• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gun "Buybacks" -- Is there a Fiduciary Responsibility?

Kal'Stang said:
Now you are the one that moved the goal posts.

Your original statements that led to what I posted...




Your current statement....



One of your quotes is about reducing crime and opinion. Another is about lack of proof. The other is about not having proof that the buy back is keeping guns out of criminal hands. Three things seperated enough that neither can be directly tied to the other and is an arguement on their own.

My posts to you was about proof and facts from the get go.
Click to expand...

This is what I mean about leading me in circles. I can't prove buybacks reduce crime, you can't prove they don't.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
This is what I mean about leading me in circles. I can't prove buybacks reduce crime, you can't prove they don't.
Click to expand...

So we're back to the "reduce crime" and away from the "out of criminal hands"? Only problem here is its not me doing the circling. Its you. I already gave my proof and you have yet to dispute it. Instead choosing to play the circles card.

Seriously its real easy to prove my proof wrong. All that you have to do is prove that some law/regulation attached to the gun buyback program stops anyone from buying guns legally or through a straw purchases and going into the streets with them.
 
Kal'Stang said:
So we're back to the "reduce crime" and away from the "out of criminal hands"? Only problem here is its not me doing the circling. Its you. I already gave my proof and you have yet to dispute it. Instead choosing to play the circles card.
Click to expand...

You accused me of moving the goalposts, irony of ironies, so I returned to my original point.

Kal'Stang said:
Seriously its real easy to prove my proof wrong. All that you have to do is prove that some law/regulation attached to the gun buyback program stops anyone from buying guns legally or through a straw purchases and going into the streets with them.
Click to expand...

I don't care about your "proof." I'm sticking to my original point, which is that the claim can't be proven or disproven.

Do this dance with someone else, I'm done.
 
Kal'Stang said:
It might depend on the state...would seem kinda weird to me though. :shrug: But then you do live in a highly gun rights restricted area so I guess I could see it.
Click to expand...

I watch two reality pawn shows on TV -- if I remember correctly, the one in Detroit is not allowed to buy or sell firearms. Illinois? I'm not really sure. But I did visit a pawn shop not long ago, and they didn't have any. ?
 
I believe that government has a severely-neglected duty and obligation to make frugal, wise, and efficient use of that portion of the people's wealth that they control.

Buying valuable property, and then gratuitously destroying this property, for no provable public benefit, is a grotesque violation of this duty.
 
MaggieD said:
I watch two reality pawn shows on TV -- if I remember correctly, the one in Detroit is not allowed to buy or sell firearms. Illinois? I'm not really sure. But I did visit a pawn shop not long ago, and they didn't have any. ?
Click to expand...

We had a pawn shop here that sold guns of any age and type. Had one whole wall and one long case full of guns both new and old. He retired though and now we don't have any pawn shops in this town. :shrug: :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom