How To Talk To Anti Gun People

[Glitch]

Some people see a bunch of separate ideas that can be argued in isolation, and some me people know everything is connected. Sorry you can’t see the connections. Bless your heart. I’ll pray for you.

He has also been repeatedly informed that the Supreme Court already shot down his wet-dream for Universal Background Checks (UBCs) in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997). Democrat scum already passed UBCs in the Brady Bill in 1993. Since Congress does not have that constitutional authority, and since it is a blatant violation of the Tenth Amendment, the Supreme Court threw it out as unconstitutional. A Republican-controlled Congress then passed the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) in 1998.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Democrat scum

Great example of how NOT to talk to anti gun people.

You just shot yourself in the foot.

 

[zsu2357]

I’m talking about a federal ban on many guns and a re-interpreting of 2A back to its original meaning. You aren’t a militia.

You must have some fantasy that all gun owners would just hand them over regardless of what they were if some federal ban came down on semi auto or any "military style" firearms. Good luck on that one.

We don’t need a militia anymore.

That's what the cry babies say until they one-day then wonder how they could have been so thoroughly duped.

 

[brianpatrick]

You must have some fantasy that all gun owners would just hand them over regardless of what they were if some federal ban came down on semi auto or any "military style" firearms. Good luck on that one.

That's what the cry babies say until they one-day then wonder how they could have been so thoroughly duped.

Sure thing GI Joe

 

[brianpatrick]

He has also been repeatedly informed that the Supreme Court already shot down his wet-dream for Universal Background Checks (UBCs) in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997). Democrat scum already passed UBCs in the Brady Bill in 1993. Since Congress does not have that constitutional authority, and since it is a blatant violation of the Tenth Amendment, the Supreme Court threw it out as unconstitutional. A Republican-controlled Congress then passed the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) in 1998.

That’s why when democrats take power we’re going to increase the court or impeach a few ideologues.

 

[zsu2357]

I get it, but you clearly don't. Do you even understand why the prefatory clause exists? I'll give you a hint, it has absolutely nothing to do with keeping and bearing arms.

I'm afraid his reading stops after "A well regulated Militia". He just runs with the herd on the interpretation.

 

[jaeger19]

His mother wouldn’t have had firearms to steal and neither would you if it were my choice. There would be a much longer waiting period to get any guns also. This wouldn’t affect “good” gun owners because they are not buying them to go shoot some people.

But… it’s the gun culture that’s the problem. The country is as strong as it’s weakest link. It’s why we have mandatory insurance laws, speed limits, illegal drugs, and all kinds of daily restrictions. The current interpretation of 2A is bullshit and the gunners know it. But, they’ve built businesses around gun culture and are fighting to increase profits in that industry just like every other business is. I get it. But that doesn’t mean it can’t go too far and become a public burden. It eventually will because more guns = more gun deaths. There’s no hiding that fact. You can say it’s because we need to lock up more criminals, but how many more ****ing people are we going to incarcerate before the cost of that is beyond our ability to pay? And to what end?

Well right. You just made my point. You just said " his mother wouldn't have firearms and neither would you if I had my choice."..
So in reality you are not talking about better background checks to stop criminals...you are talking about restricting my rights to own a gun though I am a law abiding citizen. In fact am a former reserve police officer. A hunter education instructor and a doctor.
So yes..you are talking about " good " gun owners.
You know nothing about gun culture. You demonstrate it. Here are some facts for you.
Concealed weapons license holders are MORE LAW ABIDING not only tge general public..but police!

8-17-16 – Study: Concealed Carry Permit Holders Most Law Abiding Citizens

by Rob Roper A new study by the Crime Prevention Research Center, Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States: 2016, shows that people who hold a permit to carry a concealed firearm are the most law abiding citizens in

ethanallen.org

In fact this study showed that as the number of permit holders increased..crime decreased.

As far as more guns equals more gun crime. That's debunked as well.

Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet

Firearms sellers can thank the gun-control legislation lobbies for much of this business windfall.

www.forbes.com

"A couple of new studies reveal the gun-control hypesters’ worst nightmare…more people are buying firearms, while firearm-related homicides and suicides are steadily diminishing.".

