Rational discourse on gun control

[2aguy]

For those of you who seek additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding, I challenge you to a rational discourse on the issue.

To this end, please...
1: State the gun control law you seek (You probably should limit this to just one)
2: Define the problem you seek to correct with this law
3: Demonstrate that this law will indeed correct the problem you define.
4: Explain how, under current jurisprudence, this law does not create an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms
5: Do not resort to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty (Fallacies, after all, are irrational)

Please begin

1. The ban on the sale, manufacture, importation, distribution and possession of weapons with a semi-automatic firing system and the ability to be fitted with a magazine containing greater than ten rounds.

2. Drive by shootings, mass shootings. At least let's lower the body count.

3. Criminals are not going to mass produce their own arsenal of such weaponry. Criminals are not going to convert other weapons to serve their purpose. Gang shootings, inner city shootings particularly will be reduced.

4. Your right to bear arms would not be infringed. You can still own all the bolt action rifles, shot guns and revolvers you want. You can still bear arms.

Now, I know that gun lovers will disagree. But what gun lover actually needs a semi-automatic weapon?

drive by shootings can be done just as easily with revolvers...which of course will be the next item on your list if you get the first items........

 

[2aguy]

Well, things change. We aren't using flintlocks anymore. And what do you think Jefferson & co, would have done if there were assault rifles and mass murders of pre school children in 1776? Things might be a little different.

Things change alright.

People used to be far more religious and moral.

They had cannons, grenades and any number of ways to kill lots of people just as quickly.

Bullshit argument about AR's has been refuted ad nauseum.

No, I won't let you try to pull that game here. Not refuted, people like you have this chasing your tail mentality. IF Jefferson had known then what abuse the second amend has led to NOW, things would be different now.

Yes....he would have required every home to have an AR-15 or a similar rifle because he would know about 12 million innocent men, women and children of Europe murdered in gas chambers by their government..simply because the ruling minority did not like them.....he would also know about Mexico, right now...where the police and the military, the ones who own the only gun store in Mexico, murder 10s of thousands of Mexican citizens with the drug cartels.....he would also know about the Armenian Genocide, the Rwandan Genocide, the atrocities of the communists murdering 100 million people around the world...

So he would have mandated every home have 2 rifles, several pistols and a lot of ammunition......that being the whole point to the 2nd Amendment.....

 

[2aguy]

Well, things change. We aren't using flintlocks anymore. And what do you think Jefferson & co, would have done if there were assault rifles and mass murders of pre school children in 1776? Things might be a little different.

Things change alright.

People used to be far more religious and moral.

They had cannons, grenades and any number of ways to kill lots of people just as quickly.

Bullshit argument about AR's has been refuted ad nauseum.

No, I won't let you try to pull that game here. Not refuted, people like you have this chasing your tail mentality. IF Jefferson had known then what abuse the second amend has led to NOW, things would be different now.

Rifles with detachable magazines murdered 157 people in mass public shootings....in 34 years.......

knives murder 1,500 people every single year......

Actual research shows that magazine capacity has no bearing on the number of people killed during a mass public shooting...I have linked to that research in several different forums in the past....

You are just wrong....on everything....

 

[MaryL]

Well, things change. We aren't using flintlocks anymore. And what do you think Jefferson & co, would have done if there were assault rifles and mass murders of pre school children in 1776? Things might be a little different.

Things change alright.

People used to be far more religious and moral.

They had cannons, grenades and any number of ways to kill lots of people just as quickly.

Bullshit argument about AR's has been refuted ad nauseum.

No, I won't let you try to pull that game here. Not refuted, people like you have this chasing your tail mentality. IF Jefferson had known then what abuse the second amend has led to NOW, things would be different now.

Yes....he would have required every home to have an AR-15 or a similar rifle because he would know about 12 million innocent men, women and children of Europe murdered in gas chambers by their government..simply because the ruling minority did not like them.....he would also know about Mexico, right now...where the police and the military, the ones who own the only gun store in Mexico, murder 10s of thousands of Mexican citizens with the drug cartels.....he would also know about the Armenian Genocide, the Rwandan Genocide, the atrocities of the communists murdering 100 million people around the world...

