Want to enact more gun control? Convince me.

[M14 Shooter]

Here's one I could, maybe, support: private sale background checks. They would be done by any police/sheriff office for a reasonable fee (in the $10-25 range) or any FFL dealer for whatever fee he deems appropriate. No registration, no serial number tracking, just a simple "yes" or "no" to the sale. This would solve a problem: someone who WANTS to be sure he's not selling to a criminal, but, as it stands now, simply has no way to know.

OK, but that can be done now by anyone so motivated/concerned -- no reason you cannot insist that the sale of your gun go thru a dealer, who must, by law, perform a check.

Only if you SELL the gun to the dealer, and have HIM sell it to the next guy! And again: that becomes de facto registration!

Not so much.
In any event, the point remians -- the problem solved by your proposal - certain sellers wantng to make sure the pwerson they sell to isn't a felon - doesnt realy exisst, and so there's no need for it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

no thanks, you don't want alter your beliefs at all. A pointless venture.

We both understand that you cannot meet the challenge offered in the OP - so good on you to have the sense to not even try.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It is clear to anyone capable of rational thought that those who want more gun control can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

However, in the spirit of honest debate, I am happy to offer these people a chance to show otherwise.

To them, I issue this challenge: present a sound argument for more gun control.

1: Define the additional gun control measures you seek
2: Show the necessity for these measures
3: Show that these measures will meet the need you described
4: Show that these measures do not infringe upon the rights of the law abiding
5: Do all of this without arguing from emotion, ignorance, dishonesty or any other logical fallacies.

Example of a failed argument
1: We need to ban the sale of assault weapons
2: These guns are far too dangerous for civilians to own
3: Banning assault weapons will prevent massacres like we saw in Newtown
4: No one needs an assault weapon to hunt

Failures of this argument:
2: There is no way to support this statement, given how few ‘assault weapons’, proportionately and absolutely, are used in crime, especially homicide
3: Banning the sale of ‘assault weapons’ does not remove existing ‘assault weapons’, and so cannot prevent another such shooting
4: The right to arms is protected by the constitution so that, when necessary, people will have access to the most effective means through which kill other people, not hunt. As such, any argument relating infringement to the capacity to hunt is meaningless.

Ok – have at it. Good luck!

B/c obama is black and you demanding you keep your rights when he wants to take them away, for our own good makes you a racist.

And by saying racist, you are automatically wrong in everything you say unless you fully agree with obama.

so there

That's better than any of the people who want more gun control have come up with.

 

[M14 Shooter]

no thanks, you don't want alter your beliefs at all. A pointless venture.

Not only that, this has been done to death, as it were.

Why rehash the same points, over and over again.

We all know what's at stake - innocent people's lives and the big money of gun cartels/lobbyists. And we know which side the R is on - Big money.

The rest is just noise.

But don't let that stop you from poking this shot-dead horse yet again.

We both understand that you cannot meet the challenge offered in the OP - so good on you to have the sense to not even try.

 

[daveman]

Not only that, this has been done to death, as it were.

Why rehash the same points, over and over again.

We all know what's at stake - innocent people's lives and the big money of gun cartels/lobbyists. And we know which side the R is on - Big money.

The rest is just noise.

But don't let that stop you from poking this shot-dead horse yet again.

Recent attempts at new gun laws include charging a tax for owning a firearm or buying ammunition banning supposed assault weapons and registration of all firearms as well as background checks on private sales.

Be so kind as to explain for each how it would have stopped a mass shooting to have any of them on the books?

such a simple mind you have.

Really? He challenged you, and you couldn't provide an answer.

Such a simple mind you have.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Not only that, this has been done to death, as it were.

Why rehash the same points, over and over again.

We all know what's at stake - innocent people's lives and the big money of gun cartels/lobbyists. And we know which side the R is on - Big money.

The rest is just noise.

But don't let that stop you from poking this shot-dead horse yet again.

Recent attempts at new gun laws include charging a tax for owning a firearm or buying ammunition banning supposed assault weapons and registration of all firearms as well as background checks on private sales.

Be so kind as to explain for each how it would have stopped a mass shooting to have any of them on the books?

such a simple mind you have.

Now that's a full days supply of irony.


mmmm

iirroonnyy

 

[M14 Shooter]

None of you who seek additional gun control will even take a shot?
None of you?

 

[nitroz]

It is clear to anyone capable of rational thought that those who want more gun control can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

However, in the spirit of honest debate, I am happy to offer these people a chance to show otherwise.

To them, I issue this challenge: present a sound argument for more gun control.

1: Define the additional gun control measures you seek
2: Show the necessity for these measures
3: Show that these measures will meet the need you described
4: Show that these measures do not infringe upon the rights of the law abiding
5: Do all of this without arguing from emotion, ignorance, dishonesty or any other logical fallacies.

Example of a failed argument
1: We need to ban the sale of assault weapons
2: These guns are far too dangerous for civilians to own
3: Banning assault weapons will prevent massacres like we saw in Newtown
4: No one needs an assault weapon to hunt

Failures of this argument:
2: There is no way to support this statement, given how few ‘assault weapons’, proportionately and absolutely, are used in crime, especially homicide
3: Banning the sale of ‘assault weapons’ does not remove existing ‘assault weapons’, and so cannot prevent another such shooting
4: The right to arms is protected by the constitution so that, when necessary, people will have access to the most effective means through which kill other people, not hunt. As such, any argument relating infringement to the capacity to hunt is meaningless.

Ok – have at it. Good luck!

Lock OP in a cage with a bunch of mentally ill people who are given some of the most lethal guns and ammo like free candy on Halloween.

 

[Plasmaball]

Recent attempts at new gun laws include charging a tax for owning a firearm or buying ammunition banning supposed assault weapons and registration of all firearms as well as background checks on private sales.

Be so kind as to explain for each how it would have stopped a mass shooting to have any of them on the books?

such a simple mind you have.

Really? He challenged you, and you couldn't provide an answer.

Such a simple mind you have.

i have provided answers to this. I have no interest in dealing with people who won't compromise. You guys don't want to listen, you just want to put people down and scream. Dont take my guns waaaaa

 

[daveman]

such a simple mind you have.

Really? He challenged you, and you couldn't provide an answer.

Such a simple mind you have.

i have provided answers to this. I have no interest in dealing with people who won't compromise. You guys don't want to listen, you just want to put people down and scream. Dont take my guns waaaaa

I'd ask for links, but you won't provide any.

And you don't listen. You just want to take away people's rights without acknowledging that your ideas won't have any impact on criminals.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

such a simple mind you have.

Really? He challenged you, and you couldn't provide an answer.

Such a simple mind you have.

i have provided answers to this. I have no interest in dealing with people who won't compromise. You guys don't want to listen, you just want to put people down and scream. Dont take my guns waaaaa

Provide a link to you answering any of these questions. You have no answer and know it. Keep on proving you are a liar and a moron.

 

[Plasmaball]

no thanks, you don't want alter your beliefs at all. A pointless venture.

We both understand that you cannot meet the challenge offered in the OP - so good on you to have the sense to not even try.

nah i just know what the OP is about. You don't want to agree on anything. You constantly defend your right about guns to the fullest degree you can. You want absolute "freedom" when it comes to guns. had i ever seen you post reasonable solutions then i would have answered your op.

Ive posted solutions on here before recently. Go look for all i care. You dont deserve to have your OP engaged.

 

[Plasmaball]

Really? He challenged you, and you couldn't provide an answer.

Such a simple mind you have.

i have provided answers to this. I have no interest in dealing with people who won't compromise. You guys don't want to listen, you just want to put people down and scream. Dont take my guns waaaaa

Provide a link to you answering any of these questions. You have no answer and know it. Keep on proving you are a liar and a moron.

go look in your last recent thread. Im not doing your work for you.
Lol you really think im going to fall for your lame bait? Liar and moron lol...please. Not my problem you can't remember your own threads you start. I guess the enemy did a good enough job kicking your brain in huh?

 

[Plasmaball]

Really? He challenged you, and you couldn't provide an answer.

Such a simple mind you have.

i have provided answers to this. I have no interest in dealing with people who won't compromise. You guys don't want to listen, you just want to put people down and scream. Dont take my guns waaaaa

I'd ask for links, but you won't provide any.

And you don't listen. You just want to take away people's rights without acknowledging that your ideas won't have any impact on criminals.

nope and using criminals as an excuse is just pathetic. Again under my ideas you can buy whatever guns tanks or ammo you want.

Shrug.....not my problem if you have a problem with that type of freedom.

 

[daveman]

i have provided answers to this. I have no interest in dealing with people who won't compromise. You guys don't want to listen, you just want to put people down and scream. Dont take my guns waaaaa

I'd ask for links, but you won't provide any.

And you don't listen. You just want to take away people's rights without acknowledging that your ideas won't have any impact on criminals.

nope and using criminals as an excuse is just pathetic. Again under my ideas you can buy whatever guns tanks or ammo you want.

Shrug.....not my problem if you have a problem with that type of freedom.

I haven't seen your ideas, because you refuse to link to them.

You do your own homework, kid.

 

[Plasmaball]

I'd ask for links, but you won't provide any.

