Exploring Some Specific Gun Rights Issues

[haymarket]

OMG, that means we'll be here for another 1000 posts!!!! I'll die of old age before haymarket gives us a straight answer on all of those.

All I have done is give you a straight answer.... over and over and over again.

You simply don't like the answers because your trap lies unsprung.

 

[Federalist]

The only thing you can do is to lie about my positions, distort them, try to misrepresent what I have said, and to make it up as you go along.

Then please, by all means, go ahead and tell us your position. Do you support restricting the number of guns a person may own?

 

[Jerry]

I don't see a point in mag limits. There's a natural limitation with the tech. The CO shooter found this out when his 100rnd barrel kept double-feeding his rifle. Mags are the same way. Surefire makes a 60 and 100rnd mag for 5.56mm. Even-though it's one of the best high-capacity mags out there, it still suffers many of the same problems and for the same reasons. IMO if you want 100rnds in a rifle, buy a belt-fed system (yes, civilians can own belt-fed weapons...they even make a belt-fed AR).

 

[Federalist]

All I have done is give you a straight answer.... over and over and over again.

Really? I must have missed it. What was your answer to this question: Do you support restricting the number of guns a person may own?

 

[LaMidRighter]

I agree with you, and would add one, which admittedly isn't very popular. I support gun ownership for ex-cons, once they have completed their sentence, as I think a debt paid to society should be considered paid in full.

I'm 50/50 there. If someone is a non-violent felon they should be granted full rights upon release, for violent felons there should be a period certain where they have to keep their noses clean and can apply to a clemency board, for domestic abusers it should be the same standard. The reasoning behind that is recidivism rates, a person embezzling funds may or may not do it again but there is no imminent danger, a person who got popped for armed robbery may kill someone the next time. I think there can be a weighted standard there.

 

[Jerry]

Why are you deliberately lying?

It does not mean yes or no. Perhaps you can quote the post where I specifically said YES, and went on to say that I supported such things?

Or you can apologize for lying.

I find it more than a bit amusing that all these.... what would Turtle call them?,,,, oh yes ... all these gun people rallying against me in waves and not one can produce a comment that I am anti-Second Amendment. Not a single one.

The only thing you can do is to lie about my positions, distort them, try to misrepresent what I have said, and to make it up as you go along.

That speaks volumes both about your debating abilities and your intellectual integrity.

I'm glad we were able to get clarity on your support for limiting the number of guns a citizen should be able to own. What is your opinion on that citizen carrying their 1 weapon (let's assume a concealed pistol) into a school zone?

 

[TurtleDude]

I claim to support the second amendment, yet I want to infringe on your right to keep and bear arms.

Huh?

Yeah its really hard to figure out Haymarket's position but I think that is his game-to not take a definitive stance so he can claim he really has not come out as being anti gun but can snipe at gun owners. Boo does the same thing with his constant litany that "he doesn't feel a need to carry a gun" (and those those who do either endanger the public or are paranoid etc"

 

[TurtleDude]

Why are you deliberately lying?

It does not mean yes or no. Perhaps you can quote the post where I specifically said YES, and went on to say that I supported such things?

Or you can apologize for lying.

I find it more than a bit amusing that all these.... what would Turtle call them?,,,, oh yes ... all these gun people rallying against me in waves and not one can produce a comment that I am anti-Second Amendment. Not a single one.

The only thing you can do is to lie about my positions, distort them, try to misrepresent what I have said, and to make it up as you go along.

That speaks volumes both about your debating abilities and your intellectual integrity.

I can but it got flushed and I don't want to get ringed up for that

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You just revealed something there Turtle that has been obvious for a long long time. There is an important difference between what you label as PRO GUN PEOPLE and people who respect the Constitution and the Second Amendment.

A citizen can respect the Constitution and the Second Amendment and have differences with 'pro gun people' (whatever that phrase may mean to you) over actual issues.

support for infringements on honest people owning guns is contradictory to supporting the second amendment

It seems to me that in order to honestly claim to “respect” the Constitution, one would have to agree with it and wish to see it fully obeyed. To seek to have any part of the Constitution openly disobeyed would surely constitute disrespect for the Constitution.

 

[Federalist]

Yeah its really hard to figure out Haymarket's position but I think that is his game-to not take a definitive stance so he can claim he really has not come out as being anti gun but can snipe at gun owners. Boo does the same thing with his constant litany that "he doesn't feel a need to carry a gun" (and those those who do either endanger the public or are paranoid etc"

Is that what this is all about? He wants to wear the mantle of a gun rights advocate while undermining gun rights?

 

[TurtleDude]

Is that what this is all about? He wants to wear the mantle of a gun rights advocate while undermining gun rights?

I don't know, I know that there are 5-6 anti gun far left posters who play all sorts of evasive games and never are willing to tell us just where they stand

having over 35 years of dealing with gun haters, gun banners, evasive leftwing politicians, Sarah Brady, Pete Shields (who I beat up so bad on his idiocy he told the Yale Political Union he would not come back) and other such ARC types, I know anti gun sentiments when I read them

 

[LaMidRighter]

I don't know, I know that there are 5-6 anti gun far left posters who play all sorts of evasive games and never are willing to tell us just where they stand

having over 35 years of dealing with gun haters, gun banners, evasive leftwing politicians, Sarah Brady, Pete Shields (who I beat up so bad on his idiocy he told the Yale Political Union he would not come back) and other such ARC types, I know anti gun sentiments when I read them

In almost every case of anti-gun activists I see a variation of this phrase "I support the second amendment but..........." and is always followed by a laundry list of emotional demands with no compelling logical reason behind it. I can tell people easily why violent felons and domestic abusers must reapply for full rights restoration regarding the second, I can state why the affadavit system wouldn't violate the spirit of the second and possibly maintain the public safety, and why there can actually be a compromise on FFLIII weaponry without even batting an eye.

 

[Federalist]

I don't know, I know that there are 5-6 anti gun far left posters who play all sorts of evasive games and never are willing to tell us just where they stand

having over 35 years of dealing with gun haters, gun banners, evasive leftwing politicians, Sarah Brady, Pete Shields (who I beat up so bad on his idiocy he told the Yale Political Union he would not come back) and other such ARC types, I know anti gun sentiments when I read them

That's as good an explanation as any for his refusal to tell us where he stands. Why else would someone blatantly ignore direct questions?

At this point, I assume that nobody actually believes that he supports gun rights, but that he is merely a poseur who uses the 2nd amendment as a stalking horse. At least that's my conclusion.

 

[jamesrage]

Using Haymarket's logic I must be pro-choice seeing how I only support abortion to save a mother's life. I like lettuce and tomato on my cheeseburger so I must also be a vegetarian using Haymarket's logic.

 

[haymarket]

Then please, by all means, go ahead and tell us your position. Do you support restricting the number of guns a person may own?

I do not have a position because there is no proposed law for me to take a position on.

 

[haymarket]

I don't know, I know that there are 5-6 anti gun far left posters who play all sorts of evasive games and never are willing to tell us just where they stand

having over 35 years of dealing with gun haters, gun banners, evasive leftwing politicians, Sarah Brady, Pete Shields (who I beat up so bad on his idiocy he told the Yale Political Union he would not come back) and other such ARC types, I know anti gun sentiments when I read them

You can believe what you want to believe because you believe it. At the end of the day that is still all you have...... your own delusions.

 

[haymarket]

In almost every case of anti-gun activists I see a variation of this phrase "I support the second amendment but..........." and is always followed by a laundry list of emotional demands with no compelling logical reason behind it. I can tell people easily why violent felons and domestic abusers must reapply for full rights restoration regarding the second, I can state why the affadavit system wouldn't violate the spirit of the second and possibly maintain the public safety, and why there can actually be a compromise on FFLIII weaponry without even batting an eye.

There was no BUT in my support statement. Nor was there any laundry list of demands.

 

[Federalist]

I do not have a position because there is no proposed law for me to take a position on.

I'm not asking you about any specific law. I am asking if you support the notion of restricting the number of guns a person may own.

 

[Jerry]

You can believe what you want to believe because you believe it. At the end of the day that is still all you have...... your own delusions.

That, and your answer that you support quantity limitations.

 

[haymarket]

Yeah its really hard to figure out Haymarket's position but I think that is his game-to not take a definitive stance so he can claim he really has not come out as being anti gun but can snipe at gun owners. Boo does the same thing with his constant litany that "he doesn't feel a need to carry a gun" (and those those who do either endanger the public or are paranoid etc"

What does the poster carrying a gun or not carrying a gun have to do with supporting Second Amendment rights?

Again - you evade from the real question and try to dishonestly make this about what you have called "gun people" and everybody else.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I do not have a position because there is no proposed law for me to take a position on.

Then you do have a position, something tells me you would side with the state. A principled second advocate will state that restrictions must not cause prior restraint, must not infringe the right, and must have a compelling interest. Any law that violates those three principles is opposed before the ink dries to a second amendment advocate.

 

[haymarket]

That, and your answer that you support gun limitations.

So you have no difficulty quoting where I said that then?

 

[Federalist]

There was no BUT in my support statement.

Yes, there is a BUT: "I claim support the 2nd amendment, BUT I refuse to answer the direct question of whether I support restricting the number of guns a person may own."

 

[LaMidRighter]

There was no BUT in my support statement. Nor was there any laundry list of demands.

Two words for you. 1) Horse 2) ****.

 

[haymarket]

Then you do have a position, something tells me you would side with the state. .

Well its not me telling you that.