So he would have mandated every home have 2 rifles, several pistols and a lot of ammunition......that being the whole point to the 2nd Amendment.....

You don't understand Jefferson, do you? He might surprise us all, but I doubt he would mandate gun ownership.

 

[2aguy]

Well, things change. We aren't using flintlocks anymore. And what do you think Jefferson & co, would have done if there were assault rifles and mass murders of pre school children in 1776? Things might be a little different.

Things change alright.

People used to be far more religious and moral.

They had cannons, grenades and any number of ways to kill lots of people just as quickly.

Bullshit argument about AR's has been refuted ad nauseum.

No, I won't let you try to pull that game here. Not refuted, people like you have this chasing your tail mentality. IF Jefferson had known then what abuse the second amend has led to NOW, things would be different now.

In the 1990s there were 200 million guns in private hands, and in the 1980s there were 1.5 million concealed carry permits....

in 2016 there are now 357 million guns in private hands, and 14.5 million concealed carry permits.....

And the gun murder rate went down 49%...

Nothing you believe about guns is remotely true......

 

[2aguy]

Well, things change. We aren't using flintlocks anymore. And what do you think Jefferson & co, would have done if there were assault rifles and mass murders of pre school children in 1776? Things might be a little different.

Things change alright.

People used to be far more religious and moral.

They had cannons, grenades and any number of ways to kill lots of people just as quickly.

Bullshit argument about AR's has been refuted ad nauseum.

No, I won't let you try to pull that game here. Not refuted, people like you have this chasing your tail mentality. IF Jefferson had known then what abuse the second amend has led to NOW, things would be different now.

Yes....he would have required every home to have an AR-15 or a similar rifle because he would know about 12 million innocent men, women and children of Europe murdered in gas chambers by their government..simply because the ruling minority did not like them.....he would also know about Mexico, right now...where the police and the military, the ones who own the only gun store in Mexico, murder 10s of thousands of Mexican citizens with the drug cartels.....he would also know about the Armenian Genocide, the Rwandan Genocide, the atrocities of the communists murdering 100 million people around the world...

So he would have mandated every home have 2 rifles, several pistols and a lot of ammunition......that being the whole point to the 2nd Amendment.....

You don't understand Jefferson, do you? He might surprise us all, but I doubt he would mandate gun ownership.

he might not mandate it but he wouldn't ban it either...especially rifles.......the guns that won this countries freedom......

 

[MaryL]

Well, things change. We aren't using flintlocks anymore. And what do you think Jefferson & co, would have done if there were assault rifles and mass murders of pre school children in 1776? Things might be a little different.

Things change alright.

People used to be far more religious and moral.

They had cannons, grenades and any number of ways to kill lots of people just as quickly.

Bullshit argument about AR's has been refuted ad nauseum.

No, I won't let you try to pull that game here. Not refuted, people like you have this chasing your tail mentality. IF Jefferson had known then what abuse the second amend has led to NOW, things would be different now.

Rifles with detachable magazines murdered 157 people in mass public shootings....in 34 years.......

knives murder 1,500 people every single year......

Actual research shows that magazine capacity has no bearing on the number of people killed during a mass public shooting...I have linked to that research in several different forums in the past....

You are just wrong....on everything....

Oh, I have the picture alright. More people die in preventable car accidents, I understand that. And diseases caused by poor lifestyle choices, smoking, drugs, up there too. We don't need guns, and the harm they do is itself also a public health menace, and denial of that is itself a problem.

 

[2aguy]

For those of you who seek additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding, I challenge you to a rational discourse on the issue.

To this end, please...
1: State the gun control law you seek (You probably should limit this to just one)
2: Define the problem you seek to correct with this law
3: Demonstrate that this law will indeed correct the problem you define.
4: Explain how, under current jurisprudence, this law does not create an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms
5: Do not resort to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty (Fallacies, after all, are irrational)

Please begin

The second amendment is being abused. And as a result, it's causing a menace to the general populace. We NEED firearms to protect us from other people WITH firearms. Right. If this were children fighting over a toy, you would take it away from all of them .You wouldn't let children abuse something they don't need and whine about how "the other kid has IT, we need one TOO" childish games. You take away their toys.

