07-14-2014 07:46 AM
4,617 ... 177178179180181 ...
tools
  1. anon8126715's Avatar
    Strawman. We aren't talking about irresponsible behaviour, we're talking about preemptively taking away from law-abiding Americans a right. Getting behind the wheel of an automobile with a BAC above a certain level is certainly irresponsible. Simply owning an EBR is not. Outlawing EBRs because "somebody might use one badly" would be like banning alcoholic beverages or automobiles because somebody might drink and drive. Lastly: Neither alcoholic beverages nor driving are protected by the Constitution. The RKBA is.
    You use the word "strawman" to imply my arguments are going way past some sort of rational thinking, yet your arguments are based on the same principle of taking the scenario to the extreme. How does having someone be RESPONSIBLE by registering their firearm equate "Preemptively taking away their rights"? I guess if you live in a "straw house", by all means.


    Strawman. If a firearm has a safety deficiency, that is to say: When operated as it's intended to operate, some feature of its operation may result in an unsafe condition, that, of course, should be corrected. But to say "because a certain class of semi-automatic rifle may be used for Evil, that class of semi-automatic rifle must be banned," would be the same as saying "because an automobile may be used to mow down unsuspecting pedestrians, automobiles must be banned."
    So using a weapon for mass murder, that's using the weapon as it was intended by the manufacturer? So you're saying maybe a lawsuit against the gun manufacturers? Sounds like a good idea to me, that is what you're saying right, gun manufacturers made these weapons to kill and maim?


    In your debating skills, I do
    Would you like me to just reply with "strawman" so we're on even ground?


    Because it's regarded by many as an unreasonable burden on law-abiding citizens who engage in what are called "casual sales." It's the same reason that people who hold garage or yard sales generally aren't required to get permits or business licenses. Furthermore: It's not just "gun nuts" that feel universal background checks are unreasonable, or even dangerous. Some non-firearms related organization, including the ACLU, think the idea dangerous. The fear shared by most who are opposed to them is they would result in a defacto universal registration scheme.
    We are required to register our vehicles, the GOP in red states have made it more of an "unreasonable burden" to register to vote, some states require you to register certain breeds of dogs that have a history of aggressive behavior. Why is registering a gun such a cataclysm of democracy? And please remember to explain it to me without the use of any straw or hay....."teh gubmentz theyz comin, hide yo wife, hide yo kids", anymore use of straw and you'll be starving livestock.

    Despite the fact that nearly everywhere universal registration has occurred, it's been followed by confiscation?
    Citation please? And please follow that citation with "and now that country is in ruin..." where applicable.

    Ah, now we're getting down to it . You don't care if there's confiscation. You may even support the idea?
    Yeah sure, because I must be some sort of freedom hating anti-American pinko commie right.....Is Joseph McCarthy still alive? Maybe you can get him to pick me out of a lineup?


    Strawman. I simply pointed-out that universal registration is nearly always been followed by confiscation. But it's becoming clear you don't really care about that. That being the case: I don't think we have anything further to discuss.

    Jim
    Why don't we have anything further to discuss because after confiscation, freedom is still allowed to thrive?

    Firearms and self-defense-da503d1ca1.gif

    OMG!!! Freedom still exists in those countries!!! But lets not forget that freedom is possible for those nancy-pants-countries because Cletus over in 'Murica has his high powered assault rifle!!!! YAY FREEDOM!!!

    If you're out of straw, feel free to go ahead and pull some from space...."If we give away our guns, when the aliens invade, and the only thing that would stop a bad alien with a ray gun is a good human with an assault rifle, I won't tell you I told you so!" There you go, unfortunately that bit of straw might have a little more Bull-Squirt mixed in than you're used to......but just a LITTLE bit more.
    06-07-2014 05:19 PM
  2. anon8126715's Avatar
    And my question still stands, even though I think a citizen should be able to carry some type of protection with them, what exactly do you think is the WORST CASE SCENARIO if ALL GUNS were taken out of our society? And, since your last reply chastised me for what you believe were "strawman arguments" on my part, none of the "Well then no one but bad guys will have guns and we'll be overrun with criminals" arguments.

    No guns in private citizens' hands (good, bad, or ugly hands)>>>>> worst case scenario>>>> GO!
    06-07-2014 05:51 PM
  3. palandri's Avatar
    06-07-2014 09:07 PM
  4. anon8126715's Avatar
    But then what if we all decided to just post links to other websites when trying to have discussions on the interwebz?!?!?!?!?! Then no one will have discussions evar!!!

    palandri likes this.
    06-08-2014 05:58 AM
  5. Old Stoneface's Avatar
    You use the word "strawman" to imply my arguments are going way past some sort of rational thinking,
    No, I use the word "strawman" when you set up a strawman argument. What you describe, above, is an argumentum ad absurdum.

    yet your arguments are based on the same principle of taking the scenario to the extreme.
    Specific example?

    How does having someone be RESPONSIBLE by registering their firearm equate "Preemptively taking away their rights"?
    I didn't say it did. I said that banning certain classes of firearms was preemptively doing so. I asserted that universal background checks could result in defacto universal registration.

    Btw: How does someone registering a firearm automatically make them "responsible?"

    So using a weapon for mass murder, that's using the weapon as it was intended by the manufacturer?
    LOL! Nice try.

    That is another strawman argument. I see somebody else has tried to enlighten you. (Unsuccessfully, it would seem.)

    So you're saying maybe a lawsuit against the gun manufacturers? Sounds like a good idea to me, ...
    Yeah... no. Besides: When the anti-gun nuts couldn't get their way in either the legislatures or courts, they tried that gambit. Figured they'd sue the gun manufacturers into insolvency to get their way. Congress, with bipartisan support, put the kibosh on that.

    Would you like me to just reply with "strawman" so we're on even ground?
    Only works if your opponent is actually attempting to employ a strawman argument.

    We are required to register our vehicles,
    Ah, so, again, your true agenda is revealed. You do favour universal registration, even if it's "back door" or de facto registration due to universal background checks.

    Btw: Driving a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a right. So saith the law.

    the GOP in red states have made it more of an "unreasonable burden" to register to vote,
    Do I understand you to feel that it's reasonable to require that people register weapons, when the RKBA is affirmed by the Constitution, but not register to vote, which is not?

    some states require you to register certain breeds of dogs that have a history of aggressive behavior.
    Last I looked: Neither dogs nor their ownership were Constitutional issues.

    Why is registering a gun such a cataclysm of democracy?
    Already explained. You regard such issues as unimportant. No need to go over the same points, again and again, ad nauseam.

    Citation please?
    Great Britain. Australia. For two.

    And please follow that citation with "and now that country is in ruin..." where applicable.
    Inconsequential. (But a small data point: Home invasions have gone up sharply in GB since firearms ownership was all but entirely banned. "Home invasion" is distinct from "burglary" in that, in the former crime, the home is occupied.)

    Yeah sure, because I must be some sort of freedom hating anti-American pinko commie right.....Is Joseph McCarthy still alive? Maybe you can get him to pick me out of a lineup?
    Didn't say that. Didn't so much as imply it. Putting words in my mouth will not win your argument. (Nor will I allow you to provoke me into incoherent, abusive rage, if that's your goal.)

    [inanities elided...]

    You're becoming abusive. I'll not respond to you further.

    Jim
    06-08-2014 07:38 AM
  6. anon8126715's Avatar
    No, I use the word "strawman" when you set up a strawman argument. What you describe, above, is an argumentum ad absurdum.


    Specific example?


    I didn't say it did. I said that banning certain classes of firearms was preemptively doing so. I asserted that universal background checks could result in defacto universal registration.

    Btw: How does someone registering a firearm automatically make them "responsible?"


    LOL! Nice try.

    That is another strawman argument. I see somebody else has tried to enlighten you. (Unsuccessfully, it would seem.)


    Yeah... no. Besides: When the anti-gun nuts couldn't get their way in either the legislatures or courts, they tried that gambit. Figured they'd sue the gun manufacturers into insolvency to get their way. Congress, with bipartisan support, put the kibosh on that.


    Only works if your opponent is actually attempting to employ a strawman argument.


    Ah, so, again, your true agenda is revealed. You do favour universal registration, even if it's "back door" or de facto registration due to universal background checks.

    Btw: Driving a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a right. So saith the law.


    Do I understand you to feel that it's reasonable to require that people register weapons, when the RKBA is affirmed by the Constitution, but not register to vote, which is not?


    Last I looked: Neither dogs nor their ownership were Constitutional issues.


    Already explained. You regard such issues as unimportant. No need to go over the same points, again and again, ad nauseam.


    Great Britain. Australia. For two.


    Inconsequential. (But a small data point: Home invasions have gone up sharply in GB since firearms ownership was all but entirely banned. "Home invasion" is distinct from "burglary" in that, in the former crime, the home is occupied.)


    Didn't say that. Didn't so much as imply it. Putting words in my mouth will not win your argument. (Nor will I allow you to provoke me into incoherent, abusive rage, if that's your goal.)

    [inanities elided...]

    You're becoming abusive. I'll not respond to you further.

    Jim
    I'm becoming abusive or I've taken your argument as far as it can go and it's not the apocalyptic scenario that you make it out to be? And the other person's strawman post, I think he was trying to enlighten BOTH OF US, but I guess denial is the best defense when one's argument is starting to unravel.

    And lets see, you mention the 2nd amendment itself, lets take a look at it in its entirety.

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
    Hmm, that's odd it mentions a militia that's not just regulated, but WELL REGULATED, yet we have no problem skirting that part of the amendment.

    And finally, you mention the UK AND Australia's weapons ban (not really citation as I had asked, but I'll cut you some slack) as some sort of "worst case scenario". I don't know about you, but all the people I know from those countries, they like America, but they wouldn't leave their country to come here. Thus, I'm not sure if your reference to them is a valid argument for why we should hold onto our current collective ideology.

    The sad part is I actually agree that a person should be able to buy a weapon to protect himself/herself and his/her property. What I guess I don't understand is why so many people think that regulating and making gun owners accountable will lead to some sort of end of days scenario for freedom. The fact that some people think that all that stands between their freedoms and total dominion by a dictator is a weapon that at best can take out several people, that just seems ludicrous to me.
    06-08-2014 09:27 AM
  7. Mooncatt's Avatar
    What I guess I don't understand is why so many people think that regulating and making gun owners accountable will lead to some sort of end of days scenario for freedom.
    Registration has nothing to do with being accountable for your actions. If that were the case, no one that registers their car would ever drive drunk.
    06-08-2014 03:06 PM
  8. anon8126715's Avatar
    Registration has nothing to do with being accountable for your actions. If that were the case, no one that registers their car would ever drive drunk.
    Ummm, lets see, you register your vehicle, it lists you as an owner, if your vehicle is used for criminal activity and the plates are visible, guess where the cops are going to show up?
    06-08-2014 03:51 PM
  9. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Ummm, lets see, you register your vehicle, it lists you as an owner, if your vehicle is used for criminal activity and the plates are visible, guess where the cops are going to show up?
    But it's not the registration that determines if someone will do good or bad in the first place. It's the person in control of the device.
    06-08-2014 04:25 PM
  10. anon8126715's Avatar
    But it's not the registration that determines if someone will do good or bad in the first place. It's the person in control of the device.
    But it does mean there will be accountability if someone does commit a criminal act.
    msndrstood likes this.
    06-08-2014 05:10 PM
  11. Mooncatt's Avatar
    But it does mean there will be accountability if someone does commit a criminal act.
    So are you saying there isn't any now?
    06-08-2014 05:44 PM
  12. anon8126715's Avatar
    So are you saying there isn't any now?
    Not as much as there should be. And for some reason when we talk about registering gun owners, gun nuts get extremely loud and paranoid.
    06-08-2014 06:04 PM
  13. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Not as much as there should be.
    What is it about registration do you think would increase accountability?
    06-08-2014 06:36 PM
  14. anon8126715's Avatar
    What is it about registration do you think would increase accountability?
    Registration would be part of a more comprehensive measure. I would say that registration would have to include a questionnaire that asks the gun owner if there is anyone with any history of mental illness that might be able to gain access to the weapon and then I'd ask if they had measures to keep the weapon out of reach.

    The sad part is that we're not trying to be proactive about this issue because we have a MINORITY of the population that's twisting the 2nd amendment to suit their paranoid needs.
    palandri likes this.
    06-08-2014 07:32 PM
  15. palandri's Avatar
    Registration would be part of a more comprehensive measure. I would say that registration would have to include a questionnaire that asks the gun owner if there is anyone with any history of mental illness that might be able to gain access to the weapon and then I'd ask if they had measures to keep the weapon out of reach.

    The sad part is that we're not trying to be proactive about this issue because we have a MINORITY of the population that's twisting the 2nd amendment to suit their paranoid needs.
    Unmarked black helicopters circling your house, confication of arms, a ban on all political activity, slavery, our leader Alex Jones in prison for hooliganism - New World Order
    Attached Thumbnails Firearms and self-defense-new-world-order.jpg ย 
    06-08-2014 08:46 PM
  16. Mooncatt's Avatar
    I would say that registration would have to include a questionnaire that asks the gun owner if there is anyone with any history of mental illness that might be able to gain access to the weapon and then I'd ask if they had measures to keep the weapon out of reach.
    What's to stop the buyer from lying on those questions? What else would you expect registration to do?

    I'm not trying to bait you, I'm genuinely curious how you think registration will help, since you claimed it would hold people accountable.
    06-08-2014 09:28 PM
  17. anon8126715's Avatar
    What's to stop the buyer from lying on those questions? What else would you expect registration to do?

    I'm not trying to bait you, I'm genuinely curious how you think registration will help, since you claimed it would hold people accountable.
    If the buyer lies and nothing happens because the buyer thinks, "I'd better lock this thing away", then guess what, that's what was intended. But if the buyer lies and his/her crazed teenage son goes on a shooting spree, then the buyer should hope that the teenage son killed them first, else they will have a long prison sentence ahead of them.
    06-09-2014 04:39 AM
  18. Mooncatt's Avatar
    If the buyer lies and nothing happens because the buyer thinks, "I'd better lock this thing away", then guess what, that's what was intended. But if the buyer lies and his/her crazed teenage son goes on a shooting spree, then the buyer should hope that the teenage son killed them first, else they will have a long prison sentence ahead of them.
    That's still not something registration would stop. I'm pretty sure there's already laws on the books regarding improper storage of your gun and reporting requirements if you've lost it or had it stolen. If not, perhaps it's something to look into, but that wouldn't be affected by registration.
    06-09-2014 07:48 AM
  19. anon8126715's Avatar
    That's still not something registration would stop. I'm pretty sure there's already laws on the books regarding improper storage of your gun and reporting requirements if you've lost it or had it stolen. If not, perhaps it's something to look into, but that wouldn't be affected by registration.
    It's not done at the federal level and your lack of uncertainty make me doubt its existence or adherence at a national level. That alone demonstrates that there is room for improvement. But I doubt we'll get to that point what with the gun nuts making such a fuss. Oh and guess what, we had another shooting reported yesterday.....

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
    06-09-2014 08:40 AM
  20. Mooncatt's Avatar
    It's not done at the federal level and your lack of uncertainty make me doubt its existence or adherence at a national level. That alone demonstrates that there is room for improvement. But I doubt we'll get to that point what with the gun nuts making such a fuss. Oh and guess what, we had another shooting reported yesterday.....
    By your references to "federal" and "national", I'm guessing you meant federal and state level? In either case, the reason I'm uncertain is because I don't follow gun laws all around the country, so don't simply equate that to there not being any of those kinds of laws. I may be in favor of laws that punish people that don't take adequate steps for protecting their guns (a debatable subject on just what constitutes protecting your gun).

    As for yesterday's shooting, or any popularized ones, do you think registration would have prevented them?
    06-09-2014 10:01 AM
  21. Old Stoneface's Avatar
    That's still not something registration would stop.
    Of course it wouldn't.

    I'm pretty sure there's already laws on the books regarding improper storage of your gun and reporting requirements if you've lost it or had it stolen.
    In some states. Not at the Federal level.

    If not, perhaps it's something to look into, but that wouldn't be affected by registration.
    What would you hope to accomplish by that?

    Crazy guy buys gun(s). Registers them. Stores them properly. Then one day pulls a Rodger.

    Perfectly sane guy buys gun(s). Registers them. Stores them properly. Then one day becomes not sane, pulls a Rodger.

