Gun Bans

[Republica Newland]

Well for the longest time for me going way back to the 70's there has always been this non issue of private sales being allowed and that this somehow is detrimental to society when it isn't. The right to buy and sell private property should be left alone and far from govt meddling.

Fucking hell.. cut it out already I DIDN'T KNOW GUN RIGHTS ADVOCATES WERE ADVOCATING FOR MILITARY HARDWARE AND NUKE RIGHTS THEY WERE ADVOCATING GUN RIGHTS. DO you see us going against laws that restrict shit such as tanks or nukes? No? Didn't think so either. Now stop diverting the argument. It's either this or the race card,you people obviously fail at making decent point so you resort to unrelated bullshit.

I see one of you saying "the right to buy and sell private property should be left alone and far from government meddling".

The logical consequence of that is that you literally could buy tanks or nukes. You could sell them to al quaida. The question is entirely relevant, and logically valid to challeng Grinning Dragon's assertion.

Do YOU agree that "the right to buy and sell private property should be left alone and far from government meddling" ?

YES,with VERY FEW exceptions,NUKES being among these exceptions. Nukes =/= guns. And I can ASSURE you that 99% of all other gun rights advocates feel the same,PROOF being that they don't fight for nuke or tank rights but rather gun rights. Stop fucking around.

[Big Jim P]

The arguments for banning guns are all well and good, but they do not address the basic issue: the predatory nature of humanity. As long as there are those members of the species that will prey on the innocent (with guns, knives, blunt objects, or bare hands), then it behooves us as a society to insure that victims can defend themselves, with lethal force if necessary.

To insure that any potential victim can defend themselves with a gun, you'd have to provide a gun to any citizen who can't afford to buy one. Yeah or Nay to that?

Seeing as one of the targets for gun-control advocates are the inexpensive guns, they have forced the answer to Yeah. By gun-control logic, the most likely victims are priced out of their right to effective self defense. Racist, Classist and wrong.

[Big Jim P]

I see one of you saying "the right to buy and sell private property should be left alone and far from government meddling".

The logical consequence of that is that you literally could buy tanks or nukes. You could sell them to al quaida. The question is entirely relevant, and logically valid to challeng Grinning Dragon's assertion.

Do YOU agree that "the right to buy and sell private property should be left alone and far from government meddling" ?

YES,with VERY FEW exceptions,NUKES being among these exceptions. Nukes =/= guns. And I can ASSURE you that 99% of all other gun rights advocates feel the same,PROOF being that they don't fight for nuke or tank rights but rather gun rights. Stop fucking around.

See my earlier post about nukes. Obscuring the basic issue of the right to self-defense is the hallmark of the extremists on BOTH side of this issue.

[Republica Newland]

The arguments for banning guns are all well and good, but they do not address the basic issue: the predatory nature of humanity. As long as there are those members of the species that will prey on the innocent (with guns, knives, blunt objects, or bare hands), then it behooves us as a society to insure that victims can defend themselves, with lethal force if necessary.

To insure that any potential victim can defend themselves with a gun, you'd have to provide a gun to any citizen who can't afford to buy one. Yeah or Nay to that?

WTF? So in your mind simply banning guns is better than not having everyone own one?? How is that logical at all?? The main argument behind mass ownership of guns is that the majority of Americans are neither criminals nor mentally insane,but rather law abiding citizens. It's not giving everyone guns hoping that they wouldn't shoot each other just because they know everyone else has got guns. I don't know where you got that idea.

[Divair]

I see one of you saying "the right to buy and sell private property should be left alone and far from government meddling".

The logical consequence of that is that you literally could buy tanks or nukes. You could sell them to al quaida. The question is entirely relevant, and logically valid to challeng Grinning Dragon's assertion.

Do YOU agree that "the right to buy and sell private property should be left alone and far from government meddling" ?

YES,with VERY FEW exceptions,NUKES being among these exceptions. Nukes =/= guns. And I can ASSURE you that 99% of all other gun rights advocates feel the same,PROOF being that they don't fight for nuke or tank rights but rather gun rights. Stop fucking around.

But what if North Korea tries to invade my house? I need something to defend myself with

[AiliailiA]

It's a very broad claim, put forward to justify unrecorded private gun sales without background check. It has other consequences (being such a broad claim) and pointing those out is perfectly legitimate debate technique.

I can't even imagine why you're defending "the right to buy and sell private property should be left alone and far from government meddling". If you can't admit that someone on the gun rights side might have been wrong about something, why not just let it pass in silence?

Or do you agree with it?

Some are wrong and what am I supposedly agreeing with now? Read what I post, not what you think I post.

The first paragraph was a dead end. You stated outright that you weren't going to source it. What reply did you expect to that?

You don't support private sales of nukes because you've seen no plausible argument for their being useful in self-defense. There are plenty of other reasons not to support such a thing but that one is valid for me.

You made a bland point about only a part of my post and it's not something I disagree with. I should just nod and say "ah, you're right Jim" ?

[Our Most Resplendent Goddess Sen]

Nukes are perfectly legal in most of the US.

[Republica Newland]

YES,with VERY FEW exceptions,NUKES being among these exceptions. Nukes =/= guns. And I can ASSURE you that 99% of all other gun rights advocates feel the same,PROOF being that they don't fight for nuke or tank rights but rather gun rights. Stop fucking around.

But what if North Korea tries to invade my house? I need something to defend myself with

Further proof that the gun control side will not stop diverting the argument and going off-topic. Given how nukes aren't firearms,and you continuously spam us with your nonsense,I'm gonna go ahead and let the mods know about this threadjacking. Job well done!!!

[Big Jim P]

Some are wrong and what am I supposedly agreeing with now? Read what I post, not what you think I post.

The first paragraph was a dead end. You stated outright that you weren't going to source it. What reply did you expect to that?

You don't support private sales of nukes because you've seen no plausible argument for their being useful in self-defense. There are plenty of other reasons not to support such a thing but that one is valid for me.

You made a bland point about only a part of my post and it's not something I disagree with. I should just nod and say "ah, you're right Jim" ?

I am right:

See my earlier post about nukes. Obscuring the basic issue of the right to self-defense is the hallmark of the extremists on BOTH side of this issue.

Note the BOTH.

Now can we get to the issue at hand?

[Divair]

But what if North Korea tries to invade my house? I need something to defend myself with

Further proof that the gun control side will not stop diverting the argument and going off-topic. Given how nukes aren't firearms,and you continuously spam us with your nonsense,I'm gonna go ahead and let the mods know about this threadjacking. Job well done!!!

Your joke detector is clearly broken.

[Big Jim P]

But what if North Korea tries to invade my house? I need something to defend myself with

Further proof that the gun control side will not stop diverting the argument and going off-topic. Given how nukes aren't firearms,and you continuously spam us with your nonsense,I'm gonna go ahead and let the mods know about this threadjacking. Job well done!!!

thank you. Saves me the trouble.

[AiliailiA]

But what if North Korea tries to invade my house? I need something to defend myself with

Further proof that the gun control side will not stop diverting the argument and going off-topic. Given how nukes aren't firearms,and you continuously spam us with your nonsense,I'm gonna go ahead and let the mods know about this threadjacking. Job well done!!!

I've already made a thread in Moderation. Look for the name of this thread in the title there.

[AiliailiA]

To insure that any potential victim can defend themselves with a gun, you'd have to provide a gun to any citizen who can't afford to buy one. Yeah or Nay to that?

Seeing as one of the targets for gun-control advocates are the inexpensive guns, they have forced the answer to Yeah. By gun-control logic, the most likely victims are priced out of their right to effective self defense. Racist, Classist and wrong.

Yes to the government providing a gun to any citizen who wants one. Have you consulted with the hive mind about that?

[Big Jim P]

Further proof that the gun control side will not stop diverting the argument and going off-topic. Given how nukes aren't firearms,and you continuously spam us with your nonsense,I'm gonna go ahead and let the mods know about this threadjacking. Job well done!!!

I've already made a thread in Moderation. Look for the name of this thread in the title there.

I posted a comment there. This topic IS being pushed off subject.

[Big Jim P]

Seeing as one of the targets for gun-control advocates are the inexpensive guns, they have forced the answer to Yeah. By gun-control logic, the most likely victims are priced out of their right to effective self defense. Racist, Classist and wrong.

Yes to the government providing a gun to any citizen who wants one. Have you consulted with the hive mind about that?

Yes to the government not restricting the right to self defense for its most vulnerable citizens.

[AiliailiA]

Yes to the government providing a gun to any citizen who wants one. Have you consulted with the hive mind about that?

Yes to the government not restricting the right to self defense for its most vulnerable citizens.

For instance the homeless, the mentally ill, and anyone whose legal employment prospects are impaired by a criminal record.

[Big Jim P]

Yes to the government not restricting the right to self defense for its most vulnerable citizens.

For instance the homeless, the mentally ill, and anyone whose legal employment prospects are impaired by a criminal record.

Two of the three are already restricted from owning firearms. I am not sure about the homeless, unless the individual falls under the other two categories.

Edit: I was in fact referring to the poor.

[AiliailiA]

For instance the homeless, the mentally ill, and anyone whose legal employment prospects are impaired by a criminal record.

Two of the three are already restricted from owning firearms.

Precisely.

I am not sure about the homeless, unless the individual falls under the other two categories.

Edit: I was in fact referring to the poor.

A homeless person, sleeping in their car for instance, is more likely to need a gun for self-defense than someone who has a house to sleep in.

Mental illness is very likely to make a person poor. So is a criminal record. Even if that wasn't so, there definitely are people who are poor and also currently disqualified for mental illness or criminal record.

"Yes to the government not restricting the right to self defense for its most vulnerable citizens" isn't answered by what the government does now. Note the difference between "should" and "does".

You're not sure about the homeless, fine. What about someone who is poor AND has a history of mental illness ... surely you would agree they are among the most vulnerable citizens. Should the government provide them with a gun for their own self-defense?

[Big Jim P]

Two of the three are already restricted from owning firearms.

Precisely.

I am not sure about the homeless, unless the individual falls under the other two categories.

Edit: I was in fact referring to the poor.

A homeless person, sleeping in their car for instance, is more likely to need a gun for self-defense than someone who has a house to sleep in.

Mental illness is very likely to make a person poor. So is a criminal record. Even if that wasn't so, there definitely are people who are poor and also currently disqualified for mental illness or criminal record.

"Yes to the government not restricting the right to self defense for its most vulnerable citizens" isn't answered by what the government does now. Note the difference between "should" and "does".

You're not sure about the homeless, fine. What about someone who is poor AND has a history of mental illness ... surely you would agree they are among the most vulnerable citizens. Should the government provide them with a gun for their own self-defense?

You have a point.. What do we do about the poor who are mentally ill? I personally would defend them. They themselves should not be provided with a gun however.

[The Archregimancy]

Everyone, we need to calm down please.

This hasn't turned into flaming quite yet, but some of the language is getting heated, and open threats to come running to the mods are unhelpful (and veering towards using mods as weapons, though since the threat isn't over actionable behaviour that would have warranted a warning here, I'll let it pass). If you think behaviour is actively actionable, please report it in Moderation rather than threatening in the thread to report it in Moderation and then not doing anything about it.

I suggest that a couple of you take a deep breath before continuing; and perhaps try and cut back on the profanity, just in case someone uses that as an excuse to turn what's currently fortunately still only general strong language into specifically directed flaming.

[AiliailiA]

Precisely.



A homeless person, sleeping in their car for instance, is more likely to need a gun for self-defense than someone who has a house to sleep in.

Mental illness is very likely to make a person poor. So is a criminal record. Even if that wasn't so, there definitely are people who are poor and also currently disqualified for mental illness or criminal record.

"Yes to the government not restricting the right to self defense for its most vulnerable citizens" isn't answered by what the government does now. Note the difference between "should" and "does".

You're not sure about the homeless, fine. What about someone who is poor AND has a history of mental illness ... surely you would agree they are among the most vulnerable citizens. Should the government provide them with a gun for their own self-defense?

You have a point.. What do we do about the poor who are mentally ill? I personally would defend them. They themselves should not be provided with a gun however.

Well there's the welfare state ... oops no, this is mostly about the US right?

Or you could put psychiatric treatment on the NHS ... oops, ditto.

Or you could invade their privacy with a national psychiatric register, and deny them the "right" to own a gun. This appears to be the NRA position. It's just a variation on the "criminals are criminals, criminals will always have guns" line they've been running for years in defiance of any rational exploration of the causes of crime. But with the added twist of "lunatics are lunatics" and LaPierre's bizarre attempt to redefine the criminal use of guns as "insanity".

Aren't there other national gun advocacy groups you could have joined? Why the NRA, with it's history of lobbying which is at least partially responsible for how dumb the legislative attempts to ban guns are? With their long and inglorious history of opposing any kind of gun control, then turning around and pretending they supported it when it becomes law (eg, background checks). And particularly Wayne LaPierre. Why would you give money and political support to that?

[Dyakovo]

You have a point.. What do we do about the poor who are mentally ill? I personally would defend them. They themselves should not be provided with a gun however.

Well there's the welfare state ... oops no, this is mostly about the US right?

Or you could put psychiatric treatment on the NHS ... oops, ditto.

Or you could invade their privacy with a national psychiatric register, and deny them the "right" to own a gun. This appears to be the NRA position. It's just a variation on the "criminals are criminals, criminals will always have guns" line they've been running for years in defiance of any rational exploration of the causes of crime. But with the added twist of "lunatics are lunatics" and LaPierre's bizarre attempt to redefine the criminal use of guns as "insanity".

Aren't there other national gun advocacy groups you could have joined? Why the NRA, with it's history of lobbying which is at least partially responsible for how dumb the legislative attempts to ban guns are? With their long and inglorious history of opposing any kind of gun control, then turning around and pretending they supported it when it becomes law (eg, background checks). And particularly Wayne LaPierre. Why would you give money and political support to that?

Your claim about the NRA always opposing any gun control legislation is false.

[AiliailiA]

Well there's the welfare state ... oops no, this is mostly about the US right?

Or you could put psychiatric treatment on the NHS ... oops, ditto.

Or you could invade their privacy with a national psychiatric register, and deny them the "right" to own a gun. This appears to be the NRA position. It's just a variation on the "criminals are criminals, criminals will always have guns" line they've been running for years in defiance of any rational exploration of the causes of crime. But with the added twist of "lunatics are lunatics" and LaPierre's bizarre attempt to redefine the criminal use of guns as "insanity".

Aren't there other national gun advocacy groups you could have joined? Why the NRA, with it's history of lobbying which is at least partially responsible for how dumb the legislative attempts to ban guns are? With their long and inglorious history of opposing any kind of gun control, then turning around and pretending they supported it when it becomes law (eg, background checks). And particularly Wayne LaPierre. Why would you give money and political support to that?

Your claim about the NRA always opposing any gun control legislation is false.

I gave an example: they opposed background checks until it became obvious the fight was lost, then they changed sides.

If I'm wrong, then please make some effort to prove it.

[Sociobiology]

Two of the three are already restricted from owning firearms.

Precisely.

I am not sure about the homeless, unless the individual falls under the other two categories.

Edit: I was in fact referring to the poor.

A homeless person, sleeping in their car for instance, is more likely to need a gun for self-defense than someone who has a house to sleep in.

why? what do they have worth stealing?, specifically what do that have that is worth more than the gun itself. which are common targets of theft.

Mental illness is very likely to make a person poor. So is a criminal record. Even if that wasn't so, there definitely are people who are poor and also currently disqualified for mental illness or criminal record.

"Yes to the government not restricting the right to self defense for its most vulnerable citizens" isn't answered by what the government does now. Note the difference between "should" and "does".

You're not sure about the homeless, fine. What about someone who is poor AND has a history of mental illness ... surely you would agree they are among the most vulnerable citizens. Should the government provide them with a gun for their own self-defense?

[/quote]
definitely not
letting people with mental illnesses buy guns is a bad enough idea.

[Dyakovo]

Your claim about the NRA always opposing any gun control legislation is false.

I gave an example: they opposed background checks until it became obvious the fight was lost, then they changed sides.

If I'm wrong, then please make some effort to prove it.

Well, one example is that they supported the 1934 NFA.