If You Can See Both Sides Of Gun Control Debate

[sangha]

If I am subject to arrest and prosecution for simply carrying a legally purchased (bought from FFL dealer after passing a NICS background check) handgun then yes, that is a "gun ban". This is not based on some "future law" but based on current Texas law.

No, that is not a gun ban, and dishonestly trying to make up your own daffynitions is a sign of unreasonableness and extremism

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Wow, do you sound confused!

1) There are also people who think the lunar landing was faked. Like the idea that gubs are going to be banned, they are irrelevant
2) Your question is a loaded one because it lumps people who are opposed to banning guns with the nuts who actually believe it's going to happen. Believe it or not, most people (myself included) oppose such a ban and are not the least bit concerned that the gubmint is going to take our guns away.

No, i'm not confused at all.

1. You don't know the definition of delusion.
2. You called both groups extremists, the former in #30 and the latter in post #12.

Given you're naivety, repeated logical fallacies and baseless insults its clear there's nothing to gain from you on this subject, if any. But by all means, keep prattling on about "extremists." Calling something/someone extreme without explaining how it is is about as substantive as presuming to call a measure reasonable, despite how irrational it is.

 

[sangha]

OK, what do you "agree" should be added as reasonable restrictions? If one owns or carries a gun that is not within these new resonable restrictions then what, if anything, is the gov't going to do about it?

Without going into the technical details, it quite clear that there are weapons which are not designed for "reasonable use" such as hunting, target practice, home protection, personal security, etc, and are instead designed to kill a lot of people, and fast. Those types of weapons should be more highly regulated.

ANd you already know what the penalties are for breaking the law

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Without going into the technical details, it quite clear that there are weapons which are not designed for "reasonable use" such as hunting, target practice, home protection, personal security, etc, and are instead designed to kill a lot of people, and fast. Those types of weapons should be more highly regulated.

ANd you already know what the penalties are for breaking the law

Like what weapons? Fully automatics are already highly regulated.

AR's aren't designed to kill a lot of people they're sporting rifles that look like weapons designed to fire alot of rounds, are quite commonly used for hunting wild hogs, and are very effective for personal security (home protection in some areas.)

Not to mention that none of these things have ANYTHING to do with the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, its not about protecting hunting or sport but liberty.

 

[sangha]

No, i'm not confused at all.

1. You don't know the definition of delusion.
2. You called both groups extremists, the former in #30 and the latter in post #12.

Given you're naivety, repeated logical fallacies and baseless insults its clear there's nothing to gain from you on this subject, if any. But by all means, keep prattling on about "extremists." Calling something/someone extreme without explaining how it is is about as substantive as presuming to call a measure reasonable, despite how irrational it is.

Your post is dishonest

I never said that people who oppose a ban on guns are unreasonable

 

[sangha]

Like what weapons, because fully automatics are already highly regulated? AR's aren't designed to kill a lot of people they're sporting rifles that look like weapons designed to fire alot of rounds, are quite commonly used for hunting wild hogs, and are very effective for personal security (home protection in some areas.)

What are you asking for here? Model #'s

 

[Arbo]

Without going into the technical details, it quite clear that there are weapons which are not designed for "reasonable use" such as hunting, target practice, home protection, personal security, etc,

I have no doubt I will regret this, but if it goes as I think it will, I'll just go back to ignoring....

Where in the constitution does it talk about 'reasonable use' of guns, or what those 'reasonable uses' might be, or which type of guns might be ok for that 'reasonable use'. Please try to not spin or deflect, as this is a basic and easy question. I verified that by asking my 12 year old and she answered directly (and correctly).

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Your post is dishonest

I never said that people who oppose a ban on guns are unreasonable

I never claimed that you did, I said you called them extremists with the post #'s listed. You're very dishonest, among other things.

What are you asking for here? Model #'s

The only things that matter:
-Function (semi or fully automatic)
-Action
-Calibers

Banning a specific model is foolish and futile, a different one can be made. If a specific type of gun warrants regulation, cite the type.

As I stated, which you failed to address, fully automatics are already highly regulated.

AR's aren't designed to kill a lot of people they're sporting rifles that look like weapons designed to fire alot of rounds, are quite commonly used for hunting wild hogs, and are very effective for personal security (home protection in some areas.)

Not to mention that none of these things (hunting, target practice, home protection, personal security, etc,) have ANYTHING to do with the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, its not about protecting hunting or sport but liberty.

 

[sangha]

I have no doubt I will regret this, but if it goes as I think it will, I'll just go back to ignoring....

Where in the constitution does it talk about 'reasonable use' of guns, or what those 'reasonable uses' might be, or which type of guns might be ok for that 'reasonable use'. Please try to not spin or deflect, as this is a basic and easy question. I verified that by asking my 12 year old and she answered directly (and correctly).

Reasonable use = uses envisioned when the 2nd Amend was written

 

[sangha]

I never claimed that you did, I said you called them extremists with the post #'s listed. You're very dishonest, among other things.

Sure you did. Right here:

2. You called both groups extremists, the former in #30 and the latter in post #12.

It's foolish to deny what you said when it's right there.

note: extremist means unreasonable

 

[ttwtt78640]

Without going into the technical details, it quite clear that there are weapons which are not designed for "reasonable use" such as hunting, target practice, home protection, personal security, etc, and are instead designed to kill a lot of people, and fast. Those types of weapons should be more highly regulated.

ANd you already know what the penalties are for breaking the law

This is where, IMHO, you get into the "extremist" realm; you seem to wish to redefine that which today is a right, into what tomorrow is a crime. What do you mean by "more highly regulated"? If I can now pass an NICS background check, and own a gun that has a 15-round magazine then what does being "more regulated" mean to me? Must I then rent special permission form my state, take a class, pass a written safety/law test, pass a more stringent background check, get a note from my neighbor, surrender my gun or am I simply declared a criminal and locked up?

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Sure you did. Right here:

It's foolish to deny what you said when it's right there.

WTF are you talking about? No where in what you quoted is the word unreasonable or my having called anyone it. You just proved my point that I quoted you as calling groups both extremists.

Most dishonest post of the year.

 

[Harshaw]

Reasonable use = uses envisioned when the 2nd Amend was written

Yes. Like keeping guns in the hands of the people as a check against tyrannical government.

 

[American]

lets see-we have a shooting with a 30 round magazine and the governor of NY's response is to limit his citizens from 10 rounds to 7 rounds and you don't think there is a push to ban stuff?

pure idiocy

I have issues with people who think that those who want to limit magazines to 10 rounds will stop there

They'll allow you to have a musket, so don't fret; cause that's what the militia men had when they ratified the 2nd Amendment. :thumbs:

 

[ThePlayDrive]

I'm wondering if ONLY people who can see both sides of the current gun control debate can answer in this thread?

There are many threads devoted to arguing one side of the other.

Can one thread sort of be for less-rabid responses from people who are "on the fence"?

Here's a rather reasonable "rant" from Jon Stewart:
Scapegoat Hunter - Gun Control - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 01/08/13 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

This falls into the wheel-house of my thoughts.

Honestly, I don't have a huge problem with restricting magazine size.
I don't fear the government is going to try to outlaw ALL guns.
I don't have issues with background checks, waiting periods, and limits to how much one person can purchase in some given time frame.
I don't have issues with registration. I don't have issues with classes in gun safety.

So when you honestly believe we have the right to bear arms, but also believe there needs to be some restrictions and rules, and you are also capable of CALMLY discussing possible solutions to some of the attacks we've witnessed in the last few years, I'd love to hear what some of your thoughts are.

If you're simply going to jump into people's faces and scream at them for having an honest opinion I'd rather you not post in this thread.

Thanks.

Good thread. I hope it doesn't get out of control.

I'm pretty indifferent to the gun control debate in and of itself. It's very low on my list of political concerns. I don't own any guns and don't want to at this time. At the same time, I don't have an extreme aversion to guns because I see things like poverty and mental illness as the biggest contributors to crime - not weapons. However, gun control has become a hot topic in recent months so I've thought more about what I'd like regulation to look like.

1. I'm in favor of registration, wait periods and background checks.

2. I'm in favor of violent criminals released from prison and those with certain mental illnesses and disabilities from not being able to have weapons. For example, severely mentally retarded individuals and schizophrenics with violent delusions.

3. I think that in order to maximize safety, those who with to obtain a gun license must first take and pass a written and physical safety test. This can be modeled like a driving test - just basic "do you know the rules and will you accidentally shoot someone" exams.

4. Again, for safety, I think that in order to have a carry permit, people must have to pass a target test to make sure that if they end up in a public situation where they must use their weapon, they are less likely to accidentally shoot an innocent bystander in the process.

Beyond that, I don't have any more things I'm super in favor of. I think the high regulation of automatic of weapons is fine. However, I don't think a ban on assault weapons makes any sense. I don't have an issue with guns in and of themselves. The only thing that has ever made me reconsider my position on weapons and make me think I should support harsher gun control is the intense, belligerent language used by gun nuts - on this forum and outside of it.

 

[sangha]

This is where, IMHO, you get into the "extremist" realm; you seem to wish to redefine that which today is a right, into what tomorrow is a crime. What do you mean by "more highly regulated"? If I can now pass an NICS background check, and own a gun that has a 15-round magazine then what does being "more regulated" mean to me? Must I then rent special permission form my state, take a class, pass a written safety/law test, pass a more stringent background check, get a note from my neighbor, surrender my gun or am I simply declared a criminal and locked up?

Since I define "reasonable use" as those envisioned by the Framers, I don't see how I'm redefining any rights.

And far as how to regulate, I would support a ban on manufacture and sale of new weapons that fail to meet the new regs.

WRT magazine capacity, I support limiting their size.

I don't support the criminalization of anyone who possesses a gun that exceeds the regulations as long as they can show that it was purchased before the new regs came into effect

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Your post is dishonest
I never said that people who oppose a ban on guns are unreasonable

I never claimed that you did, I said you called them extremists with the post #'s listed. You're very dishonest, among other things.

Sure you did. Right here:

2. You called both groups extremists, the former in #30 and the latter in post #12.

That wasn't ME claiming you called anyone unreasonable, thats me quoting two posts where you called both gun banners and those concerned about them extremists.

Proposers of bans:

Like banning abortion, gay marriage, etc the PROPOSALS of extremists are going nowhere, and fast

Those opposed to/concerned about bans:

No, the idea that the givt is going to confiscate his shotgun is a delusion. The problem are the extremists who believe in this delusion

You really are a dishonest, insulting, ignorant, naive waste of my time.

 

[sangha]

WTF are you talking about? No where in what you quoted is the word unreasonable or my having called anyone it. You just proved my point that I quoted you as calling groups both extremists.

Most dishonest post of the year.

You used the word extremist, and extremists are unreasonable.

And I never called them extremist either. I called them "mainstream" in an earlier post

 

[sangha]

Yes. Like keeping guns in the hands of the people as a check against tyrannical government.

Reasonable people know that the guns you may have in your home are no match for a well-trained and well-equipped army.

Do you seriously think you have any chance of success against the army?

 

[sangha]

That wasn't ME claiming you called anyone unreasonable, thats me quoting two posts where you called both gun banners and those concerned about them extremists.

Proposers of bans:


Those opposed to/concerned about bans:


You really are a dishonest, insulting, ignorant, naive waste of my time.

People who are concerned that guns might be banned are unreasonable and extreme. Those who support gun bans are unreasonable are extreme

Those who oppose gun bans are both reasonable and mainstream.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

You used the word extremist, and extremists are unreasonable.

I never addressed you until post #28 (which is after #12 where you used the term extremists) and that was only to call you out for using it, then you do so again in reply.

So what are you talking about that I used the word extremist? Not in reference to a claim of yours regarding something being extreme? When?

And I never called them extremist either. I called them "mainstream" in an earlier post

Lies, you clearly do in posts #12 and #30:

No, the idea that the givt is going to confiscate his shotgun is a delusion. The problem are the extremists who believe in this delusion

Like banning abortion, gay marriage, etc the PROPOSALS of extremists are going nowhere, and fast

You don't have a leg to stand on, liar.

People who are concerned that guns might be banned are unreasonable and extreme. Those who support gun bans are unreasonable are extreme

Which was exactly what I claimed you said in post #46 when I said:

2. Who are the extremists now? Both the ones proposing such bans AND the ones concerned/opposed to them? Because the latter is quite justified, especially given current public opinion regarding "high capacity magazines" and "assault weapons"

Which was the whole point, and the crux of your epic fail here.

Those who oppose gun bans are both reasonable and mainstream.

Nice backtracking.

 

[sangha]

I never addressed you until post #28 (which is after #12 where you used the term extremists) and that was only to call you out for using it, then you do so again in reply.

So what are you talking about that I used the word extremist? Not in reference to a claim of yours regarding something being extreme? When?



Lies, you clearly do in posts #12 and #30:



You don't have a leg to stand on, liar.



Which was exactly what I claimed you said in post #46 when I said:


Which was the whole point, and the crux of your epic fail here.



Nice backtracking.

Your inabilty to distinguish people who oppose gunbans with those actually think it might happen is the problem

 

[Dragonfly]

I'm sorry, but the bull feces about being able to make a stand against our own government is ludicrous.

#1 - our military is 100% voluntary

Do you honestly think our government could order our own volunteer army to attack a civilian target like Atlanta, Georgia and the soldiers would actually do that?

#2 - do you honestly think the weapons the military has are equal to what the common man can buy in Wal-mart?

Drones? Heat seeking laser guided smart bombs? Apache Helicopters? Depleted uranium tipped armor piercing projectiles? Stealth fighters? Night vision? Armored anti-personnel carriers? Air to ground missiles? The list just goes on and on and on.

Yes - the Vietnamese and the Afghani fighters with rusted Russian crap weapons have done just fine fighting our military in their homeland. However, they've been fighting wars for generations and understand how to employ gorilla tactics from birth. The snotty nosed kid playing WoW all day in the basement isn't going to stand a chance.

#3) Our government, if it wanted to, could bring the vast majority of us to our knees with a few very simple steps that don't require the use of violence at all.

a) cut all supplies to gasoline, diesel, and oil
b) cut all supplies to food and fresh water
c) shut down the financial institutions completely
d) shut down all electricity generators and suppliers


No food, no water, no power, no means to travel or move about other than on foot, and no money....that would be more devastating to the public at large than not having a 30 round magazine.
Sure the three people living in Idaho might be able to hunt for food, but what about the millions in the north east where everything has been paved over with concrete and asphalt?

Again - if you're 100% decided on the gun control issue, you've got no reason to post in this thread. There's dozens for you to post in that support your ideas and theories.

 

[Jerry]

I'm wondering if ONLY people who can see both sides of the current gun control debate can answer in this thread?

There are many threads devoted to arguing one side of the other.

Can one thread sort of be for less-rabid responses from people who are "on the fence"?


Here's a rather reasonable "rant" from Jon Stewart:
Scapegoat Hunter - Gun Control - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 01/08/13 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

This falls into the wheel-house of my thoughts.

Honestly, I don't have a huge problem with restricting magazine size.
I don't fear the government is going to try to outlaw ALL guns.
I don't have issues with background checks, waiting periods, and limits to how much one person can purchase in some given time frame.
I don't have issues with registration. I don't have issues with classes in gun safety.

So when you honestly believe we have the right to bear arms, but also believe there needs to be some restrictions and rules, and you are also capable of CALMLY discussing possible solutions to some of the attacks we've witnessed in the last few years, I'd love to hear what some of your thoughts are.

If you're simply going to jump into people's faces and scream at them for having an honest opinion I'd rather you not post in this thread.

Thanks.

If you don't want people to get in your face, then you should post in The Loft. That's what The Loft is for.

All such mag limits, waiting periods, etc, are offensive because it presumes I'm guilty of something until I prove I'm innocent. It's not about me having 30rnds in my rifle, it's about you presuming I'm going to do something bad with them before you even know my name. It's not about having to wait to pick up a gun after I buy it, it's about you presuming by default that I'm going to run right out and shoot someone unless I have cooling off period.

When you ask "why do you need that", you are being offensive because you are presuming I'm up to no good. That's why people are so quick to jump in your face about it. You started the fight when you asked.

 

[Harshaw]

Reasonable people know that the guns you may have in your home are no match for a well-trained and well-equipped army.

Do you seriously think you have any chance of success against the army?

Hey, YOU are the one who defined the term:

Reasonable use = uses envisioned when the 2nd Amend was written

So, what is this? Your definition is OK as long it leads to the conclusions you want, but if it doesn't, you jettison it without a second thought? Sure seems that way, and thinking such as that is anything "reasonable" under any actual definition. :roll: