The Gun Control Debate.......Anybody else seeing this trend?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

I agree. I've never advocated taking away ones' right to bear arms.

---

As long as they are the arms you believe are okay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

The problem is you want to blame law abiding citizens and firearms manufacturers. I refuse to accept that as a viable beginning to any debate on stopping gun violence.

---

I agree that is no way to start a debate on gun violence, however I did no such thing. You have chosen to interpret some of what I wrote as blaming law abiding citizens and firearms manufacturers. I can't help it if that's what you took from it. I've tried to explain that wasn't the case, but for whatever reason you still think this way.

We're basically on different pages and I don't see that changing, so I didn't see any reason to continue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by voyager9

I'd be willing to discuss the subject of access. The problem is I have yet to here a single proposal which does not start with the presumption of guilt.

---

Presumption of guilt for whom or what?

Quote:

---

Show me an idea which avoids that and is also effective and I'd be more than happen to discuss it. Banning firearms by name, or cosmetic features does not do that, neither does limiting magazine capacity.

---

What this tells me is that you really aren't interested in an open and serious discussion on the matter. You aren't willing to discuss ideas if they start a certain way. You're basically only willing to discuss the matter after a "solution" has been vetted.

If you were really serious about discussing "access", then you'd be willing to debate the merits of any idea proposed, especially those that you believe "won't work".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by voyager9

First, you're arguing from the stance of presumptive guilt.. Ban everything unless you can prove you need it. That's not the way it works. The onus is on you to show that a ban would be effective, something we've shown you repeatedly that it isn't.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

More non-answers. But then again that is what you are best at.

If there is no logical reason for larger than 10 round capacity magazines then why do you support larger capacity magazines for law enforcement? Using your logic they should have no need for more than 10 rounds.

---

Both of you have stated that changing magazines takes such a brief amount of time so as to not be an issue.

The fun part, is that both of you supplied all the logic I needed to make my point.

Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

As long as they are the arms you believe are okay.

---

Which arms did I propose should not be allowed for private ownership.

Once again you read something that isn't there. Please point to where I've stated any type of weapon not currently allowed by the law be restricted.

Repeating a falsehood over and over doesn't one day make it true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FireMedic049

I agree that is no way to start a debate on gun violence, however I did no such thing. You have chosen to interpret some of what I wrote as blaming law abiding citizens and firearms manufacturers. I can't help it if that's what you took from it. I've tried to explain that wasn't the case, but for whatever reason you still think this way.

We're basically on different pages and I don't see that changing, so I didn't see any reason to continue.

---

Yet here you are...fascinating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

Which arms did I propose should not be allowed for private ownership.

Once again you read something that isn't there. Please point to where I've stated any type of weapon not currently allowed by the law be restricted.

Repeating a falsehood over and over doesn't one day make it true.

---

You see it as a lie. I see it as you complete inability to even define the firearms you think you know enough to discuss.

You are right though, I could never hope to lie at the professional level you do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FireMedic049

Presumption of guilt for whom or what?

What this tells me is that you really aren't interested in an open and serious discussion on the matter. You aren't willing to discuss ideas if they start a certain way. You're basically only willing to discuss the matter after a "solution" has been vetted.

If you were really serious about discussing "access", then you'd be willing to debate the merits of any idea proposed, especially those that you believe "won't work".

---

Similarly this tells me that you are not willing to discuss areas of "access" where we might reach common ground. I don't believe total bans based on gun names or features or magazine size will work. I have provided facts that back that up. You may not agree but rather than bang our heads against that wall why not discuss other areas?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

Both of you have stated that changing magazines takes such a brief amount of time so as to not be an issue.

I actually pity you and your unbelievable arrogance in refusing to discern the difference between a crazed gunman shooting unarmed civilians, including children, with little or no opposition, and a soldier in combat facing multiple enemy combatants trying to kill him. Obviously, if no one is shooting back at you it would be easier to change magazines more often. Do I need crayons and poster board so I can draw you a picture you might actualy understand?

The fun part, is that both of you supplied all the logic I needed to make my point.

No, as usual you are doing just what you accuse others of doing. You pick and choose what you read, how you interpret it, and then how you formulate your non-responsive answer to it. Standard liberal anti-gun tactics.

Thanks.

You are welcome. I don't mind at all making you look foolish.

---

I can't wait for your next edition of silliness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

I can't wait for your next edition of silliness.

---

They are your words. Either magazine change time is important or it isn't. You move the goal line to suit your beliefs. I do not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

You see it as a lie. I see it as you complete inability to even define the firearms you think you know enough to discuss.

You are right though, I could never hope to lie at the professional level you do.

---

Just one flaw in your logic. Once again. I've never advocated eliminating any firearms from private ownership that are currently legal.

A fact you continually ignore.

Hey SC, let me save you the effort of finding the difference between Goerge Bush's Wide Receiver program and Obama's Fast and Furious. Because you tried to say they were the same and in fact they weren't.


Attachment 22740

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

They are your words. Either magazine change time is important or it isn't. You move the goal line to suit your beliefs. I do not.

More of your fingers in your ears idiotic, childish responses.


Just one flaw in your logic. Once again. I've never advocated eliminating any firearms from private ownership that are currently legal.

So you claim...NOW.

A fact you continually ignore.

Says the master of "Firearms nomenclature isn't important to this conversation."

---

Keep it coming, I laugh at you every time you post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FireMedic049

You think fixing the criminal justice system and mental health system is sufficient. I disagree and think that doesn't fully address the problem.

---

There has already been a 10 year experiment banning hi-cap mags and semi-autos with scary looking parts. It had no affect. Why not try something different this time instead of doing the same thing again and expecting different results? Let's fix the criminal justice system and mental health system. Let's tweak HIPPA so that major mental health issues get included in background checks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

Just one flaw in your logic. Once again. I've never advocated eliminating any firearms from private ownership that are currently legal.

---

Please state exactly what you DO advocate so that there can be no doubt. That should effectly end the tennis court volleying that is only wasting bandwidth. Currently, "assault style" rifles and hi-cap magazines are legal in the USA. Or are you throwing a curve ball and speaking of certain states that have banned them?

Quote:

---

No it does not extend to them. Their role is different. We've been through this before.

---

Their role is different, it's been ruled that they have no responsibility to the individual, only society as a whole.
That's leaves it up to the average citizen. In my home, the responsibility is mine. With that in mind, I should at minimum have the ability to own magazines with at least the capacity law enforcement deems necessary for their safety and ability to do their job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by voyager9

Similarly this tells me that you are not willing to discuss areas of "access" where we might reach common ground.

---

How so?

Quote:

---

I don't believe total bans based on gun names or features or magazine size will work. I have provided facts that back that up. You may not agree but rather than bang our heads against that wall why not discuss other areas?

---

We, individually don't need to bang our heads against that wall. However, I'm talking about having a more global conversation on this matter, not just a handful of people discussing it on the internet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

Yet here you are...fascinating.

---

Why is that fascinating to you?

I stated that I was done debating the issue with you. You speculated as to why I was doing that. So, I explained why that wasn't the case. You respond to that with another baseless accusation regarding my intent. So, I corrected you. I'm not debating the issue, I'm simply providing a rebuttal to your accusation and misinterpretation of my prior statements. Not sure why you'd find that fascinating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

Don't give up your day job.


Interesting you quote a slave owner in their remarks about tyranny. Depriving someone of their freedom via a belief that a human being is the same as any other piece of private property is a good comparison. Tyranny doesn't get much more explicit than that.

Please show where I advocated eliminating the ownership of firearms?

---

Another racial comment. I stated in post 212 that would be coming and here it is in post 231.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tbzep

There has already been a 10 year experiment banning hi-cap mags and semi-autos with scary looking parts. It had no affect. Why not try something different this time instead of doing the same thing again and expecting different results? Let's fix the criminal justice system and mental health system. Let's tweak HIPPA so that major mental health issues get included in background checks.

---

I'm guessing you missed my posts supporting doing those exact things. I just don't think they should be the only areas looked at and I'm not suggesting that we should repeat the exact same failed policy of the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

Both of you have stated that changing magazines takes such a brief amount of time so as to not be an issue.

The fun part, is that both of you supplied all the logic I needed to make my point.

Thanks.

---

Yes. Magazine changes only take a short amount of time. Nobody has debated that. What you continue to ignore is that this does not justify your belief that this would have any demonstratable impact on violence.

If magazine limits were so effective at stopping gun violence then why we're two of the worse examples (columbine and VT) during the previous ban?

Until you can show how limiting magazines would stop these events the. You have zero ability to dictate what Responsible gun owners do or do not need.