How to fix the "gun crisis"

[jamesrage]

Actually it is a very mainstream position as Americans do not want such firepower in the hands of civillians.

Nothing but lies by anti-2nd amendment trash.It might be the mainstream position in anti-2nd amendment states like California, New York and Illinious. But it is not is most of the other states. Because if what you said was true then semiautomatic firearms would have been banned a long time ago. People who actually know anything about guns do not support your idiotic claims.

A person can support the 2nd Amendment and also support banning such weapons in our society. They two positions are very compatible with the love of country and support of the Constitution.

Thats like saying you can still be pro-choice while supporting bans on elective abortion.

 

[haymarket]

Only anti-2nd amendment trash would make that claim.

Does insulting people who simply disagree with you are you feel better about yourself?

 

[haymarket]

Nothing but lies by anti-2nd amendment trash.

It is nice when the poster disqualifies everything which comes after their insulting personal attack.

 

[Manc Skipper]

The gun laws in California and Illinois should be struck down.Not enacted at the federal level.Only anti-2nd amendment trash think California, Illinois and New York have good gun laws.

So what is your solution to innocent people dying to feed your desire for guns?

 

[CLAX1911]

What makes you think a firearm is the only way a woman can protect herself from a man? You think a woman can’t be capable of fighting off an attacker? That there aren’t other effective tools she can utilize? We aren’t in the age of “Father knows best” or “Gidget” anymore, so stop trying to portray women as weak and defenseless.


Deer, I know, I said it before you.

Duh? Self defense and the defense of others is the reason law abiding citizens carry firearms.

Girls, ages 15 - 18, are also frequent victims of assault/rape. By your reckoning, they should also be permitted to carry a firearm, right? What about boys too? They are also assaulted. Shouldn’t 15 year old boys be able to carry firearms? Heck, boys and girls even younger than 15 years old are victimized. Why shouldn’t any kid be allowed to carry a firearm for personal protection? After all, you don’t want to limit children’s options of self defense, right?

The point is, there is no best age to allow people to carry firearms. Some young folks who’ve been properly taught how handle and safeguard a firearm might be mature/responsible enough to be permitted to carry at 18, while others may not be mature/responsible enough to carry until they’re 25 years old. You happen to think 18 is the right age and I think 21 is more appropriate. Neither opinion is necessarily better than the other.

Nope. Just noting an existing federal law that is applicable to our discussion.

That's again false. other people are arguing what the law should be you are arguing what the law is

 

[RaleBulgarian]

That's again false. other people are arguing what the law should be you are arguing what the law is

Wrong. I’m explaining, in the simplest manner possible in hopes that you’ll comprehend, that your opinion that the law should be 18 is no more compelling than mine that the law should be 21 to purchase/carry a firearm.

And I wasn’t arguing what the law is. That doesn’t even make sense.

 

[VanceMack]

State rights does not give states the right to infringe on the Constitution.

Suuuuuure. He believes states rights trump the Constitution. THATS why he advocates for allowing states to ban gay marriage.

 

[CLAX1911]

Wrong. I’m explaining, in the simplest manner possible in hopes that you’ll comprehend, that your opinion that the law should be 18 is no more compelling than mine that the law should be 21 to purchase/carry a firearm.

And I wasn’t arguing what the law is. That doesn’t even make sense.

The differences you want to deprive adults of an option for self-defense. I do not.

 

[Glitch]

can anyone actually make a rational argument against this standard?

if CIVILIAN police departments can use a firearm on our streets and carry them in our places of business, assembly and recreational areas, than lawful citizens should be able to KEEP those same weapons in their home and use them for lawful purposes in other areas

Civilians are able to keep much more than law enforcement. I know civilians who own an 105mm Howitzer, bazookas, tanks, and fighter aircraft. None of which you will find at any police department. There should be no limit to any weapon a law-abiding civilian may own.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

The differences you want to deprive adults of an option for self-defense. I do not.

“Adult” as in the misnomer applied to Americans when they reach the age of 18 years? A completely lame argument. Until 1971, majority age was 21. Did people begin maturing more rapidly after 1971? Of course not. The average 18 year old now is no more mature or responsible than an 18 year old in 1971.

Try coming up with an argument that has merit.

 

[noonereal]

Your credibility would have been better if you said you hated Trump. I spent 30 years as a prosecutor. I have seen all sorts of crime.

I assume you only prosecuted liberals?

 

[joko104]

The NRA is the Democratic Party's boogeyman they divert to.

Every time we talk of efforts to ban guns, we should refer to it as "MS13ers."

Of course the Democratic Party's MS13ers want to ban law abiding Americans from having guns. But more and more Americans are recognizing who the Democratic Party's MS13ers really are and their real agenda.

 

[CLAX1911]

“Adult” as in the misnomer applied to Americans when they reach the age of 18 years? A completely lame argument. Until 1971, majority age was 21. Did people begin maturing more rapidly after 1971? Of course not. The average 18 year old now is no more mature or responsible than an 18 year old in 1971.

Try coming up with an argument that has merit.

An 18 year old can enter a contract, even with the government to do combat. If you were argument is that they are not adults because in 1971 they weren't adults. You are the one with a lame argument. Especially considering that they're able to enter contracts or purchase a rifle or a shotgun.

Do you think you can kill someone with a shotgun?

 

[CLAX1911]

The NRA is the Democratic Party's boogeyman they divert to.

Every time we talk of efforts to ban guns, we should refer to it as "MS13ers."

Of course the Democratic Party's MS13ers want to ban law abiding Americans from having guns. But more and more Americans are recognizing who the Democratic Party's MS13ers really are and their real agenda.

Well when you make the NRA your enemy you make the people of the country your enemy. The NRA is like the ACLU they stand up for the rights of people.

That's what they don't like. They don't want you to have rights.

The reason, they are scared instead of arming themselves they attack our ability to be armed.

 

[Glitch]

“Adult” as in the misnomer applied to Americans when they reach the age of 18 years? A completely lame argument. Until 1971, majority age was 21. Did people begin maturing more rapidly after 1971? Of course not. The average 18 year old now is no more mature or responsible than an 18 year old in 1971.

Try coming up with an argument that has merit.

I was carrying around a firearm when I was 8 years old, and obtained my own personal firearm on my 10th birthday. That was also well before 1971.

Do you also want to limit freedom of speech to those who are 21 and over? Why not restrict all our inherent rights to only those who are 21 and older, why limit yourself to just one?

Any age restriction is an infringement against the Second Amendment.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

An 18 year old can enter a contract, even with the government to do combat. If you were argument is that they are not adults because in 1971 they weren't adults. You are the one with a lame argument. Especially considering that they're able to enter contracts or purchase a rifle or a shotgun.

Do you think you can kill someone with a shotgun?

Because they can enter a legally binding contract at age 18 is not an argument, it’s an unrelated factoid. What if I countered with “well, they can’t drink until they’re 21, so the law should be 21”? Does that argument, by itself, mean anything?

And as for your shotgun question, please. Don’t treat me like I’m an idiot and I’ll try to do the same with you.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I was carrying around a firearm when I was 8 years old, and obtained my own personal firearm on my 10th birthday. That was also well before 1971.

That falls under the category of “good for you”, but not relevant to all 18 year olds in America.

 

[SkyChief]

It just takes time and the will.
It will take an effort because it involves changing a culture for many. This is why much of what I am about to say needs to be grandfathered in and will take a generation before we see a major change from these slaughters. . . .

It's easier than you think. It can be done in 3 steps.

1) Universal Firearm registry (all firearms need to be registered)

2) Repeal Amendment II

3) Confiscate!

Done! :2bow:

 

[Glitch]

That falls under the category of “good for you”, but not relevant to all 18 year olds in America.

It is very relevant, because you are trying to use age as a justification for infringing on the rights of others. I noticed you refused to answer my question about all the other Bill of Rights. Should they be age restricted as well, or just the Second Amendment?

 

[CLAX1911]

Because they can enter a legally binding contract at age 18 is not an argument, it’s an unrelated factoid.

that's false it is an argument you're just saying that because you don't want to address it. Possibly because it's a point to you can't argue.

Your argument was in the past things were different that is actually a logical fallacy call argumentum ad antiquitatem or appeal to tradition.

just because we used to do something doesn't mean it was right. Case in point our country used to hold slaves.

So instead of dismissing the argument address it if you can. or show me how the logic doesn't follow like I did for your argument.

What if I countered with “well, they can’t drink until they’re 21, so the law should be 21”? Does that argument, by itself, mean anything?

that would be a flimsy argument. because they can enter into contracts they can get married they can purchase homes we can do everything an adult can do except for drink and buy a pistol.

There is more supporting the argument that 18 is an adult then there is supporting 21 as an adult.

And as for your shotgun question, please. Don’t treat me like I’m an idiot and I’ll try to do the same with you.

Why are you offended by a legitimate question? I was not treating you like an idiot. If you're 18 you can buy a shotgun and a rifle a car a house anything you want except for a pistol and alcohol.

I think you're offended by the logic. I'm not treating you like an idiot you feel like one. And you shouldn't maybe you just haven't had it explained to you this way.

 

[Glitch]

that's false it is an argument you're just saying that because you don't want to address it. Possibly because it's a point to you can't argue.

Your argument was in the past things were different that is actually a logical fallacy call argumentum ad antiquitatem or appeal to tradition.

just because we used to do something doesn't mean it was right. Case in point our country used to hold slaves.

So instead of dismissing the argument address it if you can. or show me how the logic doesn't follow like I did for your argument.


that would be a flimsy argument. because they can enter into contracts they can get married they can purchase homes we can do everything an adult can do except for drink and buy a pistol.

There is more supporting the argument that 18 is an adult then there is supporting 21 as an adult.


Why are you offended by a legitimate question? I was not treating you like an idiot. If you're 18 you can buy a shotgun and a rifle a car a house anything you want except for a pistol and alcohol.

I think you're offended by the logic. I'm not treating you like an idiot you feel like one. And you shouldn't maybe you just haven't had it explained to you this way.

The anti-American left can't justify their argument because even they know their demands are incredibly fascist. Always seeking to infringe on the rights of others. That is a prerequisite to being a leftist freak.

 

[vegas giants]

It is very relevant, because you are trying to use age as a justification for infringing on the rights of others. I noticed you refused to answer my question about all the other Bill of Rights. Should they be age restricted as well, or just the Second Amendment?

All rights have restrictions.


You are making the case for arming preschoolers

 

[RaleBulgarian]

It is very relevant, because you are trying to use age as a justification for infringing on the rights of others. I noticed you refused to answer my question about all the other Bill of Rights. Should they be age restricted as well, or just the Second Amendment?

Wrong X 2. I am not infringing on anyone’s rights. 2A does not make any reference to age. Our courts have historically decided the legal age to own/carry a firearm. If you have a 2A argument, take it up with the courts.

Also, I am not using age as an argument, rather as an estimate of average maturity and responsibility. My opinion is that most 18 year olds aren’t mature or responsible enough to walk around with a pistol on them. Of course you’re free to disagree, but using only your own history is not an objective argument for all 18 year olds.

I ignored the rest of your post because it’s off subject.

 

[CLAX1911]

.

Also, I am not using age as an argument, rather as an estimate of average maturity and responsibility. My opinion is that most 18 year olds aren’t mature or responsible enough to walk around with a pistol on them.

do you think they are mature enough to operate a vehicle?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

that's false it is an argument you're just saying that because you don't want to address it. Possibly because it's a point to you can't argue.

Your argument was in the past things were different that is actually a logical fallacy call argumentum ad antiquitatem or appeal to tradition.

just because we used to do something doesn't mean it was right. Case in point our country used to hold slaves.

So instead of dismissing the argument address it if you can. or show me how the logic doesn't follow like I did for your argument.


that would be a flimsy argument. because they can enter into contracts they can get married they can purchase homes we can do everything an adult can do except for drink and buy a pistol.

There is more supporting the argument that 18 is an adult then there is supporting 21 as an adult.


Why are you offended by a legitimate question? I was not treating you like an idiot. If you're 18 you can buy a shotgun and a rifle a car a house anything you want except for a pistol and alcohol.

I think you're offended by the logic. I'm not treating you like an idiot you feel like one. And you shouldn't maybe you just haven't had it explained to you this way.

Exactly how is “because they’re old enough to enters contract” an argument? How does it relate?

I’m not debating what defines a “legal adult”, I’m debating when is the appropriate age to allow individuals to purchase and carry pistols.

I’m not offended by your stupid shotgun question. It’s a stupid question because we’re not talking about shoving a long gun down your pants to walk around town. We’re talking about a small, easily concealable weapon that can be used to kill another person with approx 5 lbs lbs pressure on the trigger. It’s why there are different ages for long guns and pistols. Derr