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

[FyredUp]

More syllogistic delusion. I know you just can't help yourself. That's okay.

Just admit it. The truth will set you free. If you aren't completely anti-gun you are an appeaser and to me that is worse that actually standing for something.

[scfire86]

Just admit it. The truth will set you free. If you aren't completely anti-gun you are an appeaser and to me that is worse that actually standing for something.

Admit what? You're delusional? You can't read? That you continue to make points that are irrelevant or that contradict your own positions? Don't need to do that....again.

I like how you ignored the actions of the Founding Fathers as it related to the 2nd Amendment. I knew you would.

I also like how you, chenzo, and spfdrum all followed me over here like little puppy dogs. Here boy....here boy.

Just more of the same tired old blather.

Move along folks. NOTHING TO SEE HERE!!

That's what LEO's say when there is definitely something to see. You really aren't very good at debate. Are you?

[FireMedic049]

SC has admitted he's anti-gun, but he wants to be shown over and over where he's posted it. Well, here it is. He's calling other people people "pro-gunners". That leaves only two categories for himself. Anti-gun and neutral. If you're neutral, you don't give a rat's butt and you don't bother posting. Whatta ya know? That leaves only anti-gun!!!

There's actually a fourth category. It's kind of a variant of the neutral position and called "in the middle". It's where I and I'm sure many others sit on the issue.

We don't have any issue with the responsible exercising of a person's rights under the 2nd Amendment, don't support a total disarming of the country and don't believe the government (other than a few on the fringe) have any intentions of doing this. However, we also don't believe that the 2nd Amendment affords the right to own and possess any and all weapons that exist.

We do not believe that guns themselves are solely responsible for the death and destruction in these mass shooting incidents or the ones that occur daily on our streets. We believe that the person who pulled the trigger is ultimately responsible for their actions, but far too often they have willing accomplices in the way of things like black market sales and straw purchases. We need tough laws that address these things and a criminal justice system that will strongly enforce those laws and stop the "wrist slapping".

We believe that any serious discussion about trying to curb the violence, particularly these massive rampages on innocent people, has to include the subject of "gun control". "Gun control" doesn't have to mean that nobody can have access to them, but it does need to include ways to at least limit, if not restrict access for people that shouldn't have access to them. It should include a discussion on what firearms are reasonably appropriate for a civilian to possess.

We understand that no "solution" will have the ability to fully eliminate gun violence in our country. There's simply no practical way to "round up all of the guns" or completely stop the obtaining of them via illegal means. However, we know that taking no action at all, which appears to be a large portion of the position put forth by the "pro-gun" advocates, will only serve to allow the violence to continue essentially unchecked.

As I've stated before, I firmly believe if we as a nation get serious about this issue, we can find a reasonable "solution" somewhere "in the middle". It'll be one with which the fringe on both sides will not be happy. It won't eliminate the problem completely and probably won't be the final word on the issue, but isn't even a small reduction in the number of death and injury from guns better than nothing?

[FireMedic049]

Exactly why I refuse to align myself with either party.

I was registered to vote for a long time as "not affiliated". I re-registered several years ago as a Democrat simply because my city politics is heavily Democrat and pretty much all of our local races are decided at the Primary since there's rarely a serious Republican opponent in the fall.

We live where we work and as I'm sure you know, we need to be politically active to protect our jobs these days. So, I'll be an independent voter registered as a Democrat for awhile.

[FyredUp]

Admit what? You're delusional? You can't read? That you continue to make points that are irrelevant or that contradict your own positions? Don't need to do that....again.

I like how you ignored the actions of the Founding Fathers as it related to the 2nd Amendment. I knew you would.

I also like how you, chenzo, and spfdrum all followed me over here like little puppy dogs. Here boy....here boy.

I like how you ran away like a beat puppy from the other topic.

How does it feel to be hounded like you hound LA every time he posts?

[scfire86]

I like how you ran away like a beat puppy from the other topic.

How does it feel to be hounded like you hound LA every time he posts?

Did no such thing. I just got tired of repeating myself to people who clearly can't read.

I like how you believe you're hounding me when it is you who is following me like a little puppy dog.

Here boy.....here boy.

BTW, how do you like the way the Founding Fathers required mandatory purchase and registration of firearms? Sort of puts a dent in your argument about their beliefs versus yours as it relates to the 2nd Amendment.

[FyredUp]

Did no such thing. I just got tired of repeating myself to people who clearly can't read.

Oh you ran. If you thought you could win you would have stayed. But you found out you couldn't shout us down like you try to do to everyone else.

I like how you believe you're hounding me when it is you who is following me like a little puppy dog.

Here boy.....here boy.

Now that is funny considering how you absolutely stalk LA into every topic he posts in and snipe at him like a petulant child.

BTW, how do you like the way the Founding Fathers required mandatory purchase and registration of firearms? Sort of puts a dent in your argument about their beliefs versus yours as it relates to the 2nd Amendment.

Go reread that part. It pertains to the weapons for use with the militia. Nice try though.

You won't fair any better here than you did there Neville...

[Bones42]

There's actually a fourth category. It's kind of a variant of the neutral position and called "in the middle". It's where I and I'm sure many others sit on the issue.

We don't have any issue with the responsible exercising of a person's rights under the 2nd Amendment, don't support a total disarming of the country and don't believe the government (other than a few on the fringe) have any intentions of doing this. However, we also don't believe that the 2nd Amendment affords the right to own and possess any and all weapons that exist.

We do not believe that guns themselves are solely responsible for the death and destruction in these mass shooting incidents or the ones that occur daily on our streets. We believe that the person who pulled the trigger is ultimately responsible for their actions, but far too often they have willing accomplices in the way of things like black market sales and straw purchases. We need tough laws that address these things and a criminal justice system that will strongly enforce those laws and stop the "wrist slapping".

We believe that any serious discussion about trying to curb the violence, particularly these massive rampages on innocent people, has to include the subject of "gun control". "Gun control" doesn't have to mean that nobody can have access to them, but it does need to include ways to at least limit, if not restrict access for people that shouldn't have access to them. It should include a discussion on what firearms are reasonably appropriate for a civilian to possess.

We understand that no "solution" will have the ability to fully eliminate gun violence in our country. There's simply no practical way to "round up all of the guns" or completely stop the obtaining of them via illegal means. However, we know that taking no action at all, which appears to be a large portion of the position put forth by the "pro-gun" advocates, will only serve to allow the violence to continue essentially unchecked.

As I've stated before, I firmly believe if we as a nation get serious about this issue, we can find a reasonable "solution" somewhere "in the middle". It'll be one with which the fringe on both sides will not be happy. It won't eliminate the problem completely and probably won't be the final word on the issue, but isn't even a small reduction in the number of death and injury from guns better than nothing?

Well said.

[SPFDRum]

There's actually a fourth category. It's kind of a variant of the neutral position and called "in the middle". It's where I and I'm sure many others sit on the issue.

We don't have any issue with the responsible exercising of a person's rights under the 2nd Amendment, don't support a total disarming of the country and don't believe the government (other than a few on the fringe) have any intentions of doing this. However, we also don't believe that the 2nd Amendment affords the right to own and possess any and all weapons that exist.

We do not believe that guns themselves are solely responsible for the death and destruction in these mass shooting incidents or the ones that occur daily on our streets. We believe that the person who pulled the trigger is ultimately responsible for their actions, but far too often they have willing accomplices in the way of things like black market sales and straw purchases. We need tough laws that address these things and a criminal justice system that will strongly enforce those laws and stop the "wrist slapping".

We believe that any serious discussion about trying to curb the violence, particularly these massive rampages on innocent people, has to include the subject of "gun control". "Gun control" doesn't have to mean that nobody can have access to them, but it does need to include ways to at least limit, if not restrict access for people that shouldn't have access to them. It should include a discussion on what firearms are reasonably appropriate for a civilian to possess.

We understand that no "solution" will have the ability to fully eliminate gun violence in our country. There's simply no practical way to "round up all of the guns" or completely stop the obtaining of them via illegal means. However, we know that taking no action at all, which appears to be a large portion of the position put forth by the "pro-gun" advocates, will only serve to allow the violence to continue essentially unchecked.

As I've stated before, I firmly believe if we as a nation get serious about this issue, we can find a reasonable "solution" somewhere "in the middle". It'll be one with which the fringe on both sides will not be happy. It won't eliminate the problem completely and probably won't be the final word on the issue, but isn't even a small reduction in the number of death and injury from guns better than nothing?

I get what you are saying, but all this for amounts to what, an issue that has the same statistical probability of the average individual being struck by lightning. Not to mention it fails to address the numerous state and federal laws broken to even get to the point of actually perpetuating the end result.
Let me make this perfectly clear, I am in no way discounting or ignoring those individuals who have been affected in a way I will never know by these horrible tragedies. But if you want an honest discussion with relevant results, then you must include the hard data and statistics. Not the media hype or talking head politicians trying to get their name in print in time for the next election. An "assault rifle" ban is a perfect example of an uneducated reaction. First, the media and politicians keep bastardizing the definition of an "assault rifle" for nothing more than the purpose of fear mongering. Then add the fact that less than 350 people where killed by ALL rifles, including the media's version of an assault rifle. Not to diminish the hurt of the families of those killed by a rifle, but is 350 people an epidemic? More babies are killed by their mother a year truth be told. At the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System reported an estimated 1,740 child fatalities — meaning when a child dies from an injury caused by abuse or neglect — in 2008. That's an epidemic.
So until you remove the emotion and grandstanding and include actual data and facts, you won't have any type of solution.
Here is some relevant and provable facts:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.1221062

[SPFDRum]

As far as high capacity magazines, show me a mass shooting that it made a difference. I'm not going to sit here and BS anyone with the fallacy that they where not used, my argument is; where were they relevant?
Do a quick search, the number of dead and wounded did not even equal the number of rounds if the weapons used if they had a 10 round magazine. Note I stated "weapons". Especially all the school shootings.
But they did all involve multiple guns used in areas where the average individual would be unarmed. They all involved individuals with known mental health issues. They all involve the perpetrators breaking numerous state and federal laws prior to the shootings. Most occurred in the era of police establishing a parameter, setting up rehab, and ordering pizza.
Again, all the relevant facts need to be addressed equally and honestly.

[scfire86]

You won't fair any better here than you did there Neville...

You won't do any better claiming the Founding Fathers believed that everyone should have the right to bear arms when they applied it to their own society. Slaves and free blacks were amongst many who were not allowed to own firearms during their time. Plus they required that everyone buy a weapon (an "individual mandate" that is now considered socialism by conservatives) and that it be registered and periodically inspected. Both of which would be abhorent to contemporary conservatives. Not to mention the reaction of the white establishment of the 60's when the Black Panthers exercised their 2nd Amendment rights differed from the reaction to white extremist groups like the KKK who behaved in a similar manner.

Those were the points you are tying to ignore. Keep claiming otherwise. This is becoming fun.....again.

Please continue with the name calling. It's all you have left.

Here boy....here boy.

[SPFDRum]

You won't do any better claiming the Founding Fathers believed that everyone should have the right to bear arms when they applied to their own society. Slaves and free blacks were amongst many who were not allowed to own firearms during their time.

That was my point you are tying to ignore.

Please continue with the name calling. It's all you have left.

That is an asinine statement. Much like the early days of western expansion and the indigenous population, it was worse than that, they weren't even considered "people" and had in effect, had no rights.

[scfire86]

That is an asinine statement. Much like the early days of western expansion and the indigenous population, it was worse than that, they weren't even considered "people" and had in effect, had no rights.

Thanks for proving my point that only a certain demographic group was considered worthy of having constitutional rights during the era of the Founding Fathers.

I like your signature line:

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason

Pretty ironic given that Mason was one of the largest slave owners in VA. Right up there with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Amongst others. None of them believed that slaves should be allowed to bear arms. One wonders what might have happened if that had been allowed.

[SPFDRum]

Thanks for proving my point that only a certain demographic group was considered worthy of having constitutional rights during the era of the Founding Fathers.
Yes it was, should we as a country be proud of that, no. But we sure in the hell shouldn't ignore it. What you forget to add in your little race bait is at the Emancipation Proclamation put an end to that. Silly little historical fact to ruin your day, when those very same slaves and freed men took up arms, no matter which side, they where as well armed as anyone. But be honest, was it any different then we, as a whole, treated the Irish, the Italians, German Americans after WW1, Japanese Americans during WW2? Applying a modern view to what was then is at the very minimum, disingenuous.
I like your signature line:

Pretty ironic given that Mason was one of the largest slave owners in VA. Right up there with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Amongst others.
Pretty ironic you just can't put things in context to make a point. As reprehensible as slavery was, and as a point of fact, continues to be, at that time, it was an excepted practice. To tarnish history of the tens of thousands of Americans to abolish such a deplorable act, ensuring "All men are created equal" to make point, is just plain sick.

But thank you all the same, I like my signature line too.

[FyredUp]

You won't do any better claiming the Founding Fathers believed that everyone should have the right to bear arms when they applied it to their own society. Slaves and free blacks were amongst many who were not allowed to own firearms during their time. Plus they required that everyone buy a weapon (an "individual mandate" that is now considered socialism by conservatives) and that it be registered and periodically inspected. Both of which would be abhorent to contemporary conservatives. Not to mention the reaction of the white establishment of the 60's when the Black Panthers exercised their 2nd Amendment rights differed from the reaction to white extremist groups like the KKK who behaved in a similar manner.

Those were the points you are tying to ignore. Keep claiming otherwise. This is becoming fun.....again.

Please continue with the name calling. It's all you have left.

Here boy....here boy.

All of which is irrelevant to the original topic....Diversion is your ace in the hole.

By the way, I would have absolutely no problem buying a current military grade assault rifle, one capable of selective fire, registering THAT weapon with the local militia and having it periodically inspected.

That willingness to register that military assault rifle with the militia does not extend to my other privately owned firearms.

[Chenzo]

Please continue with the name calling. It's all you have left.

You mean, like you do when you hound LA? When you follow him from thread to thread? So, which way are you going to have it? Are you going to think that it's okay for YOU to follow, hound, and name call, but when someone else does it, you're gonna pizz your pants and cry foul?

Here boy...Here boy.

Exactly my point. No relevant interjections, so you resort to insults.

[scfire86]

Pretty ironic you just can't put things in context to make a point. As reprehensible as slavery was, and as a point of fact, continues to be, at that time, it was an excepted practice. To tarnish history of the tens of thousands of Americans to abolish such a deplorable act, ensuring "All men are created equal" to make point, is just plain sick.

Your rationalization is priceless. Claiming it was an accepted practice is a ludicrous argument when taken in the context of the writings of the Founders claiming that ALL men were created equal. They proceeded to exclude entire groups of people from those beliefs in their personal lives and periods when many of them were the chief executive.

[scfire86]

All of which is irrelevant to the original topic....Diversion is your ace in the hole.

By the way, I would have absolutely no problem buying a current military grade assault rifle, one capable of selective fire, registering THAT weapon with the local militia and having it periodically inspected.

Sure you don't. Because conservatives are all about individual mandates. [/sarcasm]

That willingness to register that military assault rifle with the militia does not extend to my other privately owned firearms.

Not the point. The point is that entire groups of citizens were excluded from having the right to bear arms. You cited quotations from the Founders regarding their beliefs in that right, but they did not apply it when they were in the position of governing.

An inconvenient fact for you.

[FyredUp]

Sure you don't.

Why would I object to registering a fully automatic military assault rifle that being a member of the militia allowed me to have? It would be common knowledge that I possessed it anyways if I was a member of the militia. So whether you believe me or not, I would comply with that law. I would wager that the military weapons kept in Swiss and Israeli homes are registered.

That law however, regarding a firearm used as a militia member, does not and did not extend to private gun ownership for non-militia usage.

So once again your attempt at being so superior only makes you look foolish and argumentative.


Not the point. The point is that entire groups of citizens were excluded from having the right to bear arms. You cited quotations from the Founders regarding their beliefs in that right, but they did not apply it when they were in the position of governing.

Irrelevant diversions by you proving that you can't speak definitively on the original topic.

An inconvenient fact for you.

Every firearms fact and firearms law fact is an inconvenient fact for you because it proves how little you actually know on the real topic here.

Okay, try again...

[scfire86]

Okay, try again...

The facts are the Founders applied the 2nd Amendment in a manner that conflicts with what they wrote in the Federalist Papers and how pro-gun extremists interpret that Right today.

Here boy....here boy.