Gun Bans

[Big Jim P]

You're aware that the whole basis of this thread is the idea that a law that has been on the books for years was not passed legally, and not once since then has anyone managed to bring this to the attention of the courts, not even the various honest-to-god legal experts working for the pro-gun movement, right? Sounds like a whole steaming pile of ignorance and denial to me.

Nah. Threads aren't about the stuff in the OP. Where did you get that silly idea?

It's a gun control thread. It said so in the title ("Why do we enforce an illegal law? (gun control related)." Bolding mine.)

The nonsense about procedure in the passing of the federal bill is what is known in chess openings as a "gambit". It was lost in the first two pages, but it got the thread to two pages which would not have happened if the OP had been only:

Fully-automatic firearms should not be banned, the 2nd Amendment is not for hunting or for sport shooting. The 2nd Amendment was written to protect the states from government tyranny and the people's rights to keep and bear arms.

It would have been locked or merged, being obviously redundant to the Gun Bans thread, except for the spurious idea that the OP introduced a point of law.

That's a gambit. It succeeded for a while, but now the threads have been merged it achieved nothing but confusion.

Seeing as the gun-control supporters continue to mis-identify guns and their parts, even after being informed of what they are talking about, , continually, I would think that further confusion would be welcome.

[Republica Newland]

Nah. Threads aren't about the stuff in the OP. Where did you get that silly idea?

It's a gun control thread. It said so in the title ("Why do we enforce an illegal law? (gun control related)." Bolding mine.)

The nonsense about procedure in the passing of the federal bill is what is known in chess openings as a "gambit". It was lost in the first two pages, but it got the thread to two pages which would not have happened if the OP had been only:

Fully-automatic firearms should not be banned, the 2nd Amendment is not for hunting or for sport shooting. The 2nd Amendment was written to protect the states from government tyranny and the people's rights to keep and bear arms.

It would have been locked or merged, being obviously redundant to the Gun Bans thread, except for the spurious idea that the OP introduced a point of law.

That's a gambit. It succeeded for a while, but now the threads have been merged it achieved nothing but confusion.

Seeing as the gun-control supporters continue to mis-identify guns and their parts, even after being informed of what they are talking about, , continually, I would think that further confusion would be welcome.

I'm gonna go ahead and buy me an Assault Fork while they're still legal.

[YellowApple]

Seeing as the gun-control supporters continue to mis-identify guns and their parts, even after being informed of what they are talking about, , continually, I would think that further confusion would be welcome.

I'm gonna go ahead and buy me an Assault Fork while they're still legal.

I think a tactical mug would be more useful for me.

[AiliailiA]

Who are you quoting?

Gun control will obviously never stop all "criminals" from getting guns. There may be a good argument, once your nations criminals are all heavily armed, for giving up on gun control and arming the law-abiding. Hell, give 'em coupons to buy guns, so the law-abiding poor have some gun rights too.

However, this is a strawman argument. Again and again, you pretend that gun control aims to disarm all criminals by disarming everyone. It does not. Registry of guns, safe storage of guns, limitations on sale and use according to type of gun ... are all forms of gun control. They aim primarily at keeping guns out of the hands of those who would use them in a crime, and only incidentally do they impinge on the rights of legal owners.

The worst enemy of gun rights is the "I have a right to a gun so I can resist tyranny" proponent of it.

Self-defense is a stronger argument. Hunting and sport are viable arguments, but I feel that depends very much on the hunting and sport guns being mainly owned by a more responsible and less fearful class of people than those who own guns for self-defense. "Collecting" is something I struggle to find any point to, whether it's antique guns or antique Barbi dolls, but not having any good reason to ban it I must allow it, providing that a person with a great many guns takes greater precautions against them being stolen than a person with only one or two does.

The really-quite-stupid Second Amendment has provided the same basis to all kinds of gun owners to legally buy and keep a gun. Gun rights could be a good thing, but you've got criminals in your tree-house.

What you, and other NRA types should do, is to specifically renounce the right to shoot cops, soldiers, tax collectors, civil servants or elected politicians. You should kick those "resist tyranny" nutters out of the gun rights tree-house. You should renounce them. Because it undermines the whole law-abiding v. criminal distinction of who should have a gun when some of you law-abiding gun owners are looking shifty at the law and muttering "... but I reserve the right to break the law in future".

1934 - National Firearms Act passes, it taxes the transfer of full-autos, short barreled shotguns, short barreled rifles, etc. to civilians. $200 at the time (and this was during the Great Depression) was like 2,000 in today's money.

1968 - GCA passes, it bans further import of NFA regulated firearms for civilian sales. It also bans people that have a record of domestic violence which I am in favor of. The ban of foreign NFA weapons was not necessary however.

1984 - ATF re-edits a law that now treats any open-bolt firearms regardless if its semi-automatic as ''machine guns'', forcing people that legally own former title 1 open bolt firearms to pay the $200 federal tax stamp.

1986 - Hughes Amendment bans further registration of full-autos for civilians.

1989 - The Assault Weapons Import Ban bans further importation of semi-automatic rifles by name to civilians. They just banned firearms by name, some didnt even need to have certain features, some didnt even need to be semi-automatic to be banned. They just indiscriminately listed the names of whatever firearms they felt like banning. The PSG-1 for example holds a standard capacity of 5 or 10 rounds and the only so-called ''assault'' feature it has is a handgrip.

1994 - I dont think an explanation is necessary for this one right? Anyways the ban sunset in 2004.

So having said this I think its pretty obvious that the gun-control crowd will not stop until there is a complete ban on every single firearm. Like Jim said, whenever the pro-gun crowd suggests a license or mandatory training, the anti-gun crowd demands more.

Firstly, two procedural matters: you're the poster whose thread was merged with this one (you were the OP of "Why do we enforce an illegal law (gun control related)"). Secondly, you're replying to me when I was replying to Big Jim P. For both of those reasons, I'm strongly inclined to blow you off like a senile horse fly which for some reason chose my arm as its final resting place. But as I'm always told: attack the post not the poster.

You paint a picture of increasing regulation, but ignore increasing freedom. Yes, freedom. With industrialization and general prosperity, and with technological improvements, the means to commit serious crimes become more practical to acquire for more people.

Increasing government regulation may seem to you to be restricting your right to own firearms, to below the right writtten into the US Constitution, but actually it is barely keeping up. Rank yourself on a scale of richest/poorest and a scale of most privileged/least priveleged, and you'd likely find yourself in the unarmed class of US society at the time of the Amendments. You wouldn't be able to afford a gun nor ammunition. And no-one else would want you to either: you would be a working man (or perhaps even a slave: slaves were legally prohibited from owning guns well duh).

Gun ownership would become easier year after year, without increasing gun control. Gun control will impose further restrictions as the capabilities of guns increase and the become more affordable. But the balance won't really change. Your list of restrictions may convince a one-eyed hillbilly living in the 1800's that "gummint comin' for mah gun" but it's laughable as a case that modern gun control is about disarming everyone.

Law must fit what it attempts to control, and the idea that the writers of law over a century ago got it right forever is just ... well ...

[Dyakovo]

Nah. Threads aren't about the stuff in the OP. Where did you get that silly idea?

It's a gun control thread. It said so in the title ("Why do we enforce an illegal law? (gun control related)." Bolding mine.)

The nonsense about procedure in the passing of the federal bill is what is known in chess openings as a "gambit". It was lost in the first two pages, but it got the thread to two pages which would not have happened if the OP had been only:

Fully-automatic firearms should not be banned, the 2nd Amendment is not for hunting or for sport shooting. The 2nd Amendment was written to protect the states from government tyranny and the people's rights to keep and bear arms.

It would have been locked or merged, being obviously redundant to the Gun Bans thread, except for the spurious idea that the OP introduced a point of law.

That's a gambit. It succeeded for a while, but now the threads have been merged it achieved nothing but confusion.

Seeing as the gun-control supporters continue to mis-identify guns and their parts, even after being informed of what they are talking about, , continually, I would think that further confusion would be welcome.

The middle is not a fun place to be...

[Chernoslavia]

I'm gonna go ahead and buy me an Assault Fork while they're still legal.

I think a tactical mug would be more useful for me.

The Anti-Saloon League would have tried to ban them and call them ''assault mugs''.

[Disserbia]

What are you going for here? Military capability? As I said it,although being far more authoritarian than the United States are,Arab states have not used mass destruction to counter the rebellions. They haven't and aren't "killing people at their full potential" if somehow your are implying that it's because of the United States' superior military capability that an armed rebellion is improbable in the future.The more drastic the measures the more likely it is that more military will defect.

I'm saying that an armed rebellion is absurdly improbable because the US is a Western democracy and there are lots of far better ways of redressing grievances than trying to kill and replace the entire government. I'm saying that if, in some absurd situation, there was an armed rebellion, people having guns or not would not make very much difference compared to what the military does and whether/how foreign powers intervene.

---

You would have to be monumentally dumb to nuke your own country.

You would have to be monumentally dumb to rebel against the US in the first place.

Yeah fuck standing up for what you believe is right, *avoids the Godwin*

[Disserbia]

What are you going for here? Military capability? As I said it,although being far more authoritarian than the United States are,Arab states have not used mass destruction to counter the rebellions. They haven't and aren't "killing people at their full potential" if somehow your are implying that it's because of the United States' superior military capability that an armed rebellion is improbable in the future.The more drastic the measures the more likely it is that more military will defect.

I'm saying that an armed rebellion is absurdly improbable because the US is a Western democracy and there are lots of far better ways of redressing grievances than trying to kill and replace the entire government. I'm saying that if, in some absurd situation, there was an armed rebellion, people having guns or not would not make very much difference compared to what the military does and whether/how foreign powers intervene.

---

You would have to be monumentally dumb to nuke your own country.

You would have to be monumentally dumb to rebel against the US in the first place.

Yeah fuck standing up for what you believe is right, *avoids the Godwin*

[Disserbia]

Who got nuked during the civil war?

they burned several cities to the ground, which was about the worst thing they were capable of at the time, if you can't see the similarity I can only feel sorry for you.

There is a difference between putting down a rebellion and leveling cities,
taking out infrastructure, and decimating the population.

yes there is and they did both.
learn some history please.

In addition I'm not saying that it would ever necessarily come to taking up arms against the government.

The US is the most powerful country in the world militarily, in order to protect ourselves from government tyranny we need all the help we can get.

consistency please.

I'm not saying civilians should own firearms, I'm saying they should have the right to, provided they are of good mental health and have no criminal record.

And you have provided nothing to justify this opinion.

Do you know what happened to people living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the war? All the medical anomalies? Learn some history please.

[YellowApple]

1934 - National Firearms Act passes, it taxes the transfer of full-autos, short barreled shotguns, short barreled rifles, etc. to civilians. $200 at the time (and this was during the Great Depression) was like 2,000 in today's money.

1968 - GCA passes, it bans further import of NFA regulated firearms for civilian sales. It also bans people that have a record of domestic violence which I am in favor of. The ban of foreign NFA weapons was not necessary however.

1984 - ATF re-edits a law that now treats any open-bolt firearms regardless if its semi-automatic as ''machine guns'', forcing people that legally own former title 1 open bolt firearms to pay the $200 federal tax stamp.

1986 - Hughes Amendment bans further registration of full-autos for civilians.

1989 - The Assault Weapons Import Ban bans further importation of semi-automatic rifles by name to civilians. They just banned firearms by name, some didnt even need to have certain features, some didnt even need to be semi-automatic to be banned. They just indiscriminately listed the names of whatever firearms they felt like banning. The PSG-1 for example holds a standard capacity of 5 or 10 rounds and the only so-called ''assault'' feature it has is a handgrip.

1994 - I dont think an explanation is necessary for this one right? Anyways the ban sunset in 2004.

So having said this I think its pretty obvious that the gun-control crowd will not stop until there is a complete ban on every single firearm. Like Jim said, whenever the pro-gun crowd suggests a license or mandatory training, the anti-gun crowd demands more.

