An interesting read concerning the predicted DNC push for gun control

[RabidAlpaca]

I defy you to find a single time where I told you "how crazy I was for stating there are people who want NO regulation of any kind"

What I have said is I oppose stupid regulations promoted by stupid people knowing that they wont solve any problems just for the sake of stupid people advocating for and passing stupid laws.

Is your memory that short? You called me out for being "hysterical" for suggesting such people exist and are posting in this thread.

:lamo

Your comments are hysterical. No one is advocating that violent criminals have unfettered access to machine guns. Credible?.

If someone wants ZERO regulations on guns, that is exactly what they are advocating for. Unfettered access to machine guns.

 

[VanceMack]

Is your memory that short? You called me out for being "hysterical" for suggesting such people exist and are posting in this thread.



If someone wants ZERO regulations on guns, that is exactly what they are advocating for. Unfettered access to machine guns.

:lamo

Yes...I DID call you out for your hysteria about machine guns...because you are hysterical and there is no problem with machine guns. That said NOTHING about wanting no regulations of any kind.

Pathetic.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

:lamo

Yes...I DID call you out for your hysteria about machine guns...because you are hysterical and there is no problem with machine guns. That said NOTHING about wanting no regulations of any kind.

Pathetic.

Then you took my comments intentionally out of context. I stated those that oppose all regulation effectively are enabling terrorists and criminals to buy machine guns. I guess you didn't really have a point to prove and we've already established you're a filthy gun grabber like me because you want basic regulations.

 

[VanceMack]

Aha, so you actually do support gun regulations, so it's not a question of principle, just a question of magnitude. If you support background checks and even the limiting of some weapons (I assume), why do you demonize and exaggerate people who on principle want the same thing, just disagree with you a little on the implementation?

And no, I'm not taking your lazy Sandy Hook bait.

FFS...its a question of common sense. Its a question of reason. Its a question of not allowing a bunch of mindless anti gun idiots to pass worthless regulations that do nothing to end violent crime.

And there was no 'bait'...it was a statement of FACT. YOU mentioned background checks...I just showed you why its stupid to bleat on about background checks as if they are some sort of positive measure to prevent violent criminal acts.

 

[VanceMack]

Then you took my comments intentionally out of context. I stated those that oppose all regulation effectively are enabling terrorists and criminals to buy machine guns. I guess you didn't really have a point to prove and we've already established you're a filthy gun grabber like me because you want basic regulations.

:lamo

Hilarious. You keep shooting your own credibility in the ass.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

:lamo

Hilarious. You keep shooting your own credibility in the ass.

How? What I state is 100% true. Without any regulations, terrorists and criminals can buy any gun they choose. If you disagree, make an argument instead of slinging these lazy insults.

 

[Rucker61]

How? What I state is 100% true. Without any regulations, terrorists and criminals can buy any gun they choose. If you disagree, make an argument instead of slinging these lazy insults.

By regulation, it's a felony for them to purchase any type of firearm. Why isn't that sufficient? Bylaw, it's illegal to purchase cocaine, heroin and methods in this country. Why doesn't regulation prevent the drug trade?

IOW, even with regulations, criminals will find ways to get proscribed goods. If thousands of people and tons of drugs can find their way across our southern border, a few hundred fully automatic AK-47s sold have no problem.

 

[Rucker61]

Aha, so you actually do support gun regulations, so it's not a question of principle, just a question of magnitude. If you support background checks and even the limiting of some weapons (I assume), why do you demonize and exaggerate people who on principle want the same thing, just disagree with you a little on the implementation?

And no, I'm not taking your lazy Sandy Hook bait.

I disagree with anyone who proposes laws that are unconstitutional, ineffective, unenforceable and would not be enforced. I'd also,like to toss out NFA 1934.

 

[VanceMack]

Then you took my comments intentionally out of context. I stated those that oppose all regulation effectively are enabling terrorists and criminals to buy machine guns. I guess you didn't really have a point to prove and we've already established you're a filthy gun grabber like me because you want basic regulations.

No I didnt...I noted accurately that your nonsensical ramblings about machine guns were ridiculous and hysterical.

 

[VanceMack]

How? What I state is 100% true. Without any regulations, terrorists and criminals can buy any gun they choose. If you disagree, make an argument instead of slinging these lazy insults.