How is the 2nd Amendment being abused.....? Please explain that.......

There were 200 million guns in the 1990s........there are now 357,000,000 guns in private hands in 2016.......and the gun murder rate dropped 49%......

How does that show that guns are being abused? Do you understand those numbers and what they show?

The old, women, the weak, the outnumbered...all survive violent criminal attack when they use guns....it is the most effective tool......

According to the Department of Justice.....under bill clinton......Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack...saving lives...and even stopping mass public shootings.....

Do you want 1,500,000 more victims of violent criminals....more rapes, robberies and murders....?

 

[2aguy]

Well, things change. We aren't using flintlocks anymore. And what do you think Jefferson & co, would have done if there were assault rifles and mass murders of pre school children in 1776? Things might be a little different.

Things change alright.

People used to be far more religious and moral.

They had cannons, grenades and any number of ways to kill lots of people just as quickly.

Bullshit argument about AR's has been refuted ad nauseum.

No, I won't let you try to pull that game here. Not refuted, people like you have this chasing your tail mentality. IF Jefferson had known then what abuse the second amend has led to NOW, things would be different now.

Rifles with detachable magazines murdered 157 people in mass public shootings....in 34 years.......

knives murder 1,500 people every single year......

Actual research shows that magazine capacity has no bearing on the number of people killed during a mass public shooting...I have linked to that research in several different forums in the past....

You are just wrong....on everything....

Oh, I have the picture alright. More people die in preventable car accidents, I understand that. And diseases caused by poor lifestyle choices, smoking, drugs, up there too. We don't need guns, and the harm they do is itself public health menace, and denial of that is itself a problem.

There are 1,500,000 people a year who use guns to save themselves and their families...they would disagree with you........

The public health menace is allowing criminals back on the street...the 2 thugs who murdered the cousing of Dwane Wade last week........both were convicted felons and one of them even still had the ankle monitor on his ankle because he was on parole...the other guy was on parole too....they are both legally banned from buying, owning or carrying the guns they used to commit murder.....the one had 6 felony convictions and the other guy had a felony for illegal gun possession.....all in a city with the strictest gun control in the country....

You focus on guns and fail to address the actual problem, criminals....

 

[2aguy]

For those of you who seek additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding, I challenge you to a rational discourse on the issue.

To this end, please...
1: State the gun control law you seek (You probably should limit this to just one)
2: Define the problem you seek to correct with this law
3: Demonstrate that this law will indeed correct the problem you define.
4: Explain how, under current jurisprudence, this law does not create an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms
5: Do not resort to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty (Fallacies, after all, are irrational)

Please begin

The second amendment is being abused. And as a result, it's causing a menace to the general populace. We NEED firearms to protect us from other people WITH firearms. Right. If this were children fighting over a toy, you would take it away from all of them .You wouldn't let children abuse something they don't need and whine about how "the other kid has IT, we need one TOO" childish games. You take away their toys.

No.....this woman needed her firearm to protect her 14 year old boy from two thugs armed with crowbars.....the gun allowed her to stop the attack...instead of being just the other victim hit by the thugs....

Subway Employee Lets a Pair of Violent Robbers Have it Their Way

Two men, identified by law enforcement as Cornelius Lamar Harrison, 24, and Howard Maurice Harris, 25, broke into the Subway on the 1600 Block of Gordon Highway intent on robbing the popular fast food chain at approximately 12:30 Sunday afternoon.

Richmond County deputies said the two men were armed with crowbars and witnesses said one of the suspects used his weapon to strike a 14-year-old boy in the head, injuring the young man.

That boy’s mother happened to be one of the employees working behind the counter Sunday and this lady was packing more than lunch meat.

Deputies said the woman drew her handgun and fired shots at both of the men, leaving Harrison dead in the store and sending Harris running from the building.

“It’s sad for someone to intimidate somebody with robbery or whatever, but things like this do happen in the world we live in,” said local business owner Robert “Flash” Gordan. “You basically have to be prepared for anything in today’s world. I think most folks have some kind of protection. Why shouldn’t she?”