Firstly, two procedural matters: you're the poster whose thread was merged with this one (you were the OP of "Why do we enforce an illegal law (gun control related)"). Secondly, you're replying to me when I was replying to Big Jim P. For both of those reasons, I'm strongly inclined to blow you off like a senile horse fly which for some reason chose my arm as its final resting place. But as I'm always told: attack the post not the poster.

You paint a picture of increasing regulation, but ignore increasing freedom. Yes, freedom. With industrialization and general prosperity, and with technological improvements, the means to commit serious crimes become more practical to acquire for more people.

Increasing government regulation may seem to you to be restricting your right to own firearms, to below the right writtten into the US Constitution, but actually it is barely keeping up. Rank yourself on a scale of richest/poorest and a scale of most privileged/least priveleged, and you'd likely find yourself in the unarmed class of US society at the time of the Amendments. You wouldn't be able to afford a gun nor ammunition. And no-one else would want you to either: you would be a working man (or perhaps even a slave: slaves were legally prohibited from owning guns well duh).

Gun ownership would become easier year after year, without increasing gun control. Gun control will impose further restrictions as the capabilities of guns increase and the become more affordable. But the balance won't really change. Your list of restrictions may convince a one-eyed hillbilly living in the 1800's that "gummint comin' for mah gun" but it's laughable as a case that modern gun control is about disarming everyone.

Law must fit what it attempts to control, and the idea that the writers of law over a century ago got it right forever is just ... well ...

I'd personally be more inclined to take your red herring arguments seriously if it weren't for your blatantly ad hominem introduction to them. Comparing an opponent in a discussion to a "senile horse fly" is not a very effective way to formulate a credible argument.

Just saying.

[AiliailiA]

Nah. Threads aren't about the stuff in the OP. Where did you get that silly idea?

It's a gun control thread. It said so in the title ("Why do we enforce an illegal law? (gun control related)." Bolding mine.)

The nonsense about procedure in the passing of the federal bill is what is known in chess openings as a "gambit". It was lost in the first two pages, but it got the thread to two pages which would not have happened if the OP had been only:

Fully-automatic firearms should not be banned, the 2nd Amendment is not for hunting or for sport shooting. The 2nd Amendment was written to protect the states from government tyranny and the people's rights to keep and bear arms.

It would have been locked or merged, being obviously redundant to the Gun Bans thread, except for the spurious idea that the OP introduced a point of law.

That's a gambit. It succeeded for a while, but now the threads have been merged it achieved nothing but confusion.

Seeing as the gun-control supporters continue to mis-identify guns and their parts, even after being informed of what they are talking about, , continually, I would think that further confusion would be welcome.

Yeah, well maybe you gun rights folk should help out the likes of Dianne Feinstein. Offer your expertise, so the guns that you consider least acceptable get banned, instead of random guns.

Some kinds of guns are going to get banned. Laughing at the people who enact the bans, or laughing at the people who vote for them, isn't going to change that. You should act like an adult (even if you're not) and see that least harm is done by the bans. You think you know better, then write a letter.

Alternatively you could act like a criminal and make heaps of money by speculating in guns. Buy 'em when they're legal, sell 'em later when they're banned. Nice little earner there.

[Dyakovo]

Seeing as the gun-control supporters continue to mis-identify guns and their parts, even after being informed of what they are talking about, , continually, I would think that further confusion would be welcome.

Yeah, well maybe you gun rights folk should help out the likes of Dianne Feinstein. Offer your expertise, so the guns that you consider least acceptable get banned, instead of random guns.

Or better yet, let's not ban any specific guns.

[Big Jim P]

Yeah, well maybe you gun rights folk should help out the likes of Dianne Feinstein. Offer your expertise, so the guns that you consider least acceptable get banned, instead of random guns.

Or better yet, let's not ban any specific guns.

Or maybe she should learn a bit about the subject before yanking emotional chains with zero knowledge of the subject. Like I say, I have no respect for stupidity, and a refusal to learn when the education is available is active stupidity at its worst.

[Big Jim P]

Seeing as the gun-control supporters continue to mis-identify guns and their parts, even after being informed of what they are talking about, , continually, I would think that further confusion would be welcome.

Yeah, well maybe you gun rights folk should help out the likes of Dianne Feinstein. Offer your expertise, so the guns that you consider least acceptable get banned, instead of random guns.

Some kinds of guns are going to get banned. Laughing at the people who enact the bans, or laughing at the people who vote for them, isn't going to change that. You should act like an adult (even if you're not) and see that least harm is done by the bans. You think you know better, then write a letter.

Alternatively you could act like a criminal and make heaps of money by speculating in guns. Buy 'em when they're legal, sell 'em later when they're banned. Nice little earner there.

As long as the guns in question are grandfathered,they are legal. Keep trying to earn some respect for reasonalbility.

[Big Jim P]

Firstly, two procedural matters: you're the poster whose thread was merged with this one (you were the OP of "Why do we enforce an illegal law (gun control related)"). Secondly, you're replying to me when I was replying to Big Jim P. For both of those reasons, I'm strongly inclined to blow you off like a senile horse fly which for some reason chose my arm as its final resting place. But as I'm always told: attack the post not the poster.

You paint a picture of increasing regulation, but ignore increasing freedom. Yes, freedom. With industrialization and general prosperity, and with technological improvements, the means to commit serious crimes become more practical to acquire for more people.

Increasing government regulation may seem to you to be restricting your right to own firearms, to below the right writtten into the US Constitution, but actually it is barely keeping up. Rank yourself on a scale of richest/poorest and a scale of most privileged/least priveleged, and you'd likely find yourself in the unarmed class of US society at the time of the Amendments. You wouldn't be able to afford a gun nor ammunition. And no-one else would want you to either: you would be a working man (or perhaps even a slave: slaves were legally prohibited from owning guns well duh).

Gun ownership would become easier year after year, without increasing gun control. Gun control will impose further restrictions as the capabilities of guns increase and the become more affordable. But the balance won't really change. Your list of restrictions may convince a one-eyed hillbilly living in the 1800's that "gummint comin' for mah gun" but it's laughable as a case that modern gun control is about disarming everyone.

Law must fit what it attempts to control, and the idea that the writers of law over a century ago got it right forever is just ... well ...

I'd personally be more inclined to take your red herring arguments seriously if it weren't for your blatantly ad hominem introduction to them. Comparing an opponent in a discussion to a "senile horse fly" is not a very effective way to formulate a credible argument.

Just saying.

C'mon, Ailiailia has essentially accused me and others of being criminals in the last couple of pages. Kinda gives you the hint of the gun-control freaks attitude.

[AiliailiA]

Firstly, two procedural matters: you're the poster whose thread was merged with this one (you were the OP of "Why do we enforce an illegal law (gun control related)"). Secondly, you're replying to me when I was replying to Big Jim P. For both of those reasons, I'm strongly inclined to blow you off like a senile horse fly which for some reason chose my arm as its final resting place. But as I'm always told: attack the post not the poster.

You paint a picture of increasing regulation, but ignore increasing freedom. Yes, freedom. With industrialization and general prosperity, and with technological improvements, the means to commit serious crimes become more practical to acquire for more people.

Increasing government regulation may seem to you to be restricting your right to own firearms, to below the right writtten into the US Constitution, but actually it is barely keeping up. Rank yourself on a scale of richest/poorest and a scale of most privileged/least priveleged, and you'd likely find yourself in the unarmed class of US society at the time of the Amendments. You wouldn't be able to afford a gun nor ammunition. And no-one else would want you to either: you would be a working man (or perhaps even a slave: slaves were legally prohibited from owning guns well duh).

Gun ownership would become easier year after year, without increasing gun control. Gun control will impose further restrictions as the capabilities of guns increase and the become more affordable. But the balance won't really change. Your list of restrictions may convince a one-eyed hillbilly living in the 1800's that "gummint comin' for mah gun" but it's laughable as a case that modern gun control is about disarming everyone.

Law must fit what it attempts to control, and the idea that the writers of law over a century ago got it right forever is just ... well ...

I'd personally be more inclined to take your red herring arguments seriously if it weren't for your blatantly ad hominem introduction to them. Comparing an opponent in a discussion to a "senile horse fly" is not a very effective way to formulate a credible argument.

Just saying.

It's the punch in the nose to get attention. Maybe a little too forceful.

But mine was a long, entirely original, post. In reply to an equally long post mostly snipped out of Wikipedia without attribution.

I read all of Chernoslavia's post. If the punch in the nose induced them to read all of mine, then I don't regret it.

[YellowApple]

I'd personally be more inclined to take your red herring arguments seriously if it weren't for your blatantly ad hominem introduction to them. Comparing an opponent in a discussion to a "senile horse fly" is not a very effective way to formulate a credible argument.

Just saying.

C'mon, Ailiailia has essentially accused me and others of being criminals in the last couple of pages. Kinda gives you the hint of the gun-control freaks attitude.

I won't go as far as to label everyone supportive of gun control under one banner. I prefer to avoid stereotypes.

[Ovisterra]

I'm saying that an armed rebellion is absurdly improbable because the US is a Western democracy and there are lots of far better ways of redressing grievances than trying to kill and replace the entire government. I'm saying that if, in some absurd situation, there was an armed rebellion, people having guns or not would not make very much difference compared to what the military does and whether/how foreign powers intervene.

---

You would have to be monumentally dumb to rebel against the US in the first place.

Yeah fuck standing up for what you believe is right, *avoids the Godwin*

Standing up for what you believe in by taking up arms against one of the most militarised nations in the world (from inside said nation) is dumb.

[Chernoslavia]

1934 - National Firearms Act passes, it taxes the transfer of full-autos, short barreled shotguns, short barreled rifles, etc. to civilians. $200 at the time (and this was during the Great Depression) was like 2,000 in today's money.

1968 - GCA passes, it bans further import of NFA regulated firearms for civilian sales. It also bans people that have a record of domestic violence which I am in favor of. The ban of foreign NFA weapons was not necessary however.

1984 - ATF re-edits a law that now treats any open-bolt firearms regardless if its semi-automatic as ''machine guns'', forcing people that legally own former title 1 open bolt firearms to pay the $200 federal tax stamp.

1986 - Hughes Amendment bans further registration of full-autos for civilians.

1989 - The Assault Weapons Import Ban bans further importation of semi-automatic rifles by name to civilians. They just banned firearms by name, some didnt even need to have certain features, some didnt even need to be semi-automatic to be banned. They just indiscriminately listed the names of whatever firearms they felt like banning. The PSG-1 for example holds a standard capacity of 5 or 10 rounds and the only so-called ''assault'' feature it has is a handgrip.

1994 - I dont think an explanation is necessary for this one right? Anyways the ban sunset in 2004.

So having said this I think its pretty obvious that the gun-control crowd will not stop until there is a complete ban on every single firearm. Like Jim said, whenever the pro-gun crowd suggests a license or mandatory training, the anti-gun crowd demands more.

Firstly, two procedural matters: you're the poster whose thread was merged with this one (you were the OP of "Why do we enforce an illegal law (gun control related)"). Secondly, you're replying to me when I was replying to Big Jim P. For both of those reasons, I'm strongly inclined to blow you off like a senile horse fly which for some reason chose my arm as its final resting place. But as I'm always told: attack the post not the poster.

You paint a picture of increasing regulation, but ignore increasing freedom. Yes, freedom. With industrialization and general prosperity, and with technological improvements, the means to commit serious crimes become more practical to acquire for more people.

Increasing government regulation may seem to you to be restricting your right to own firearms, to below the right writtten into the US Constitution, but actually it is barely keeping up. Rank yourself on a scale of richest/poorest and a scale of most privileged/least priveleged, and you'd likely find yourself in the unarmed class of US society at the time of the Amendments. You wouldn't be able to afford a gun nor ammunition. And no-one else would want you to either: you would be a working man (or perhaps even a slave: slaves were legally prohibited from owning guns well duh).

Gun ownership would become easier year after year, without increasing gun control. Gun control will impose further restrictions as the capabilities of guns increase and the become more affordable. But the balance won't really change. Your list of restrictions may convince a one-eyed hillbilly living in the 1800's that "gummint comin' for mah gun" but it's laughable as a case that modern gun control is about disarming everyone.

Law must fit what it attempts to control, and the idea that the writers of law over a century ago got it right forever is just ... well ...

I simply wrote this for what you said on your second paragraph and nothing more. Nice strawman.

Most gun control laws have something that I would agree on such as denying people with a record of domestic violence from owning firearms, but as usual these laws come with unnecessary bans on a particular category (usually made-up) of firearms. How can you guarantee the right to keep and bear arms when every few years some politician proposes a law that bans a certain category of firearms from civilian possession. Has any ban listed here not satisfied the gun control crowd? Has the import ban on ''assault weapons'' not enough? So tell me then, why do you say ''these gun control laws dont take away your right to bear arms'' when almost every single legislation keeps chipping away a category of firearms that we were previously allowed to have?

[YellowApple]

I'd personally be more inclined to take your red herring arguments seriously if it weren't for your blatantly ad hominem introduction to them. Comparing an opponent in a discussion to a "senile horse fly" is not a very effective way to formulate a credible argument.

Just saying.

It's the punch in the nose to get attention. Maybe a little too forceful.

But mine was a long, entirely original, post. In reply to an equally long post mostly snipped out of Wikipedia without attribution.

I read all of Chernoslavia's post. If the punch in the nose induced them to read all of mine, then I don't regret it.

If your arguments are sufficiently effective, they will provide sufficient "punch to the nose" on their own. There would be no need to degrade your arguments by resorting to personal attacks.

[Paddy O Fernature]

A question for the gun control types. Why are you afraid of the top rifle, and not the bottom one?

[Big Jim P]

C'mon, Ailiailia has essentially accused me and others of being criminals in the last couple of pages. Kinda gives you the hint of the gun-control freaks attitude.

I won't go as far as to label everyone supportive of gun control under one banner. I prefer to avoid stereotypes.

So do I, but it is hard to not respond in kind.

[Chernoslavia]

C'mon, Ailiailia has essentially accused me and others of being criminals in the last couple of pages. Kinda gives you the hint of the gun-control freaks attitude.

I won't go as far as to label everyone supportive of gun control under one banner. I prefer to avoid stereotypes.

Agreed, both sides are known for this. Especially when someone relates to pro-gunners as ''one eyed hillbillies''.

[AiliailiA]

Yeah, well maybe you gun rights folk should help out the likes of Dianne Feinstein. Offer your expertise, so the guns that you consider least acceptable get banned, instead of random guns.

Some kinds of guns are going to get banned. Laughing at the people who enact the bans, or laughing at the people who vote for them, isn't going to change that. You should act like an adult (even if you're not) and see that least harm is done by the bans. You think you know better, then write a letter.

Alternatively you could act like a criminal and make heaps of money by speculating in guns. Buy 'em when they're legal, sell 'em later when they're banned. Nice little earner there.

As long as the guns in question are grandfathered,they are legal. Keep trying to earn some respect for reasonalbility.

Grandfathered guns aren't the problem. Sales of new guns are the problem (particularly handguns). Guns used in crimes are mostly new (under 4 years since first sale).

You can help solve this problem. Or you can be neutral on it (owning a gun, or not). But I get the strong impression that you don't think it's a problem ... you want to sell guns to anyone you choose to, without any government regulation of that.

Frankly, that makes you part of the gun problem. That makes you a clear target of gun control, and a good friend to criminals.

Not a criminal mind you. I never called you a criminal. But a big fat target for gun control.

[YellowApple]

I won't go as far as to label everyone supportive of gun control under one banner. I prefer to avoid stereotypes.

So do I, but it is hard to not respond in kind.

It's difficult, but avoiding it pays off when you're focusing on presenting factual evidence rather than getting wrapped up in peripheral tasks like categorization and personal attack