:lamo

WITH regulations, criminals are still getting firearms via illegal means. I proposed REAL solutions...mandatory minimum sentences for both the perpetrators AND those that we KNOW are illegally providing them firearms. Because your 'regulations' arent working. PROVEN that your regulations arent working. Background checks were DONE in every major shooting incident. So YOUR brilliant solution??? MORE background checks.

:lamo

BTW...even in countries with STRICT gun control and bans, terrorists are still managing to get weapons. Funny how that works.

 

[VanceMack]

By regulation, it's a felony for them to purchase any type of firearm. Why isn't that sufficient? Bylaw, it's illegal to purchase cocaine, heroin and methods in this country. Why doesn't regulation prevent the drug trade?

IOW, even with regulations, criminals will find ways to get proscribed goods. If thousands of people and tons of drugs can find their way across our southern border, a few hundred fully automatic AK-47s sold have no problem.

DONCHA know...those 'regulations' the rabid alpaca keeps bleating on about are PREVENTING criminals from getting guns. They are STOPPING mass shootings.

Oh...wait..they arent doing ANY of that....

 

[Rich2018]

Does anyone smell a deal here ?

Democrats to Trump: We'll fund your damn wall if you agree to gun control ?

 

[TurtleDude]

Does anyone smell a deal here ?

Democrats to Trump: We'll fund your damn wall if you agree to gun control ?

and at a federal level, the USSC will strike it down. so where are you talking.

 

[beerftw]

This isn't a "pro-rights" vs. "anti-rights" question. Virtually all mainstream politicians on both sides support the fundamental right of law-abiding Americans to own guns. However ALL rights have limits, and you're one of the fringe radicals that believes that gun ownership should have no rules whatsoever and a complete free-for-all. You automatically attack ANY gun regulation at the federal level as a fundamental violation of our rights, with no consideration of what is actually being proposed.

The American people as a whole understand that all rights do have limits and should be regulated to some degree, and luckily over the past few decades we've taken more and more steps towards that. Most Americans disagree with you that violent criminals should have unfettered access to machine guns. This is a battle you're losing, and your hysterical fear-mongering isn't making you look more credible.

The problem with this argument is that our neighbor to the south has in their constitution the right to bear arms like america does, but their constitution also grants them the right to make meaningful restrictions. Now in mexico you can not buy a gun legally, without massive restrictions from a single military run gun store for the entire nation.

The people like you who make such arguments never look that the argument you make has failed over and over again in history, as soon as regulation goes beyond infringement of life liberty and property to protect citizens, it moves to restrict them. The simple fact mexico has the right to bear arms yet they have restrictions about as stringent as stalin tells me the whole reason restriction thing is anything but and rather incremental removal of rights in a manner they hope people will not reject to.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

The problem with this argument is that our neighbor to the south has in their constitution the right to bear arms like america does, but their constitution also grants them the right to make meaningful restrictions. Now in mexico you can not buy a gun legally, without massive restrictions from a single military run gun store for the entire nation.

The people like you who make such arguments never look that the argument you make has failed over and over again in history, as soon as regulation goes beyond infringement of life liberty and property to protect citizens, it moves to restrict them. The simple fact mexico has the right to bear arms yet they have restrictions about as stringent as stalin tells me the whole reason restriction thing is anything but and rather incremental removal of rights in a manner they hope people will not reject to.

"Der.. Der... Mexico... Therefore all gun regulations of any kind are Stalin and liberty infringing."

Thanks for the intellectual response as usual.

 

[beerftw]

"Der.. Der... Mexico... Therefore all gun regulations of any kind are Stalin and liberty infringing."

Thanks for the intellectual response as usual.

Well you are the quickest person to resort to epic logical fallacies I have seen yet, might as well admit defeat when you need to resort to such massive fallacies instead of a debate.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Well you are the quickest person to resort to epic logical fallacies I have seen yet, might as well admit defeat when you need to resort to such massive fallacies instead of a debate.

Repeating what you just said is not a logical fallacy, I suggest looking up the definition. You based your entire case on Mexico which is completely unrelated and made no sense.

 

[beerftw]

Repeating what you just said is not a logical fallacy, I suggest looking up the definition. You based your entire case on Mexico which is completely unrelated and made no sense.

Should I requote what you said then, because her derr mexico does not seem to be a repeat of anything I said.

Here is the main logical fallacy you committed Appeal to ridicule – an argument is made by incorrectly presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous. and of course I can find quite a few others you fell under in that post.

