[W:606]Do you support Rep. Eric Salwell's gun control idea?

[OpportunityCost]

You know your own character better than anyone else so you are most likely right. It would take a man of integrity to apologize for their intellectual dishonesty. And you know that is not possible given your own character.

You are characterizing me personally, I would like you to address my arguments.

 

[haymarket]

I have not lied about your arguments

So where then is the clear statement from me saying that I support only one gun per citizen like you charged?

I have repeatedly challenged you to present this and you lamely tried to put up some views of mine on gun control - NONE of which say what you claim I support. So where is your proof?

Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
Bull****. We have travelled down this road with you before. Your position, stated previously, is that so long as a citizen can purchase one arm and use it, they have the right to exercise the 2nd intact.

 

[haymarket]

You are characterizing me personally, I would like you to address my arguments.

Your refusal to apologize is a personal issue revealing your character. There is no way to soft soap that or hide that or disguise that.

 

[Bullseye]

Your refusal to apologize is a personal issue revealing your character. There is no way to soft soap that or hide that or disguise that.

So, just so I understand you think SCOTUS should modify existing law how?

 

[pinqy]

The Second does not mention any special protections for any specific weapons or class of weapons. That is one fact.

Correct. And you have taken this fact to mean that no specific weapon or class of weapons has protection and it is entirely up to elected representatives which are allowed and which not.

I supported the decision in the Heller case throwing out the ban on handguns in DC since it is the most used firearm for citizen protection and to deny the citizenry that would have a serious practical real world negative impact upon their right to keep and bear arms that is not readily replaced by other available items on the menu. That is also a fact.

And here you are claiming that a class of weapons, handguns, are protected under the 2nd amendment even though elected representatives chose to ban them due to their overwhelming use in homicides and suicides.

This is a contradiction.

To ban military style assault weapons would NOT impose the same harm on the citizenry as a very small percentage of Americans own them.

Are you sure? The AR platform is extraordinarily popular.

But in any case you’re still arguing backwards...you’re saying there needs to be a good reason NOT to ban and not that there needs to be a good reason to ban.

 

[Helix]

Moderator's Warning:

Stop trading insults instead of discussing the topic or you're risking a thread ban at the very least. Posts made before this in thread warning may still be subject to moderation.

 

[pinqy]

To ban military style assault weapons would NOT impose the same harm on the citizenry as a very small percentage of Americans own them.

Ok, I did some research
Why Gunmakers Would Rather Sell AR-15s Than Handguns
“For every 100 newly manufactured guns sold in America, according to industry estimates, as many as 35 are modern sporting rifles that are variants of the AR-15.

35% is not a very small percentage.

 

[OpportunityCost]

So where then is the clear statement from me saying that I support only one gun per citizen like you charged?

I have repeatedly challenged you to present this and you lamely tried to put up some views of mine on gun control - NONE of which say what you claim I support. So where is your proof?

You have already been given it. If you argue the government gets to decide what weapons satisfy the 2nd AND you argue that infringe doesn't occur until prohibition you are arguing one weapon would satisfy the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Maccabee]

I voted for the idea. There are simply weapons that no citizen has any business owning in a supposedly civilized society which has proven to have a real problem with such weapons and too many innocent people pay the ultimate price for other peoples toys.

More people are killed with handguns than any other firearm combined.

 

[Divine_Wind]

More people are killed with handguns than any other firearm combined.

No worries. IF they succeed in banning the guns the least number of people have, they’ll work their way up to the guns most people have.

 

[TurtleDude]

No worries. IF they succeed in banning the guns the least number of people have, they’ll work their way up to the guns most people have.

that was Josh Sugarman's goal 30 years ago. He knew the jihad against handguns was waning so he wanted to use the violent Rambo style movies combined with the slow witted voters who though an AR 15 was a machine gun, to pick off weapons he thought were not commonly owned. After getting those banned, he would argue we needed to ban guns actually used in most crimes. All his left wing schemes did was to cause millions of Americans to buy these "assault weapons"

 

[Waddy]

3D printing has made gun control an impossibility. The debate over gun control is a useless academic endeavor. There are now millions of "ghost" guns out there. Every day thousands of semi automatic and full automatic guns are being produced in basements and garages. "Gun control" is no longer possible. But if you still want to believe it is feasible; carry on...

 

[pinqy]

3D printing has made gun control an impossibility. The debate over gun control is a useless academic endeavor. There are now millions of "ghost" guns out there. Every day thousands of semi automatic and full automatic guns are being produced in basements and garages. "Gun control" is no longer possible. But if you still want to believe it is feasible; carry on...

1. You cannot 3D print a complete working firearm.
2. Building a gun from pre-existing parts is not that complicated and is probably easier and cheaper than making a 3D printed gun.
3. There is not, to my knowledge, any significant danger from kit guns or assembled parts, so why would the more expensive amd note difficult method of 3D printing be more of an issue?
4. It is extremely unlikely that criminals would go through all the work and expense to make a gun through 3D printing when stealing a gun is a lot easier.

 

[Divine_Wind]

1. You cannot 3D print a complete working firearm.
2. Building a gun from pre-existing parts is not that complicated and is probably easier and cheaper than making a 3D printed gun.
3. There is not, to my knowledge, any significant danger from kit guns or assembled parts, so why would the more expensive amd note difficult method of 3D printing be more of an issue?
4. It is extremely unlikely that criminals would go through all the work and expense to make a gun through 3D printing when stealing a gun is a lot easier.

zip guns have been around for decades.

Buying a replica is easy and cheap.

 

[Waddy]

1. You cannot 3D print a complete working firearm.
2. Building a gun from pre-existing parts is not that complicated and is probably easier and cheaper than making a 3D printed gun.
3. There is not, to my knowledge, any significant danger from kit guns or assembled parts, so why would the more expensive amd note difficult method of 3D printing be more of an issue?
4. It is extremely unlikely that criminals would go through all the work and expense to make a gun through 3D printing when stealing a gun is a lot easier.

You're not keeping up with the times. 3D printing is now cheap, and you can 3D print the parts that matter, like the receiver. Criminal have jumped all over 3D printed guns. In fact, 3D ready computer blueprints are readily available. Buy one set and make thousands of guns.

 

[concernedpuma]

Where, anywhere in this thread has even one good solution, considering all the facts, been presented?
Regards,
CP

 

[Divine_Wind]

Where, anywhere in this thread has even one good solution, considering all the facts, been presented?
Regards,
CP

Scroll up. Better mental health care and the legislation to back it up is both the most Constitutionally sound and socially effective solution. Banning guns just attacks the innocent. Better mental health care and legislation will help identify those who need help and get them the help they need. 44,000 Americans take their own lives every year. Why does the Left think banning guns will stop gang-bangers and the suicidal?

 

[TurtleDude]

Where, anywhere in this thread has even one good solution, considering all the facts, been presented?
Regards,
CP

the people who like this idea are hard core gun haters-almost all are leftwing activists (well at least the American posters are) but they haven't really offered any rational arguments why its a good idea

 

[Marco Montana]

We already have gun control! Each of the last shootings could have been stopped had Government done there jobs and followed the laws!