    Guy, sane or not, buys gun(s). Registers them. Stores them properly. Then one day somebody breaks in, steals them. He reports the thefts as required by law. How this has any impact on the thief's subsequent misuse of the guns, I do not know.

    Happy, "normal," law-abiding family owns guns. They're properly registered and stored. They take a picture of one of their children holding one, post it on Myface. Some nutjob calls the cops. Cops and social services go overboard.

    There are other scenarios. Scenarios too numerous to count.

    What registration does accomplish is to make it easy for the government to round 'em up when it chooses. That's primarily how it's been used wherever there's been universal registration.

    There's one scenario in which registration might reasonably serve a non-nefarious role: Somebody who was legally allowed to possess firearms, and subsequently was not. Examples include persons convicted of a felony, persons charged with domestic violence, and people adjudged mentally unfit. Then government would have the tools to say "Hey, this person owns firearms. We gotta go get 'em."

    FWIW: They tried it in Canada. It was widely regarded as a dismal failure. They scrapped it last year. (But, before it was scapped, it was used to effect confiscation of a class of firearms on at least one occasion.)

    It surprises me the people that are willing to question governments and their motives in all manner of things, but, with a straight face, will sit there and insist goverment would never abuse information such as would be included in a national firearms registry.
    06-09-2014 10:31 AM
  22. Mooncatt's Avatar
    What would you hope to accomplish by that?
    Storage laws would allow a more severe charge for people that leave guns out for others to easily get. I'm thinking mainly about cases of kid finds a parent's gun and then shoots themselves or someone else while playing with it.

    There's one scenario in which registration might reasonably serve a non-nefarious role: Somebody who was legally allowed to possess firearms, and subsequently was not. Examples include persons convicted of a felony, persons charged with domestic violence, and people adjudged mentally unfit. Then government would have the tools to say "Hey, this person owns firearms. We gotta go get 'em."
    That's about the only way I think registration may help, but even then it's not full proof. It wouldn't account for most currently owned guns in my opinion because I don't think many current owners will comply with registration of said guns. If you've lost your rights due to a crime that serious, chances are your house was searched during the investigation and they were discovered. If not removed then, a warrant for their seizure could be obtained. So that leaves mental cases that would remove gun rights and allow for government to seize the guns... assuming they were registered in the first place. To me, that doesn't sound like a very effective scope.

    I'm not in favor of registration. TXTOU had the opinion that they should be registered, so I was trying to find out why that would be over what we have now. It's easy for pro-gun people to challenge it, but I don't recall many people demonstrating how registration would be a good thing. So far, I haven't heard any real up side to out weigh the down sides.
    06-09-2014 11:47 AM
  23. Scott7217's Avatar
    Just because some moron reported it didn't mean a social worker had to be even more moronic and do what she did. All she needed do was read the complaint, look at the facebook page (if possible), employ a bit of reasoning, conclude "what child abuse?" and file it.
    The major drawback with anonymous hot lines is that anyone can call and say anything. The tipster could have said that severe child abuse was occurring, and the police would have sent in a hostage rescue team to break down the front door and enter the house with weapons drawn. Luckily that didn't happen in this case.
    06-09-2014 04:36 PM
  24. msndrstood's Avatar
    I'll probably regret posting in this thread, but here it is anyway...




    And the God Bless America is sarcasm for me. ๐Ÿ˜’


    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    palandri likes this.
    06-09-2014 06:37 PM
  25. anon8126715's Avatar
    One of the nutbags that went off over the weekend, from reports...

    Jared Miller's Facebook 'like' page.

    https://Www.Facebook.Com/jerad.miller.1/likes

    NRA, American Patriot Media Network, Support the 2nd Amendment, The
    Patriot Party, Rand Paul 2016, Ron Paul, the Washington Examiner, Draft Judge Andrew Napolitano, the Heritage Foundation,FreedomWorks, American Crossroads, and Allen West.
    Yes, because those groups AREN'T amping up the rhetoric on gun laws.....
    msndrstood and palandri like this.
    06-09-2014 07:27 PM
4,617 ... 177178179180181 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Larva Cartoon - FREE and FUNNY Application
    By liontyping in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-21-2014, 11:03 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-25-2013, 07:33 AM
  3. POI information and Gallery
    By robjulo in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 11:00 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 04:28 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD