Honest and open debate on gun control

[PratchettFan]

Ban all weapons with semi or fully automatic firing systems. Such weapons belong in the hands of 'well regulated militias', not on the streets. Permit long barrel rifles and shotguns for sporting purposes. Permit revolvers. Ban handguns equipped with magazines holding more than nine rounds.

Violates the constitution. Fail.
Does not prevent criminals from getting guns. Fail.

BZZZT Wrong!

There is no violation of the constitution limiting the kinds of weapons that can be sold. No one has a 2A right to an ICBM. Equally so they don't have a right to fully automatic weapons because they serve no legitimate civilian purpose. Large magazines are the same no one. No civilian needs more than 9 rounds for "self defense".

And yes, if those are banned then criminals aren't going to be able to buy them either.

What exactly is so magic about the number 9? Why is 9 ok and 10 isn't? Explain that logic to me.

 

[Derideo_Te]

120 posts, no sound responses.
Huh.

Looks like the OP just proved why it isn't possible to have an open and honest debate on gun control with Gun Festishists because they can't be honest and open under any circumstances.

 

[PratchettFan]

120 posts, no sound responses.
Huh.

Looks like the OP just proved why it isn't possible to have an open and honest debate on gun control with Gun Festishists because they can't be honest and open under any circumstances.

You haven't provided a sound response. You have tossed out some arbitrary standards but not even attempted to demonstrate how they would have any impact.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You haven't provided a sound response. You have tossed out some arbitrary standards but not even attempted to demonstrate how they would have any impact.

And, whatever they are, shown that they do not infringe on the rights of the law abiding.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What exactly is so magic about the number 9? Why is 9 ok and 10 isn't? Explain that logic to me.

There is none; it is arbitrary.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Ban all weapons with semi or fully automatic firing systems. Such weapons belong in the hands of 'well regulated militias', not on the streets. Permit long barrel rifles and shotguns for sporting purposes. Permit revolvers. Ban handguns equipped with magazines holding more than nine rounds.

Violates the constitution. Fail.
Does not prevent criminals from getting guns. Fail.

BZZZT Wrong!

There is no violation of the constitution limiting the kinds of weapons that can be sold. No one has a 2A right to an ICBM. Equally so they don't have a right to fully automatic weapons because they serve no legitimate civilian purpose. Large magazines are the same. No civilian needs more than 9 rounds for "self defense".

And yes, if those are banned then criminals aren't going to be able to buy them either.

No one has a 2A right to an ICBM.

what a foolish response

 

[M14 Shooter]

No one has a 2A right to an ICBM.
what a foolish response

What does an anti-gun loon do when he has nothing of substance to add to the conversation?
He brings up nuclear weapons.

 

[M14 Shooter]

128 posts... no sound responses.

 

[jon_berzerk]

No one has a 2A right to an ICBM.
what a foolish response

What does an anti-gun loon do when he has nothing of substance to add to the conversation?
He brings up nuclear weapons.

exactly

the false fallback position

 

[Ame®icano]

128 posts... no sound responses.

Well, you're looking for "honest debate". With liberals you can't have that...

 

[jon_berzerk]

128 posts... no sound responses.

yup maybe tomorrow

--LOL

 

[Nosmo King]

No one has a 2A right to an ICBM.
what a foolish response

What does an anti-gun loon do when he has nothing of substance to add to the conversation?
He brings up nuclear weapons.

It proves two things. First, the argument that weapons are reserved to fight the federal government is patently ridiculous. The Feds have really really potent weaponry and holding the Fourth Armored Division with Glocks and AR-15s is just the wet dream of Rambo wannabes, not serious scholars of constitutional law.

Second, it points out the lunacy of the "no restrictions" on a citizen's right to bear arms. Citizens cannot bear all the arms in the Defense Department arsenal. No citizen can bear a thermonuclear device, an aircraft carrier or a battleship.

 

[Ame®icano]

128 posts... no sound responses.

yup maybe tomorrow

Not gonna happen. When we're talking honest, we're also talking facts and logic. Liberals hate that. In fact, once you start talking facts, you pretty much stop worrying about being politically correct. That's exactly what conservative need to do, because they're too busy tip toeing on eggshells to appease people who are perpetually offended, and thus their message is diluted. Do liberals worry about offending conservatives? No, they go full steam ahead and even try to be as abrasive as possible.

Being a liberal is something most people grow out of. There is no reason to keep them in it longer by pandering to their idiotic fantasies. Against liberals, fact and logic are the best weapon.

 

[jon_berzerk]

128 posts... no sound responses.

yup maybe tomorrow

Not gonna happen. When we're talking honest, we're also talking facts and logic. Liberals hate that. In fact, once you start talking facts, you pretty much stop worrying about being politically correct. That's exactly what conservative need to do, because they're too busy tip toeing on eggshells to appease people who are perpetually offended, and thus their message is diluted. Do liberals worry about offending conservatives? No, they go full steam ahead and even try to be as abrasive as possible.

