same reasons.

You are a racist POS.

Facts aren't racist Gary. They are simply facts.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Sorry but a gun and a virus are not analogous at all

They can both kill

A hammer can kill
A fist can kill
A baseball bat can kill

need I go on?

Only until you get to the point. You're saying a gun is analogous to many dangerous things. True, but that hardly negates my analogy.

Of course it does.

A gun cannot propagate and spread through a population

A hammer can't shoot a bullet
A fist can't shoot a bullet
A baseball can't shoot a bullet

need I go on?

But a virus can shoot a bullet?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I gave an example of a "right" which requires a prior test (safety) before it can exercised.

No, you tried to create a false equivalence, probably because you know you have nothing else.
Time/place/manner permits are in no way competency tests, especially the oral/written tests you referred to.
And, I see you quickly gave up the court cases you cited. Smart of you.

I'll stand behind my analogy, you have the right to reject it.

No. You have to demonstrate your analogy sound.

Please compare and contrast the particulars of time/place/manner permits with written/oral exams to demonstrate competency as a condition for the plenary exercise of a right, and show that they are similar enough so that the constitutional permissibly of the former necessary extends to the latter.

I eagerly await your response that shall demonstrate your inability to do so.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm not a lawyer but my reading of the decisions supports my points not yours.

I explained how you are wrong; you cannot cannot counter my arguments to that effect.
And so, you choose to cling to an interpretation that has been shown incorrect, sans any rational reason to do so.