Harris was apprehended the next day when police responded to a call of a suspicious person at the Courtyard Marriott on Stevens Creek Road. Authorities said he was taken to a nearby hospital for a possible medical episode and had a small quantity of methamphetamine on him. The Sheriff’s Office said Harris told police his name was ‘Brandon Simmons’ but was positively identified as Howard Maurice Harris when deputies ran his fingerprints.

The Richmond County Sheriff’s Office says Harris is accused of felony possession of methamphetamine, aggravated assault and felony murder.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Universal background checks anytime a gun is transferred (excepting close family members or lending a gun for a short time to a friend). This would not violate any law abiding citizen's right to bear arms. Too many guns are being transferred without proper caution to people who should not have one, either at gun shows or through casual sales. There are gun stores everywhere that can, for a small fee, run a background check for anyone interested in buying a gun. This will not be a problem for law abiding citizens.

While I am 100% pro-gun ownership, I don't agree with the stance that you shouldn't do a background check on close relatives receiving your guns, or giving your friend a gun temporarily. There have been instances where friends have borrowed guns, committed crimes with them and returned them to the owner. Close relatives may also have a mental illness or criminal past and if they are in line to inherit the weapons, they need to be checked out to ensure they are not someone who would not otherwise be eligible for one.

 

[2aguy]

Universal background checks anytime a gun is transferred (excepting close family members or lending a gun for a short time to a friend). This would not violate any law abiding citizen's right to bear arms. Too many guns are being transferred without proper caution to people who should not have one, either at gun shows or through casual sales. There are gun stores everywhere that can, for a small fee, run a background check for anyone interested in buying a gun. This will not be a problem for law abiding citizens.

While I am 100% pro-gun ownership, I don't agree with the stance that you shouldn't do a background check on close relatives receiving your guns, or giving your friend a gun temporarily. There have been instances where friends have borrowed guns, committed crimes with them and returned them to the owner. Close relatives may also have a mental illness or criminal past and if they are in line to inherit the weapons, they need to be checked out to ensure they are not someone who would not otherwise be eligible for one.

So....you need to get a background check with your friend at the range .....hey, let me shoot that pistol...see if I like it....sorry, we have to pay 25 dollars or more and wait 3 days to get your background check done....you mean like that?

 

[MaryL]

For those of you who seek additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding, I challenge you to a rational discourse on the issue.

To this end, please...
1: State the gun control law you seek (You probably should limit this to just one)
2: Define the problem you seek to correct with this law
3: Demonstrate that this law will indeed correct the problem you define.
4: Explain how, under current jurisprudence, this law does not create an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms
5: Do not resort to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty (Fallacies, after all, are irrational)

Please begin

The second amendment is being abused. And as a result, it's causing a menace to the general populace. We NEED firearms to protect us from other people WITH firearms. Right. If this were children fighting over a toy, you would take it away from all of them .You wouldn't let children abuse something they don't need and whine about how "the other kid has IT, we need one TOO" childish games. You take away their toys.

How is the 2nd Amendment being abused.....? Please explain that.......

There were 200 million guns in the 1990s........there are now 357,000,000 guns in private hands in 2016.......and the gun murder rate dropped 49%......

How does that show that guns are being abused? Do you understand those numbers and what they show?

The old, women, the weak, the outnumbered...all survive violent criminal attack when they use guns....it is the most effective tool......

According to the Department of Justice.....under bill clinton......Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack...saving lives...and even stopping mass public shootings.....

Do you want 1,500,000 more victims of violent criminals....more rapes, robberies and murders....?

Color me skeptical on that, from my experience, firearms are used to perpetrate crimes, rarely to prevent them. And that myth of crime prevention feeds this entire debate. No, guns do NOT prevent crime, they cause it. Theoretically and ideally they should, but reality says otherwise.

 

[Divine Wind]

Well, things change. We aren't using flintlocks anymore. And what do you think Jefferson & co, would have done if there were assault rifles and mass murders of pre school children in 1776? Things might be a little different.

You completely dodged my two questions. That's dishonest.