May I suggest you use the list of fallacies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Or better yet not commit logical fallacies of blatant proportions when trying to claim you used none.


well here you go your own words post number 90

"Der.. Der... Mexico... Therefore all gun regulations of any kind are Stalin and liberty infringing."

Thanks for the intellectual response as usual.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Should I requote what you said then, because her derr mexico does not seem to be a repeat of anything I said.

Here is the main logical fallacy you committed Appeal to ridicule – an argument is made by incorrectly presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous. and of course I can find quite a few others you fell under in that post.

May I suggest you use the list of fallacies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Or better yet not commit logical fallacies of blatant proportions when trying to claim you used none.


well here you go your own words post number 90

"Der.. Der... Mexico... Therefore all gun regulations of any kind are Stalin and liberty infringing."

Thanks for the intellectual response as usual.

You compared Mexican gun rights to stalinism then used that whole invented construct to state why we should have no gun regulations at all, less we become them. I didn't need to make your position sound stupid, you did that all by yourself.

 

[Rucker61]

You compared Mexican gun rights to stalinism then used that whole invented construct to state why we should have no gun regulations at all, less we become them. I didn't need to make your position sound stupid, you did that all by yourself.

I must have missed where he said we should have no regulations at all.

 

[Rich2018]

and at a federal level, the USSC will strike it down. so where are you talking.

Depends on the wording of any proposed gun control law.

 

[beerftw]

You compared Mexican gun rights to stalinism then used that whole invented construct to state why we should have no gun regulations at all, less we become them. I didn't need to make your position sound stupid, you did that all by yourself.

To be truthful stalin did have more lenient gun rights than mexico currently does and mexico has a right to keep and bear arms in their constitution., however I never once stated we should have no gun regulations at all, you seem to be making up an argument rather than debating the one at hand.

 

[apdst]

Yeah, this issue has been on the rise with the democrats for a while now.

I wonder when they'll realize that their forms of gun laws only serve to make things worse for actual, law abiding citizens.

They don't care. Actually, making things worse is the objective. "Never let a crisis go to waste".

 

[apdst]

This isn't a "pro-rights" vs. "anti-rights" question. Virtually all mainstream politicians on both sides support the fundamental right of law-abiding Americans to own guns. However ALL rights have limits, and you're one of the fringe radicals that believes that gun ownership should have no rules whatsoever and a complete free-for-all. You automatically attack ANY gun regulation at the federal level as a fundamental violation of our rights, with no consideration of what is actually being proposed.

The American people as a whole understand that all rights do have limits and should be regulated to some degree, and luckily over the past few decades we've taken more and more steps towards that. Most Americans disagree with you that violent criminals should have unfettered access to machine guns. This is a battle you're losing, and your hysterical fear-mongering isn't making you look more credible.

If a right is regulated, it's no longer a right.

Gun use is regulated. There are laws against discharging firearms in certain places. Damaging someone's property with a gun is illegal. Using a gun to murder someone is illegal. And those are both good regulations.

These laws don't and won't have jack**** to do with keeping guns away from violent criminals. It's just like Mark Robinson said, "...you're not going to go disarm the crips and the bloods", and he's exactly right.

These laws have absolutely nothing to do with regulating how guns are used and everything to do with infringing upon the civil rights of law abiding citizens.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

To be truthful stalin did have more lenient gun rights than mexico currently does and mexico has a right to keep and bear arms in their constitution., however I never once stated we should have no gun regulations at all, you seem to be making up an argument rather than debating the one at hand.

You used Mexico as an example where gun regulation leads. I don't know why you even brought it up if that wasn't your point. No, the US isn't like Mexico and requiring a background check before you buy a gun doesn't violate your rights and isn't Stalinism. Cut the drama and hyperbole.

If a right is regulated, it's no longer a right.

Gun use is regulated. There are laws against discharging firearms in certain places. Damaging someone's property with a gun is illegal. Using a gun to murder someone is illegal. And those are both good regulations.

These laws don't and won't have jack**** to do with keeping guns away from violent criminals. It's just like Mark Robinson said, "...you're not going to go disarm the crips and the bloods", and he's exactly right.

These laws have absolutely nothing to do with regulating how guns are used and everything to do with infringing upon the civil rights of law abiding citizens.

ALL rights are regulated to some degree, including the first amendment. The second amendment even has the word regulated in it, so spare us the theatrical lying.

For anyone else pretending nobody rejects all gun regulations, here's a pretty nutty example of what I was talking about.

Man, you must hate living in America with no rights whatsoever according to your definition.