The Burden of Proof in Gun Control Issues

[haymarket]

So what? It refers to "civilian police". Police that are civilians. You know, the thing you say they aren't?

It may as well refer to Boston cream pie because that formula for United Nations reimbursement has nothing to do with domestic police officers in the USA. That is the SO WHAT.

 

[BretJ]

My position is that if the proposition that registration is part of a two step dance with eventual confiscation that we need to see the complete data so that Americans can make a judgment about the worth of such a claim. That is a conservative and rational approach.

Well then, the proposition that regular citizens cannot be trusted with weapons currently used by police officers is a non-starter. There is full and complete data showing this is a non-issue. That position was not based on a conservative and rational approach but on a cognitive bias.

BTW, I personally do not think registration followed by confiscation is the sum total for most gun control advocates no more than abuse of power and position was the end goal for those at the IRS or NSA. I do believe that it is the plan for a few pro gun control legislators. Registration simply makes the success of possible confiscations more likely in the event it were to occur. When we are talking about limiting the personal freedoms of others, that is important.

The fact is that this has happened in the very same industrialized, 1st world countries used as benchmarks to measure the benefits of gun registration by gun control advocates and legislators here in the U.S. It is logical and rational to infer it could happen here. The possibility that it could happen is serious enough that it needs to be addressed.

 

[Federalist]

It may as well refer to Boston cream pie because that formula for United Nations reimbursement has nothing to do with domestic police officers in the USA. That is the SO WHAT.

The purpose of the law is not the point. The point is that it refers to "civilian police". That means police that are civilians, which you say they aren't. Which proves you are wrong.

 

[haymarket]

Well then, the proposition that regular citizens cannot be trusted with weapons currently used by police officers is a non-starter. There is full and complete data showing this is a non-issue. That position was not based on a conservative and rational approach but on a cognitive bias.

BTW, I personally do not think registration followed by confiscation is the sum total for most gun control advocates no more than abuse of power and position was the end goal for those at the IRS or NSA. I do believe that it is the plan for a few pro gun control legislators. Registration simply makes the success of possible confiscations more likely in the event it were to occur. When we are talking about limiting the personal freedoms of others, that is important.

The fact is that this has happened in the very same industrialized, 1st world countries used as benchmarks to measure the benefits of gun registration by gun control advocates and legislators here in the U.S. It is logical and rational to infer it could happen here. The possibility that it could happen is serious enough that it needs to be addressed.

I agree with you that it needs to be addressed. So lets have that discussion and lets start with the complete data so we are dealing with reality and not delusion. You would think that the side pushing this meme would have that data to present . Sadly, they are content to simply put forth a few cherry picked examples.

 

[haymarket]

The purpose of the law is not the point. The point is that it refers to "civilian police". That means police that are civilians, which you say they aren't. Which proves you are wrong.

The scope of the law is the point. It deals with United Nations reimbursements for foreign peacekeeping expenses. That is all. It has nothing to do with USA police officers doing their jobs here in the USA. As such, it is irrelevant.


22 U.S.C. § 287e-2 : US Code - Section 287E-2: Reimbursement for goods and services provided by the United States to the United Nations

 

[Federalist]

The scope of the law is the point. It deals with United Nations reimbursements. That is all. It has nothing to do with USA police officers doing their jobs here in the USA. As such, it is irrelevant.

Again your missing the point. It could be dealing with distributing Boston cream pies to civilian police. The fact that the law uses the term "civilian police" is a clear indication that police are civilians, which proves you are wrong.

 

[haymarket]

Again your missing the point. It could be dealing with distributing Boston cream pies to civilian police. The fact that the law uses the term "civilian police" is a clear indication that police are civilians, which proves you are wrong.

What about this does not sink in :doh.... the law you cite deals only with foreign peacekeeping reimbursement payments for United Nations work. It has NOTHING to do in any way shape or from with anything the police do in the USA or what they are called in the USA as part of their job. Nothing.