And you don't listen. You just want to take away people's rights without acknowledging that your ideas won't have any impact on criminals.

nope and using criminals as an excuse is just pathetic. Again under my ideas you can buy whatever guns tanks or ammo you want.

Shrug.....not my problem if you have a problem with that type of freedom.

I haven't seen your ideas, because you refuse to link to them.

You do your own homework, kid.

i do....go look for Gaysgts threads.....they are in there.
I just gave you one of my ideas. You are too stupid to even see that

 

[RetiredGySgt]

nope and using criminals as an excuse is just pathetic. Again under my ideas you can buy whatever guns tanks or ammo you want.

Shrug.....not my problem if you have a problem with that type of freedom.

I haven't seen your ideas, because you refuse to link to them.

You do your own homework, kid.

i do....go look for Gaysgts threads.....they are in there.
I just gave you one of my ideas. You are too stupid to even see that

Keep on refusing to link or state your opinion, all it does is remind everyone what a dumb ass you are.

 

[Jarlaxle]

It is clear to anyone capable of rational thought that those who want more gun control can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

However, in the spirit of honest debate, I am happy to offer these people a chance to show otherwise.

To them, I issue this challenge: present a sound argument for more gun control.

1: Define the additional gun control measures you seek
2: Show the necessity for these measures
3: Show that these measures will meet the need you described
4: Show that these measures do not infringe upon the rights of the law abiding
5: Do all of this without arguing from emotion, ignorance, dishonesty or any other logical fallacies.

Example of a failed argument
1: We need to ban the sale of assault weapons
2: These guns are far too dangerous for civilians to own
3: Banning assault weapons will prevent massacres like we saw in Newtown
4: No one needs an assault weapon to hunt

Failures of this argument:
2: There is no way to support this statement, given how few ‘assault weapons’, proportionately and absolutely, are used in crime, especially homicide
3: Banning the sale of ‘assault weapons’ does not remove existing ‘assault weapons’, and so cannot prevent another such shooting
4: The right to arms is protected by the constitution so that, when necessary, people will have access to the most effective means through which kill other people, not hunt. As such, any argument relating infringement to the capacity to hunt is meaningless.

Ok – have at it. Good luck!

Lock OP in a cage with a bunch of mentally ill people who are given some of the most lethal guns and ammo like free candy on Halloween.

You're an idiot. Kill yourself.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

It is clear to anyone capable of rational thought that those who want more gun control can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

However, in the spirit of honest debate, I am happy to offer these people a chance to show otherwise.

To them, I issue this challenge: present a sound argument for more gun control.

1: Define the additional gun control measures you seek
2: Show the necessity for these measures
3: Show that these measures will meet the need you described
4: Show that these measures do not infringe upon the rights of the law abiding
5: Do all of this without arguing from emotion, ignorance, dishonesty or any other logical fallacies.

Example of a failed argument
1: We need to ban the sale of assault weapons
2: These guns are far too dangerous for civilians to own
3: Banning assault weapons will prevent massacres like we saw in Newtown
4: No one needs an assault weapon to hunt

Failures of this argument:
2: There is no way to support this statement, given how few ‘assault weapons’, proportionately and absolutely, are used in crime, especially homicide
3: Banning the sale of ‘assault weapons’ does not remove existing ‘assault weapons’, and so cannot prevent another such shooting
4: The right to arms is protected by the constitution so that, when necessary, people will have access to the most effective means through which kill other people, not hunt. As such, any argument relating infringement to the capacity to hunt is meaningless.

Ok – have at it. Good luck!

If I'm going to spend my time writing a white paper on why something that has the same lethal potential as a bomb, grenade, rocket-propelled weapon or landmine (which are banned for private ownership by federal law) should be regulated then I'm sure as hell not going to waste my time trying to convince a pinhead like you.

Why don't you spend your time researching your subject, rather than lazily proposing that others do it for you?

And BTW, please get over this guarantee of the 2nd Amendment. Any first year law student can tell you that the Constitution guarantees nothing.

 

[Old Rocks]

Three laws, and the the justification for them.

One. While the assault weopons may be used in only a few crimes, the ones that they are used in are usually horrific with high body counts.

Law. If you have a high capacity semi-automatic outside your home, you must have the same license as for a fully automatic weapon. If you do not, the weapon will be confiscated and destroyed, you will do jail time, and have a felony on your record.

Two. If you sell an assault weapon, both you and the person you are selling the weapon to must have said license. Failure to do so will result in a felony count and jail time for the both of you.

Three. You are responsible for your weapons of any type. If they are taken and used in a crime as a result of your carelessly giving easy access to them, you own the crime. A child find the gun, and kills another child, you have committed negligent manslaughter.