Sorry man but your premise doesn't hold up to the facts.

 

[Glitch]

The thirteenth amendment is pretty clear, and 2A isn’t. Don’t think this fearmongering argument works on me or most Americans. Do you?

The Second Amendment is very clear. It just requires someone who is able to comprehend what they read.

 

[RF667799]

That’s why when democrats take power we’re going to increase the court or impeach a few ideologues.

Ooohh....it's a tribal thing. Gun control is nothing more than something to use as shorthand for "Dems good, Repubs bad". Or alternatively, if stumping for the other tribe.

Gotta be damn inconvenient how bi-partisan gun ownership is.

 

[RF667799]

He has also been repeatedly informed that the Supreme Court already shot down his wet-dream for Universal Background Checks (UBCs) in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997). Democrat scum already passed UBCs in the Brady Bill in 1993. Since Congress does not have that constitutional authority, and since it is a blatant violation of the Tenth Amendment, the Supreme Court threw it out as unconstitutional. A Republican-controlled Congress then passed the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) in 1998.

So make the NICS accessible to everyone. That will make it convenient to do background checks for private sales of guns and motor vehicles.

 

[jaeger19]

It’s not just crimes we’re looking to reduce, it’s accidents, suicides, your guns in a place where kids or stupid people can get them, a culture of “fear of bad guys” which poisons social cohesion, and the threat that if individuals don’t like what the laws are they will use violence to settle the matter.

Ahh facts.
"Data recently released by the National Center for Health Statistics shows that in 2008, the number and per capita rate of firearm accident deaths fell to an all-time low. There were 592 firearm accident deaths (0.19 such accidents per 100,000 population) in 2008, as compared to 613 accidents (.20 per 100,000) in 2007. In 2008, the chance of a child dying in a firearm accident was roughly one in a million."

Gun sales had been steadily increasing to 2008 and surged in 2008.

On Concerns Over Gun Control, Gun Sales Are Up (Published 2008)

Gun dealers say sales have surged on buyers’ concerns about gun control under an Obama administration.

www.nytimes.com

Again my friend your premise simply doesn't stand up to the facts.

 

[jaeger19]

So make the NICS accessible to everyone. That will make it convenient to do background checks for private sales of guns and motor vehicles.

Why not just identify those that are unable to posses guns. Put it on their state ID. "Ineligible for firearms. "
Done.

 

[Glitch]

Currently they won’t find anything palatable. That’s the problem.
I think anti gun people would accept a federal registration process without loopholes and proof you “need” a gun.

Think again. Also read the Fourth Amendment while you are at it. It is very obvious that you have never even read the Bill of Rights, much less the US Constitution. I hate to burst your bubble, but we do not live in a country where government is all-powerful and able to do whatever they please. In the US the federal government is restricted to ONLY those powers granted to them by the US Constitution. They are further restricted from infringing on any of our constitutionally enumerated individual rights. Including the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause..."

Government is not entitled to any information about its citizens, unless they can articulate probable cause that a crime has been, will be, or is in the process of being committed.

 

[zsu2357]

Sure thing GI Joe

I know that's sarcasm, but GI Joe's a stretch.

 

[jaeger19]

No. You didnt.

You told me what you think people you disagree with think.

Useless.

There you go. You are entitled to your opinion. A great many Americans don't share your opinion. And they are just as entitled to their opinions as you are to yours.

You agree right?

So we agree, right, that gun control is not an all or nothing thing and it is full of nuance?

Well there is being entitled to your opinion.
And whether said opinion is buttressed by logic and facts.
Mine is..
The gun control advocates opinion is not.
Frankly..Mos Americans are actually against most gun control.

Sure..you get a poll about assault weapons..and they say " sure ban them".
Then when they find out that that you defined their dad's turkey hunting shotgun ad an assault weapon..they don't agree with a ban.
Suggest " universal background checks" and the average person says.." sure"..
When they find out that means if their best friend wants to borrow their shotgun for a duck hunt ..it means a background check for their best friend...then one for themselves when they get it back....
They don't support that universal background check.

It's why you hun control advocates have to deceive the public to get your laws passed.

 

[Glitch]

So make the NICS accessible to everyone. That will make it convenient to do background checks for private sales of guns and motor vehicles.

The NICS is only accessible to FFL holders because they are the only ones who are required to use it. There shouldn't be FFL holders, any required government license is itself a violation of the Second Amendment. The government lacks the authority to compel citizens to use NICS.

 

[jaeger19]

Great example of how NOT to talk to anti gun people.

You just shot yourself in the foot.

Oh no..you love it..
Face it.. thats how you want gun owners to talk..
Because if tgey bring facts and logic to tge discussion. Well you lose.

 

[Glitch]

Ahh facts.
"Data recently released by the National Center for Health Statistics shows that in 2008, the number and per capita rate of firearm accident deaths fell to an all-time low. There were 592 firearm accident deaths (0.19 such accidents per 100,000 population) in 2008, as compared to 613 accidents (.20 per 100,000) in 2007. In 2008, the chance of a child dying in a firearm accident was roughly one in a million."

Gun sales had been steadily increasing to 2008 and surged in 2008.

On Concerns Over Gun Control, Gun Sales Are Up (Published 2008)

Gun dealers say sales have surged on buyers’ concerns about gun control under an Obama administration.

www.nytimes.com

Again my friend your premise simply doesn't stand up to the facts.

That unfortunate statistic can be lowered further through education. I fully support educating children and adults alike about firearm safety, but only if it is voluntary.

 

[RF667799]

The NICS is only accessible to FFL holders because they are the only ones who are required to use it. There shouldn't be FFL holders, any required government license is itself a violation of the Second Amendment. The government lacks the authority to compel citizens to use NICS.

FFL holders are citizens.

 

[jaeger19]

That unfortunate statistic can be lowered further through education. I fully support educating children and adults alike about firearm safety, but only if it is voluntary.

I agree. Gun safety should start early.
But anti gunners don't want children to be taught how to be safe .

 

[Glitch]

Why not just identify those that are unable to posses guns. Put it on their state ID. "Ineligible for firearms. "
Done.

That is certainly a possibility. They already do that with those who have abused alcohol and received numerous DUIs. I can see no problems with including some identifying mark that the individual bearing the license is a convicted felon. It would be like any other life-long punishment for committing a felony, like losing their right to vote or their right to keep and bear arms.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Well there is being entitled to your opinion.
And whether said opinion is buttressed by logic and facts.
Mine is..

No, not really.

The gun control advocates opinion is not.

Which gun control advocates opinion is not?

You don't seem to know what their opinions are, you were wrong about their opinions in your previous post.

Frankly..Mos Americans are actually against most gun control.

No, actually most Americans are for it.

Polling is clear: Americans want gun control​

Polling is clear: Americans want gun control

Politicians diverge from voters when it comes to preventing gun deaths.

www.vox.com

Sure..you get a poll about assault weapons..and they say " sure ban them".
Then when they find out that that you defined their dad's turkey hunting shotgun ad an assault weapon..they don't agree with a ban.

That is the nuance I was talking about. Why your 'all or nothing' stance is nonsense.

The details can be worked out.

They don't support that universal background check.

No the vast majority of Americans want universal background checks with no exceptions.

 

[Glitch]

FFL holders are citizens.

FFL holders are government slaves that willfully violate the US Constitution. You know that FFLs wouldn't even exist if not for the unconstitutional National Firearms Act of 1934, right? In fact, the Firearms portion of the BATFE wouldn't exist either.

 

[jaeger19]

That is certainly a possibility. They already do that with those who have abused alcohol and received numerous DUIs. I can see no problems with including some identifying mark that the individual bearing the license is a convicted felon. It would be like any other life-long punishment for committing a felony, like losing their right to vote or their right to keep and bear arms.

Sure. And it would make it easy for law abiding gun owners to identify them so we know who we can sell to etc.
Why should all law abiding citizens have to be kept in a database and tracked.
Rather than simply identify those ineligible. ?

 

[NolanVoyd]

Oh no..you love it..

There you go again.

You have no idea what I, or anyone else, loves.

Best stick to speaking for yourself.

Face it.. thats how you want gun owners to talk..

It's amazing how you always know what everyone else thinks and wants and feel comfortable speaking for them.