 

[NCC1701]

Oh, I have the picture alright. More people die in preventable car accidents, I understand that. And diseases caused by poor lifestyle choices, smoking, drugs, up there too. We don't need guns, and the harm they do is itself also a public health menace, and denial of that is itself a problem.

let me clear sumpin up here you fucktwat, I don't care about what you think I NEED, I want it and it is legal.

We don't NEED pot or alcohol either do we? alcohol kills more than guns, try and ban it NAZI, just try it

Go shove a massive cactus up your ass

 

[yiostheoy]

I think any debating on this issue needs to consider the political strength of the 55% of US households that do NOT own guns versus the 45% that do. That is the fundamental issue that must be reconciled.

The first question that anyone needs to address is how literally do you want to interpret the 2nd Amendment?

In other words, what about machine guns and submachine guns? These were outlawed in the 1930's. Do you fundamentally agree with this outlawing of these weapons? Or do you believe this too was/is an infringement of your/our 2nd Amendment rights?

If you disagree with the law outlawing them, then you are viewed as a lunatic by almost everyone.

If you agree with it, then logically there is a line drawn where outlawing certain guns is rational. For example, Heller vs DC talks a lot about sawed off shotguns. The question then becomes, what guns are more like machine guns, submachine guns, and sawed off shotguns than not, such that they too warrant criminalization?

That's the issue.

Additionally, the insane probably should not be given access to guns, however this is not mentioned in the 2nd Amendment. According to the Amendment they have the right to keep and bear them.

X-convicts are a similar issue. Most if not all states take away X-con's right to possess guns. However the 2nd Amendment does not permit this either.

My own observation is that the US courts and legislatures have strayed considerably away from the 2nd Amendment.

We probably need a new and more specific 2nd Amendment. A-posterior evident truth, in my opinion.

In the meantime the 55% will continue to haggle with the 45% and there will be very little peace over the issue of "gun control" versus "gun rights".

Q.E.D.

 

[yiostheoy]

Color me skeptical on that, from my experience, firearms are used to perpetrate crimes, rarely to prevent them. And that myth of crime prevention feeds this entire debate. No, guns do NOT prevent crime, they cause it. Theoretically and ideally they should, but reality says otherwise.

If all women carried a loaded gun in their purses, in the special kind of purses that have a gun compartment for quick access, and if all men carried concealed on their persons, in shoulder or hip holsters from which they could quickly draw a locked and loaded double action pistol, AND they each practiced at the range regularly, then there would be a lot less crime, because a lot of criminals would be shot in the process of perpetrating their crimes.

There is also a better chance that a bystander will assist you if you are not competent with a gun of your own.

This is practically self evident.

The police cannot be everywhere, this is also self evident.

Color yourself skeptical, but wise up at the same time.

 

[yiostheoy]

Universal background checks anytime a gun is transferred (excepting close family members or lending a gun for a short time to a friend). This would not violate any law abiding citizen's right to bear arms. Too many guns are being transferred without proper caution to people who should not have one, either at gun shows or through casual sales. There are gun stores everywhere that can, for a small fee, run a background check for anyone interested in buying a gun. This will not be a problem for law abiding citizens.

While I am 100% pro-gun ownership, I don't agree with the stance that you shouldn't do a background check on close relatives receiving your guns, or giving your friend a gun temporarily. There have been instances where friends have borrowed guns, committed crimes with them and returned them to the owner. Close relatives may also have a mental illness or criminal past and if they are in line to inherit the weapons, they need to be checked out to ensure they are not someone who would not otherwise be eligible for one.

Are there any stats or data that show that background checks have accomplished anything ??

 

[yiostheoy]

Oh, I have the picture alright. More people die in preventable car accidents, I understand that. And diseases caused by poor lifestyle choices, smoking, drugs, up there too. We don't need guns, and the harm they do is itself also a public health menace, and denial of that is itself a problem.

Your opinion is shared by about 55% of the US population.

And about 45% of the US population completely disagrees with you.

And as East is east, and West is west, n'ary the twain shall ever meet.

In the meantime you are just blowing hot air.

 

[yiostheoy]

You don't understand Jefferson, do you? He might surprise us all, but I doubt he would mandate gun ownership.

You should at least start giving internet links to your citations for your anti gun views.

Then they might be worth reading.

Also then you would be posting a lot less drivel.