Second Amendment Repeal / Gun Control

[Kernen]

You need a license for it. You also need a permit to own guns.

No, you don't. Not in the US, at least.

You know, when someone recognizes your argument, you usually should try to do the same with them. That way you don't come across as a complete ass.

Why? Your argument wasn't accurate. I'll recognize it when you make a factual one that I cannot respond to without resorting to opinion.

[Prezelly]

Fixed

No, you didn't. The correct term is destroy.

Destroy and shoot are different things. Shoot means that there will be a bullet fired at it. Destroyed means to put an end to existence. Shooting does not always lead to destruction

[Sevvania]

You need a license for it. You also need a permit to own guns.

No, you don't. Not in the US, at least.

Well it depends on where you live and what type of gun, I think. But then there are things like muzzleloaders, which, I'm pretty sure are legal without permit in every state.

[Wallenburg]

You need a license for it. You also need a permit to own guns.

No, you don't. Not in the US, at least.

You know, when someone recognizes your argument, you usually should try to do the same with them. That way you don't come across as a complete ass.

Why? Your argument wasn't accurate. I'll recognize it when you make a factual one that I cannot respond to without resorting to opinion.

Why should I waste my time researching hard facts when your side's previous behavior suggests you will either demand more evidence, reject it as biased or inaccurate, or, when you notice that it actually demonstrates that my argument is strong, simply ignore it and pretend that it never happened by switching to another aspect of the debate?

Also, that guns don't need permits is an obvious lie. There is no way to defend your argument on that. http://www.bsis.ca.gov/forms_pubs/fire_fact.shtml

[Kernen]

snip

And you do need permits to practice other rights. You can't assemble in public in many places without filing for a permit, to facilitate traffic control and the like.

[Sevvania]

No, you didn't. The correct term is destroy.

Destroy and shoot are different things. Shoot means that there will be a bullet fired at it. Destroyed means to put an end to existence. Shooting does not always lead to destruction

Proper practice of firearm safety dictates tha you always assume that shooting a target will lead to destruction. You err on the side of caution, to lessen the odds of something stupid happening.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Like your opinions on the Supreme Court decision regarding the interpretation of the Second Amendment, right?

You know, when someone recognizes your argument, you usually should try to do the same with them. That way you don't come across as a complete ass.

Once again, I recognize gun ownership as necessary for some people, and as a responsible preference for others. But in my opinion, again, rights are universal. If you deny rights to someone that hasn't ceded them by committing a crime, then they are no longer universal.
Driving is considered a privilege. You need a license for it. You also need a permit to own guns. Why would you need a permit to exercise your rights?
I continue to believe that the Second Amendment does not defend gun rights for all, regardless of Republican corruption in the Supreme Court. I believe it protects the right of gun ownership given you pledge to defend your nation in the event the militia is called up. The militia is half-dead, so the Second Amendment has little power. Therefore, gun ownership is a privilege, one that you may exercise as long as you don't fuck with it or don't commit a crime that suggests you cannot handle that privilege responsibly.

I expect no less than 3 hateful, illogical responses to this post. Happy hunting!

It is not a great idea to criticize people for supposedly doing things you have been doing since the start. Look to your own walls.

By your logic, voting is not a right but a privilege, as you need to register, and can have it taken away of you commit a crime. And once again by your logic of rights only being universal, religion is now no longer a right, as religions such as Jihadist sects and those practicing human sacrifice are not free to exercise as they please.

Regardless of your opinion of it being a privilege, it is in fact a right as enshrined in the constitution.

[Kernen]

No, you don't. Not in the US, at least.


Why? Your argument wasn't accurate. I'll recognize it when you make a factual one that I cannot respond to without resorting to opinion.

Why should I waste my time researching hard facts when your side's previous behavior suggests you will either demand more evidence, reject it as biased or inaccurate, or, when you notice that it actually demonstrates that my argument is strong, simply ignore it and pretend that it never happened by switching to another aspect of the debate?

I haven't done any of that. Resorting to partisan tactics only further entrenches the perception of you as a poor debater, so you ought not do so.

[Wallenburg]

Destroy and shoot are different things. Shoot means that there will be a bullet fired at it. Destroyed means to put an end to existence. Shooting does not always lead to destruction

Proper practice of firearm safety dictates tha you always assume that shooting a target will lead to destruction. You err on the side of caution, to lessen the odds of something stupid happening.