Being a liberal is something most people grow out of. There is no reason to keep them in it longer by pandering to their idiotic fantasies. Against liberals, fact and logic are the best weapon.

the one thing libs hate more then anything

is other peoples opinions that differ from theirs

followed closely by facts that disagree with their opinions

--LOL

so yes i have agree that it is unlikely

 

[Ame®icano]

It proves two things. First, the argument that weapons are reserved to fight the federal government is patently ridiculous. The Feds have really really potent weaponry and holding the Fourth Armored Division with Glocks and AR-15s is just the wet dream of Rambo wannabes, not serious scholars of constitutional law.

Second, it points out the lunacy of the "no restrictions" on a citizen's right to bear arms. Citizens cannot bear all the arms in the Defense Department arsenal. No citizen can bear a thermonuclear device, an aircraft carrier or a battleship.

 

[jon_berzerk]

No one has a 2A right to an ICBM.
what a foolish response

What does an anti-gun loon do when he has nothing of substance to add to the conversation?
He brings up nuclear weapons.

It proves two things. First, the argument that weapons are reserved to fight the federal government is patently ridiculous. The Feds have really really potent weaponry and holding the Fourth Armored Division with Glocks and AR-15s is just the wet dream of Rambo wannabes, not serious scholars of constitutional law.

Second, it points out the lunacy of the "no restrictions" on a citizen's right to bear arms. Citizens cannot bear all the arms in the Defense Department arsenal. No citizen can bear a thermonuclear device, an aircraft carrier or a battleship.

128 posts... no sound responses.

yup maybe tomorrow

Not gonna happen. When we're talking honest, we're also talking facts and logic. Liberals hate that. In fact, once you start talking facts, you pretty much stop worrying about being politically correct. That's exactly what conservative need to do, because they're too busy tip toeing on eggshells to appease people who are perpetually offended, and thus their message is diluted. Do liberals worry about offending conservatives? No, they go full steam ahead and even try to be as abrasive as possible.

Being a liberal is something most people grow out of. There is no reason to keep them in it longer by pandering to their idiotic fantasies. Against liberals, fact and logic are the best weapon.

cant happen --LOL

better check past and current history

--LOL

 

[Nosmo King]

It proves two things. First, the argument that weapons are reserved to fight the federal government is patently ridiculous. The Feds have really really potent weaponry and holding the Fourth Armored Division with Glocks and AR-15s is just the wet dream of Rambo wannabes, not serious scholars of constitutional law.

Second, it points out the lunacy of the "no restrictions" on a citizen's right to bear arms. Citizens cannot bear all the arms in the Defense Department arsenal. No citizen can bear a thermonuclear device, an aircraft carrier or a battleship.

Well said. You must be educated. Or not.

 

[Ame®icano]

Well said. You must be educated. Or not.

You don't have to worry about my education. I find it really interesting that you avoided my previous post where I actually said something directly about liberals. Keep distorting the truth, keep lying and keep repeating lies, keep pressing full speed. Honest debate with left?

Here is the example...

NBCNews

 

[LTCArmyRet]

Your question and subsequent responses only show your unwillingness to have an open and honest debate.

First, criminals have and will always find a way to get weapons illegally. This is not just a U.S. problem this is a World problem. However, that does not mean that certain provisos would not be prudent concerning personally owed firearms in today's society.

Owning a weapon is part of the U.S. culture, instilled as a necessity to defend oneself and property from since the first arrived on the eastern seaboard to settlers traveling westward. And the U.S. was founded with the idea of having only a small peacetime military. In the 1700's it was NECESSARY for citizens to own weapons in order for states to be able to form militias. The wealthiest citizens even owned cannons, that is why many of the colonial time artillery units were referred to by a name (Hamilton's battery) vice a numerical designation and state (i.e. 5th Maine Infantry Regiment) However, times changes and so must the people that live in them. There are no absolutes in this debate. To think that an all out ban on any type weapon is idiocy. Gun proliferation within the society is too far gone. It is also idiocy and utter stupidity to void any weapons restrictions currently in place. SO........

Require that a person be earn and be issued a firearms license in order to legally buy, own, carry, or use a weapon. Requirement would be to attend a course (much like getting a drivers license) and have to update periodically.

Ban fully automatic weapons (already the case in most of the U.S.) there is absolutely NO NEED for an individual to own/possess and automatic weapon.

As for those that chose to not abide by the enacted laws, they must be dealt with individually and swiftly. Adding additional law/restrictions/prohibitions effectively accomplishes nothing.

 

[Nosmo King]

Well said. You must be educated. Or not.

You don't have to worry about my education. I find it really interesting that you avoided my previous post where I actually said something directly about liberals. Keep distorting the truth, keep lying and keep repeating lies, keep pressing full speed. Honest debate with left?

Here is the example...

NBCNews

Are you complaining or bragging about the notorious terrorist record of White American Conservatives?