 

[Federalist]

What about this does not sink in :doh.... the law you cite deals only with foreign peacekeeping reimbursement payments for United Nations work. It has NOTHING to do in any way shape or from with anything the police do in the USA or what they are called in the USA as part of their job. Nothing.

I agree with you. The purpose of the law is foreign peacekeeping reimbursement and has nothing to do with what the civilian police do in the USA. However, it does refer to civilian police. Police which are civilians. Now you've said that police aren't civilians. So who is right, you or the United States code?

 

[haymarket]

I agree with you. The purpose of the law is foreign peacekeeping reimbursement and has nothing to do with what the civilian police do in the USA. However, it does refer to civilian police. Police which are civilians. Now you've said that police aren't civilians. So who is right, you or the United States code?

The code is NOT defining what or what is not a civilian in the USA. It is NOT taking a position on your question and as such it is not right nor wrong as it is not speaking to the question at hand. As such, it is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[Federalist]

The code is NOT defining what or what is not a civilian in the USA. It is NOT taking a position on your question and as such it is not right nor wrong as it is not speaking to the question at hand. As such, it is irrelevant to the discussion.

It uses the term "civilian police". Police that are civilians. Something you claim doesn't exist. Obviously you are wrong.

 

[haymarket]

It uses the term "civilian police". Police that are civilians. Something you claim doesn't exist. Obviously you are wrong.

obviously you did not read my posts informing you that you find is irrelevant.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Cherry picked incidents are merely anecdotal and do not present an accurate picture of the entire issue.

Get a clue OC - it is not my job to present any evidence regarding registration and confiscation since I did not bring up the issue. Your side did. You really need to learn about the burden of proof. This will help educate you

Burden of proof - Debatepedia

Thats just it. Those are not cherry picked incidents. They are historical evidence that registration was used as a tool to enable confiscation. Further, I cannot find an incident in which registration did NOT lead to confiscation down the road. You are arguing against my claim. I have provided evidence. You have provided nothing. If you have nothing to say which provides support for your counter argument, you have conceded the argument.

Before you say you need more proof---you are not impartial, you are not the debate judge, and you are the opposition. Make a case or shut up.

 

[OpportunityCost]

What about this does not sink in :doh.... the law you cite deals only with foreign peacekeeping reimbursement payments for United Nations work. It has NOTHING to do in any way shape or from with anything the police do in the USA or what they are called in the USA as part of their job. Nothing.

Bolded: Yeah we were thinking the same thing with your dictionary bull****.

 

[Federalist]

obviously you did not read my posts informing you that you find is irrelevant.

I read you post, but your argument is not convincing. The code uses the term "civilian police", something you contend doesn't exist. Therefore either you're wrong or the United States code is wrong.

 

[haymarket]

Thats just it. Those are not cherry picked incidents.

A few isolated examples are by nature CHERRY PICKED. So present the complete data.

Again, you seem a stranger to the world of actual debate and not knowledgable about who has the burden of proof here. It is firmly on you as I am not making any claims of fact at all about the relationship between registration and confiscations. All I have said is no firm relationship can be claimed until we see the complete data. And since your side is pushing this meme - the burden of proof is firmly upon you to show it.

Make a case with the complete verifiable evidence or shut up......

 

[haymarket]

Bolded: Yeah we were thinking the same thing with your dictionary bull****.

What kind of upside down insane ridiculous nonsensical Mad Hatter world do you live in where dictionary definitions from experts on English language usage are considered as BS?

 

[haymarket]

I read you post, but your argument is not convincing. The code uses the term "civilian police", something you contend doesn't exist. Therefore either you're wrong or the United States code is wrong.

WHOA!!!!!! I did not say that the term could not exist. In this case it does exist in the context of FOREIGN SERVICE by people in the furtherance of a United Nations police action and is used to differentiate armed services personnel from non armed services personnel all who are performing policing actions. Does that then make the military non military because they are engaged in United Nations police actions? Asking that question turns the logic of your term on its head.

It has nothing at all to do with who the police are in the USA and their classification as non-civilians since they are in para-military group with special powers and authority from the state.

 

[blaxshep]

What kind of upside down insane ridiculous nonsensical Mad Hatter world do you live in where dictionary definitions from experts on English language usage are considered as BS?

What expert? You? BWAAAAA HAA HAA HAAAA! :lamo

 

[prometeus]

This sort of personal petty attack only highlights your own inability to speak to anything of substance on this issue. The really pathetic reality is that even after you were exposed for making your initial petty personal attack against me you now feel compelled to double down. Very sad.

I merely highlighted the facts and those are that you have STILL offered NOTHING to support your position on gun registration. You were also shown that under the law police are treated as civilians and since this entire debate about gun registration comes to law it is only rational that the status of the police be considered, at least for this purpose from a legal perspective.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Thats just it. Those are not cherry picked incidents. They are historical evidence that registration was used as a tool to enable confiscation. Further, I cannot find an incident in which registration did NOT lead to confiscation down the road. You are arguing against my claim. I have provided evidence. You have provided nothing. If you have nothing to say which provides support for your counter argument, you have conceded the argument.

Before you say you need more proof---you are not impartial, you are not the debate judge, and you are the opposition. Make a case or shut up.

A few isolated examples are by nature CHERRY PICKED. So present the complete data.

Again, you seem a stranger to the world of actual debate and not knowledgable about who has the burden of proof here. It is firmly on you as I am not making any claims of fact at all about the relationship between registration and confiscations. All I have said is no firm relationship can be claimed until we see the complete data. And since your side is pushing this meme - the burden of proof is firmly upon you to show it.

Make a case with the complete verifiable evidence or shut up......

So I make an entire post and you quote:

Originally Posted by OpportunityCost
Thats just it. Those are not cherry picked incidents.

I dont think you have the authority to lecture me on cherry picking unless you care to do so by example.

Just to put this out there but we dont need to present an airtight case that registration can lead to confiscation, just demonstrate that it has in numerous instances. Sorry if that isnt enough for you. You are a biased party in the process and intellectually dishonest in your arguments to boot.

As yet, no attempt to make your argument. At least make the attempt.

 

[OpportunityCost]

What kind of upside down insane ridiculous nonsensical Mad Hatter world do you live in where dictionary definitions from experts on English language usage are considered as BS?

In legal terms they mean precisely nothing. The law defines terms, not the dictionary.

Before you attempt the slippery you are not making a legal argument schtick, Im glad we can agree that your arguments have no legal bearing and thus no bearing on registration or confiscation of guns since those would be legal processes.

 

[haymarket]

What expert? You? BWAAAAA HAA HAA HAAAA! :lamo

The experts who write the freakin dictionaries .

You can stop crying now. :roll:

 

[haymarket]

I merely highlighted the facts and those are that you have STILL offered NOTHING to support your position on gun registration. You were also shown that under the law police are treated as civilians and since this entire debate about gun registration comes to law it is only rational that the status of the police be considered, at least for this purpose from a legal perspective.

What exactly about my position on gun registration do I need to support? We have NEVER had a national program of registration for ALL firearms so I cannot give you evidence on something that has not yet occurred.

 

[haymarket]

So I make an entire post and you quote:



I dont think you have the authority to lecture me on cherry picking unless you care to do so by example.

You did engage in cherry picking information.

You continue to engage in cherry picking information.

I predict you will continue to engage in defending that dishonest practice.

Again, you need to educate yourself about the burden of proof in debate. I already gave you a link to help you. If you do not chose to learn from it, its on you and not me.

 

[haymarket]

In legal terms they mean precisely nothing. The law defines terms, not the dictionary.

Before you attempt the slippery you are not making a legal argument schtick, Im glad we can agree that your arguments have no legal bearing and thus no bearing on registration or confiscation of guns since those would be legal processes.

And nobody is defining any legal terms so you can give up that ridiculous claim.