That sounds reasonable.

[Imperializt Russia]

When has a person practising open carry actually killed someone unlawfully? I'm asking in genuine curiosity, though with some bias.

Most agencies are forbidden, by NRA-drafted laws, from collecting such data. The CDC, for example, studies motor vehicle accidents, industrial accidents, and even playground accidents as matters of public safety - but it, cannot, by law, collect any data on firearms-related incidents. Makes perfect sense...

Regardless, several nonprofits *do* collect data on firearms-related incidents by methodically going through and compiling primary sources (mainly municipal police reports and local newspapers). To answer your question directly: since 2007 there have been at least 727 nonself-defense firearms-realted deaths directly attributable ndividuals with legal permits to carry concealed weapons.

here is the report: http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm

here is an NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/11/opini ... count.html

That is exactly what I did not ask.

[Korva]

Also, that guns don't need permits is an obvious lie. There is no way to defend your argument on that. http://www.bsis.ca.gov/forms_pubs/fire_fact.shtml

lets move them goalposts

[Kernen]

No, you didn't. The correct term is destroy.

Destroy and shoot are different things. Shoot means that there will be a bullet fired at it. Destroyed means to put an end to existence. Shooting does not always lead to destruction

What the bullet strikes will be destroyed. Especially if what it hits is alive.

[Wallenburg]

Why should I waste my time researching hard facts when your side's previous behavior suggests you will either demand more evidence, reject it as biased or inaccurate, or, when you notice that it actually demonstrates that my argument is strong, simply ignore it and pretend that it never happened by switching to another aspect of the debate?

I haven't done any of that. Resorting to partisan tactics only further entrenches the perception of you as a poor debater, so you ought not do so.

You yourself have resorted to partisan tactics. You and every other gun rights advocate have adopted the platform that you have a "God-given right" to own guns, and that gun ownership protects against a tyranny.

[Prezelly]

Destroy and shoot are different things. Shoot means that there will be a bullet fired at it. Destroyed means to put an end to existence. Shooting does not always lead to destruction

Proper practice of firearm safety dictates tha you always assume that shooting a target will lead to destruction. You err on the side of caution, to lessen the odds of something stupid happening.

I'm curious at the actual shot/death by shot ratio.
What you said makes sense, but is it reasonable to assume? Shooting someone, what are the actual odds of destruction?

[Wallenburg]

Also, that guns don't need permits is an obvious lie. There is no way to defend your argument on that. http://www.bsis.ca.gov/forms_pubs/fire_fact.shtml

lets move them goalposts

Que?

[Jamzmania]

No, you don't. Not in the US, at least.


Why? Your argument wasn't accurate. I'll recognize it when you make a factual one that I cannot respond to without resorting to opinion.

Why should I waste my time researching hard facts when your side's previous behavior suggests you will either demand more evidence, reject it as biased or inaccurate, or, when you notice that it actually demonstrates that my argument is strong, simply ignore it and pretend that it never happened by switching to another aspect of the debate?

Also, that guns don't need permits is an obvious lie. There is no way to defend your argument on that. http://www.bsis.ca.gov/forms_pubs/fire_fact.shtml

That source is for open-carry regulation of security personnel on duty on the state of California. A private citizen does not need a permit to own a firearm.

[Kernen]

Also, that guns don't need permits is an obvious lie. There is no way to defend your argument on that. http://www.bsis.ca.gov/forms_pubs/fire_fact.shtml

lets move them goalposts

That permit appears to apply to security guards, so I'm not sure how it applies to normal private citizens, and it doesn't go into detail as to what weapon it permits for, so I can't respond to it without making assumptions.

[To Quoc Duc]

I think that's a good stance ^

If someone is attacking or will attack you, shoot to kill
If someone is fleeing, shoot legs
If someone is surrendered, call police

If someone wants to take the life of my gun through legislation, their life will go with my gun.

So what you're saying is that you will murder elected legislators who pass gun control laws you have a problem with. That sounds like terrorism to me.

'Shoot legs?' Seriously? Do you understand how unrealistic that is? Its also not like shooting someone in the legs won't seriously injure or very likely kill them. You hit the femoral artery and they'll bleed out in a couple minutes. No, if someones attacking you, you shoot to kill. If someones running away, you break engagement and call the police. End of story.

[Sevvania]

Why should I waste my time researching hard facts

"Why should I take part in a debate?"

Also, that guns don't need permits is an obvious lie. There is no way to defend your argument on that. http://www.bsis.ca.gov/forms_pubs/fire_fact.shtml

Where I live in the United States, none of the guns I legally own require permits.

In addition to this, muzzleloaders are guns, yet muzzleloaders are not legally considered firearms the United States under the National Firearms Act. This is why muzzle-loading hunting rifles are available in calibers over 0.50", yet they are not regulated as destructive devices. This is why you don't need a permit to own a muzzleloader.

You and every other gun rights advocate have adopted the platform that you have a "God-given right" to own guns, and that gun ownership protects against a tyranny.

This is obectively false. I have advocated for gun rights, and have not once mentioned God or prevention of tyranny in any of the reasons I've given on this thread.

[Jamzmania]

Destroy and shoot are different things. Shoot means that there will be a bullet fired at it. Destroyed means to put an end to existence. Shooting does not always lead to destruction

What the bullet strikes will be destroyed. Especially if what it hits is alive.

A better word might be "kill."

[Korva]

lets move them goalposts

Que?

You need a license for it. You also need a permit to own guns.

Somehow needing a permit to own guns became needing a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

[Wallenburg]

Why should I waste my time researching hard facts when your side's previous behavior suggests you will either demand more evidence, reject it as biased or inaccurate, or, when you notice that it actually demonstrates that my argument is strong, simply ignore it and pretend that it never happened by switching to another aspect of the debate?

Also, that guns don't need permits is an obvious lie. There is no way to defend your argument on that. http://www.bsis.ca.gov/forms_pubs/fire_fact.shtml

That source is for open-carry regulation of security personnel on duty on the state of California. A private citizen does not need a permit to own a firearm.

You are right. I should have just gone with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_license. That is pretty self-explanatory.

[Kernen]

I haven't done any of that. Resorting to partisan tactics only further entrenches the perception of you as a poor debater, so you ought not do so.

You yourself have resorted to partisan tactics. You and every other gun rights advocate have adopted the platform that you have a "God-given right" to own guns, and that gun ownership protects against a tyranny.

Please provide proof in this debate that I accepted that position? I've always maintained that firearms ownership is a state-given right, and while I believe it can help prevent tyranny,
I've never endorsed it as the silver bullet for authoritarianism.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

I haven't done any of that. Resorting to partisan tactics only further entrenches the perception of you as a poor debater, so you ought not do so.

You yourself have resorted to partisan tactics. You and every other gun rights advocate have adopted the platform that you have a "God-given right" to own guns, and that gun ownership protects against a tyranny.

....no, not in the slightest. In fact, about two people have said such things, and that was many pages back, to which I, and several other pro gun advocates voiced are disagreement with the "God given" bit. Seriously, enough fabrication already. It gets old quick. Instead of making up what your opponent's position is, it is best to actually acknwlege what they are truly saying.

[Wallenburg]

You know, when someone recognizes your argument, you usually should try to do the same with them. That way you don't come across as a complete ass.

Once again, I recognize gun ownership as necessary for some people, and as a responsible preference for others. But in my opinion, again, rights are universal. If you deny rights to someone that hasn't ceded them by committing a crime, then they are no longer universal.
Driving is considered a privilege. You need a license for it. You also need a permit to own guns. Why would you need a permit to exercise your rights?
I continue to believe that the Second Amendment does not defend gun rights for all, regardless of Republican corruption in the Supreme Court. I believe it protects the right of gun ownership given you pledge to defend your nation in the event the militia is called up. The militia is half-dead, so the Second Amendment has little power. Therefore, gun ownership is a privilege, one that you may exercise as long as you don't fuck with it or don't commit a crime that suggests you cannot handle that privilege responsibly.

I expect no less than 3 hateful, illogical responses to this post. Happy hunting!

It is not a great idea to criticize people for supposedly doing things you have been doing since the start. Look to your own walls.

By your logic, voting is not a right but a privilege, as you need to register, and can have it taken away of you commit a crime. And once again by your logic of rights only being universal, religion is now no longer a right, as religions such as Jihadist sects and those practicing human sacrifice are not free to exercise as they please.

Regardless of your opinion of it being a privilege, it is in fact a right as enshrined in the constitution.

You have proven my logic wrong and I will reconsider my position on privilege vs. rights. However, I wish you would stop using "enshrined" in such a holier-than-thou attitude. The Constitution is not an idol to worship. It is a legal contract.