[W:963] The Complete Moderate's Guide to Gun Control

[Wayne Jr]

there's nothing to argue you're just making wild ass claims that you have not supported.

If you feel there's nothing to argue, then please leave the thread.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Here's a video of a Moderate supporting policy change. Notice his ability to rely on reason instead of the bible Federalist Papers:

That video hit the same major points we have been seeing for years here: gun death suicides (nearly unpreventable), gun show loopholes (nearly half of all states require a background check even on private sales), and straw purchasers (which is a generally organized crime issue and I agree should be dealt with more harshly).

He ignored stricter gun sentencing to prevent the 2nd largest originator of gun violence---gangs and drug trafficking.

 

[OpportunityCost]

I welcome arguments that present fact which proves me to be incorrect, but these constant accusations of lying and dishonesty need to stop.

EDIT: Founding Father quotes are not facts. They are not laws and cannot be used in any case before the Supreme Court.

You are arguing intent, I am showing direct intent and you are incorrect about letters and writings being before the Supreme Court or the Danbury letter would never be referenced to separation of church and state.

You cannot get the most basic of facts correct and the facts on gun control are not at all basic, they are complicated.

 

[Wayne Jr]

That video hit the same major points we have been seeing for years here: gun death suicides (nearly unpreventable), gun show loopholes (nearly half of all states require a background check even on private sales), and straw purchasers (which is a generally organized crime issue and I agree should be dealt with more harshly).

He ignored stricter gun sentencing to prevent the 2nd largest originator of gun violence---gangs and drug trafficking.

A fair critique.

 

[Wayne Jr]

You are arguing intent...

No, I am dismissing intent.

Also, rules for arguing before the Supreme Court are hardly 'the most basic of facts'. I dare say they're specialized since only a handful of people out of millions have ever don it. If you have some facts to the contrary, I welcome them.

 

[OpportunityCost]

No, I am dismissing intent.

Also, rules for arguing before the Supreme Court are hardly 'the most basic of facts'. I dare say they're specialized since only a handful of people out of millions have ever don it. If you have some facts to the contrary, I welcome them.

Meanwhile you are posting YouTube videos as evidence. Gotta call bull****, you have been trying to change the rules all throughout the thread. No double standards.

 

[Wayne Jr]

Meanwhile you are posting YouTube videos as evidence.

Evidence of the Moderate view, not evidence before the Supreme Court. Two very different things.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Evidence of the Moderate view, not evidence before the Supreme Court. Two very different things.

When the evidence of the moderate view is a historical look at the 2nd amendment we don't need to abide by the rules of evidence of SCOTUS when you are using ****ing videos. Give me a break from this double standard BS you keep trying to peddle. Its extremely dishonest.

 

[Wayne Jr]

When the evidence of the moderate view is a historical look at the 2nd amendment we don't need to abide by the rules of evidence of SCOTUS when you are using ****ing videos. Give me a break from this double standard BS you keep trying to peddle. Its extremely dishonest.

It's 2 completely different things so of course there are diferent standards.

1. Understanding the Moderate view on the topic.
2. Forming an argument presentable to SCOTUS.

You chose to not understand the Moderate view but instead merely bash your head against it. This is, sadly, typical of Liberals and Conservatives alike.

 

[CLAX1911]

If you feel there's nothing to argue, then please leave the thread.

If you want me to stop posting responses on the thread.

 

[CLAX1911]

I welcome arguments that present fact which proves me to be incorrect,

No, one doesn't have to prove you wrong you have to prove your argument right.

but these constant accusations of lying and dishonesty need to stop.

Stop being dishonest and it will magically stop.

 

[CLAX1911]

Evidence of the Moderate view, not evidence before the Supreme Court. Two very different things.

It's an extreme view.

 

[Serenity]

Moderator's Warning:

This thread is under mod review and all posts are subject to moderation. Going forward, please stop with all personal comments and focus on the topic only. Thanks.

 

[OpportunityCost]

It's 2 completely different things so of course there are diferent standards.

1. Understanding the Moderate view on the topic.
2. Forming an argument presentable to SCOTUS.

You chose to not understand the Moderate view but instead merely bash your head against it. This is, sadly, typical of Liberals and Conservatives alike.

Oy...you keep saying its the moderate view. Its not. Its the liberal view being stated as the moderate view. Most moderates aren't well enough versed to know what collective rights even are, they know individual rights though. There is literally no way they are going to view the 2nd amendment as being the basis to form militias and not an individual right for self defense (amongst other things).

Two different things but one of them is seeking to pass more ineffective gun control, you are going to have to make your case long before I will.

 

[marke]

I welcome your thoughts on this video. I find it to be well researched and accurate.

One of the greatest differences between America and nations enslaved to brutal murderous dictators has been its hundreds of years old commonly understood policy of individual gun ownership. America has been great with the common interpretation of these legal rights to own guns and there is no evidence that taking away those understood rights to own guns will make Americans safer or America greater.

 

[American]

So you're saying he made a statement about the Moderate view which is in fact not the Moderate view?

So the MODERATE view is that we are limited to those liberties explicitly stated? Moderates are then idiots, not to be trusted or listened to.

 

[Wayne Jr]

Oy...you keep saying its the moderate view. Its not. Its the liberal view being stated as the moderate view.

The Liberal view is to ban all private firearms except MAYBE hunting rifles, and even then only allow ownership under very controlled circumstances. Nothing I've posted here representing the Moderate view supports such policy.

 

[Wayne Jr]

No, one doesn't have to prove you wrong you have to prove your argument right.

I'm explaining the Moderate view, not arguing that it's right.

 

[Wayne Jr]

One of the greatest differences between America and nations enslaved to brutal murderous dictators has been its hundreds of years old commonly understood policy of individual gun ownership. America has been great with the common interpretation of these legal rights to own guns and there is no evidence that taking away those understood rights to own guns will make Americans safer or America greater.

No one has argued to have rights taken away. I don't see how your comment is relevant.

 

[CLAX1911]

I'm explaining the Moderate view, not arguing that it's right.

You are explaining a revisionist view which is extremist. So you are either being dishonest or ignorant.

 

[Wayne Jr]

You are explaining a revisionist view.

I accept that you think that, but it's untrue.

 

[marke]

No one has argued to have rights taken away. I don't see how your comment is relevant.

I am arguing that Americans have long enjoyed the interpretation of those rights which gives them the right to resist government bans on possession of personal weapons.

 

[OpportunityCost]

The Liberal view is to ban all private firearms except MAYBE hunting rifles, and even then only allow ownership under very controlled circumstances. Nothing I've posted here representing the Moderate view supports such policy.

False. Liberal views include instrumentalism on gun control. But they start with the belief that rights are government granted and through this, government can easily take them away. In this way, you match with them very closely.

 

[OpportunityCost]

False. Liberal views include instrumentalism on gun control. But they start with the belief that rights are government granted and through this, government can easily take them away. In this way, you match with them very closely.

Should be incrementalism, not sure why it came out instrumentalism. Odd.

 

[CLAX1911]

I accept that you think that, but it's untrue.

You haven't proven any of your claims.