Quote:
Originally Posted by
FyredUp
Originally Posted by FireMedic049
Exactly, it doesn't. So passing a law that says you can't buy an AR-15 is not taking any right away from you unless AR-15s are the only guns on the market.
You are in favor of eliminating a inanimate object because a statistical microblip of incidents include the use of that weapon. Yet you oppose limiting the use of cars because many more thousands a year are killed by drunk drivers. Interesting bit of hypocrisy on your part.
And yes it is restricting my rights you are just too blinded to see it
Your assessment of why I support the general concept of an AWB is not correct. See my reply above regarding that. Based on that, there's no hypocrisy on my part.
Quote:
I'm sure you'll respond to this with a rant about semantics, but I'll say it anyway. You assumed that the intent of what I stated was to stop illegal gun sales as in ALL gun sales. I'm not foolish enough to think that any illegal activity can be fully stopped. As such, the goal would not be to eliminate ALL illegal sales, but rather reduce them. I admit that I would support the restricting of ALL citizens from privately owning specific types of weapons. However, I did not say that it would "essentially do NOTHING to stop the flow of illegal guns into the hands of criminals". That was purely your assertion because I was only discussing a segment of firearms currently available. I'm simply saying that it would stop some illegal gun sales of these particular weapons. That is certainly more than just NOTHING.
All your plan will do is create a black market for those weapons and turn SOME previously law abiding citizens into criminals, and further, do NOTHING to stop the flow of those weapons to the hard core criminal element.
Ever hear of prohibition? It didn't work either.
Maybe, but doing NOTHING, which appears to be your position, will definitely not improve the situation.
Quote:
If I'm a brainwashed anti-gunner, then you've clearly been brainwashed by the gun lobby.
No, the difference is I can speak on the topic of firearms, firearms nomenclature, and to a greater extent than the anti-gun crowd, firearms law, with knowledge, experience, and facts. I don't need knee jerk, rambling, fed to me, talking points. I don't need to hide behind semantics when you and so many other anti-gunners can't even define the terms you throw around about guns properly and use made up words like assault weapon.
Hiding behind semantics is exactly what you are doing when you cite it as reason to not discuss the issue at all.
Quote:
The facts are senator feinstein has made no bones about wanting to end private citizens from owning firearms. Attorney general holder has said he believes we must brainwash people into thinking differently about guns. Apparently that means it is okay to illegally supply guns to Mexican drug cartels at the same time you want to disarm American citizens.
Yeah, she may want to do that, but it won't happen. She simply doesn't have the votes to make it go anywhere. I don't know about the brainwashing part, but I think we probably should look at how we view and think about guns. I think it's quite a leap to think these two people's comments say that F&F was OK.
Quote:
Add to both of those president obama openly stating that if Congress desn't do what he thinks is needed for gun cntrol he will use executive orders to bypass the legislative process.
And he's openly stated that he'd do stuff related to other issues and didn't. Honestly, I don't have a problem with him making the "threat". Maybe that'll light a fire under congress to seriously address the issue? I'll reserve judgment on following thru on that threat if we get to that point.
Quote:
A lot in our world has changed since then.
And not all change is good...
Correct, but some change can be good even if we don't like it.
Quote:
I can't offer an explanation for what happened because I had nothing to do with it and have no idea what they were thinking. To think I would be able to explain that mess is absurd.
Free your mind, the US government, led by president obama, illegally sold guns to Mexican drug cartels who then used those guns to murder 2 US law enforcement officials as well as many Mexican citizens, some chldren. But apparently we are giving obama and holder a free pass on that.
My mind is just fine. Your beef over this particular issue is not with me and I haven't voiced any support for what happened.
Quote:
No, you simply didn't understand what I said. I didn't say that it didn't matter where they came from. I said that regardless of how they were obtained, all guns originate from a manufacturer. Big difference. The gun that isn't manufactured is the gun that can't be illegally sold and used for a crime.
Ah, I got it now, the government is not responsible for selling those guns ILLEGALLY to Mexican CRIMINALS, the firearms manufacturer is responsible because they produced the guns 100% legally. You do realize how completely phukked up that line of thinking is don't you? It is akin to blaming GM for manufacturing cars driven by drunk drivers that kill people. Completely illogical, stupid and baseless. But then again so is most of the anti-gun crowd rhetoric.
Yeah I realize that, but that's not my line of thinking. That's just your view. I'm not blaming the manufacturer. I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to follow. All guns originally come from manufacturers. If production of the XYZ-3000 was halted, that would have an impact on the availability of the XYZ-3000 to those who sell guns illegally.
Quote:
Where did I even remotely indicate that I don't have a problem with the federal government supplying guns to criminals? Maybe you should put down your glass of kool-aid?
You passed the blame to the gun manufacturer in your statement above.
I did no such thing. That is exclusively your interpretation.
Quote:
Right, because every elected official that expressed an extreme view or position on an issue has never been out voted by the majority of ones that don't share that same extreme position.
That my delusional friend is called DEMOCRACY! The majority, elected by their consitituents and doing what they want, get their position moved forward.
I'm far from delusional and you pretty much hit on my point from a different direction. It's pretty clear to me that she doesn't have sufficient legislative support to get a full ban. To me, she's just putting on a good show.
Quote:
Who am I? I'm nobody to tell you that you can't own one. If your ability to own one changes, it won't because I decided it should be that way.
But it will be because you, and more like you, believe you have the right to infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens.
I don't think it's my individual right to actually infringe upon your personal rights. However, I do have the right to advocate for a change in our laws and/or constitution that could (in the opinion of some people) have that effect.
Quote:
If you (as in the gun crowd) truly were hearing the message loud and clear, then you wouldn't be bitching about semantics and maybe you'd actually have a response other than yelling "2nd Amendment" and "because I want one".
Semantics is EVERYTHING when you are proposing new rules, laws, or legislation. If you can't properly define it how can you regulate it?
If you are actually presenting the legislation for consideration, then I would agree that specifics are extremely important. However, as I’ve stated several times now, if one person is saying “X” and the correct term is “Y”, but you both know that you are talking about “Z”, then there’s no reason to not have the conversation and include addressing the usage of the wrong term.
Quote:
Where's the flaw?
Your assumption that law abiding citizens are breaking the law and illegally selling their legally purchased rifles.
No, I was not referring to “law abiding citizens”. I was referring to people (whether criminals or law abiding citizens) purchasing firearms via legal channels and then selling them illegally.
Quote:
Truthfully, I have no hope of winning over the "pro-gun" side.
Good, because like Don Quixote you would be tlting at windmills.
Exactly because I’ve encountered very, very, very few “pro-gun” people who are willing to entertain the possibility of anything other than no restrictions regarding guns.
Quote:
It's really not the same thing. You are talking about actually restricting the person's ability to drive altogether rather than just restricting them from driving sports cars.
Um, I didn't mention sports cars at all. I said restrict all non-drunk drivers from drivng as much.
I know that you didn’t mention sports cars. Your comparison was flawed. We were talking about restricting use of a specific object – “assault weapons” – by all people. A person would still have access to other types of weapons. In other words, anybody can own a “traditional” hunting rifle, but not an AR-15. Your comparison was about restricting an action – driving motor vehicles – by a specific group of people. In other words, non-drunk drivers can drive, but not that much. The correct comparison to what I stated in car terms would be everyone is allowed own a sedan (that “traditional” hunting rifle), but not a sports car (the AR-15).
Quote:
No, that's just your biased interpretation. I'm in no way saying that the majority of gun owners are doing this, but it's clearly not an infrequent thing. If you want those statistics, then go look them up for yourself.
You clearly, and plainly, said stopping law abiding citizens from being able to purchase that gun stops the from being sold illegally.
No, I stated stopping all citizens from being able to legally purchase a specific weapon, would decrease the availability of said weapon for illegal resale – largely due to a decrease or halting of its production. This refers specifically to units of the specific weapon that haven’t been produced yet, not units that are already in circulation. You simply can’t resell the individual firearm that never existed.
Quote:
No, I'm not saying that at all, which is probably why it's clear as mud for you. I'm essentially disputing whether or not a particular firearm should be legal to be purchased and owned by a private citizen.
So you admit you want to restrict my rights. Now that is crystal clear.
No, as I stated, I’m disputing whether or not a particular firearm should be available to the private citizen. IMO, restricting the ability to purchase and/or own a specific firearm model is not a violation of your “rights” as you don’t actually have the “right” to own any specific model of firearm. You would still have the right to own firearms, just not certain ones.
You disagree, but ultimately neither of us would be the ones making the determination if someone’s rights have been restricted.
Quote:
Just because you don't like my ideas doesn't mean that it doesn't need to be discussed. Again, it's your assertion that I'm saying
Here is your idea. Restrict law abiding citizens from owning a type of firearm that when legally purchased and owned is used in a miniscule amount of crimes. Sorry NO, I don't wish to discuss your idea when you essentially say mine won't work when in fact it deals with criminals and the mentally ill.
I don’t recall saying yours won’t work. I do recall saying that those are not the only 2 areas that we should be discussing to address the problem.
