Gun Control III - the Gunnening

[The Black Forrest]

*shrugs* sure there are some who argue for the elimination of all guns. To suggest all are working for that?

Safest assumption is that they are all working for that.

You have heard the problem of assume?

[Chernoslavia]

And you seriously think that 96 percent of the American population support the Manchin-Toomey UBC proposal?

96% of Americans support UBCs far more strict than those proposed by Manchin-Toomey.

No they don’t.

[The South Falls]

Ok, danger to self or others. How about we add people who have urges to commit violence sometimes and violent intrusive thoughts?

Sounds good to me, and is one of the reasons why I support something like a federal gun restraining order. It gives police more granular control and some better tools to use when they gain evidence that a person poses a danger, in whatever form. It is something, as long as the due process side is covered well, that you could probably get the pro gun crowd to jump on. Especially if you threw them a bone in the form of reducing the regulation on silencers, or something like that. Biggest problem is, no one really proposes stuff like this at the federal level.

My opinion on the NRA is that it's a club, that people can join if they want to, but the fact that it lobbies, politically, make it a hindrance to progress. While it's not illegal, and they can lobby if they want, I believe that 'clubs' like that should be barred from lobbying, but many would say otherwise.

TEAR APART AS NEEDED

The NRA is a lobbying organization. Lobbying organizations exist because they allow individuals who share common goals to pool their resources to better achieve their goals. The problem is that some granularity of goal is lost as this happens, and when you come to an issue as divisive as gun control that can be a big problem.

If some of the rocks are chipped away as the donations come in, then pretty soon, there will be no rocks to chip. Gun control is like a diamond pick in Minecraft when it comes to divisiveness.

96% of Americans support UBCs far more strict than those proposed by Manchin-Toomey.

I highly doubt that 96% of Americans would agree to something like that.

I doubt 96% of Americans would agree to anything.

[Washington Resistance Army]

It's me drawing a line and not accepting any further regulations lightly because I know for a fact the Democrats are going to attack any previous compromises we make so any potential deals to be a bit more than some stuff that doesn't impact the vast majority of people. I gain nothing from Manchin-Toomey and thus have no real reason to support it.

There's also that thing about background checks not being free and something that you have to travel sometimes quite far to do.

And as I said to Telconi, at some point there with be a Democrat controlled government who will simply impose UBCs on you without even the compromises you deemed insufficient.

With Manchin-Toomey it was at least restricted to selling to people you don't know.

Sure, and I'll just ignore that law like I do with our current state level UBC's. The problem with those kinda things is that they're totally unenforceable without registering every single gun in the country.

[Ors Might]

And as I said to Telconi, at some point there with be a Democrat controlled government who will simply impose UBCs on you without even the compromises you deemed insufficient.

With Manchin-Toomey it was at least restricted to selling to people you don't know.

Sure, and I'll just ignore that law like I do with our current state level UBC's. The problem with those kinda things is that they're totally unenforceable without registering every single gun in the country.

So then we go from UBCs to Universal Gun Registration.

[Telconi]

Safest assumption is that they are all working for that.

You have heard the problem of assume?

No, trusting verifiably bad people is a problem, assuming that the verifiable bad person is totally untrustworthy is called a reasonable precaution.

[The Lone Alliance]

I've come to see that a lot of modern liberals just believe "I think everyone should have the freedom to act and think how I want them to act and think, aren't I so freedom loving!"

I think you're thinking of conservatives.

A lot of Conservatives are more "You should think and act as you see fit... unless it affects me or my life in any shape or fashion" at which point they're against it.
The problem is that could be is the definition of what actually affects them can be very hard to tell depending on them.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Or it's going to look like the Onion's 2137 news broadcast.

Pop vote for Trump: 62,984,825

Pop vote for Hillary:65,853,516


Us Pop: 325.7 million

Half of that:

one hundred sixty-two million eight hundred fifty thousand.

I don’t see what that has to do with my argument. Do you seriously think that 96 percent of the American population support the Manchin-Toomey UBC proposal?

Well, I know for a fact that half of america did not vote for Trump. You said that half the country voting for Trump means that most of Americans don't support it.

However, Trump did not get half of the votes of the US citizens meaning that your Trump comment was... a non sequitur.

You brought up Trump, not me.

[Telconi]

Sure, and I'll just ignore that law like I do with our current state level UBC's. The problem with those kinda things is that they're totally unenforceable without registering every single gun in the country.

So then we go from UBCs to Universal Gun Registration.

Which we don't comply with either. Until they're willing to start kicking doors wholesale it isn't really a problem, and once they are, it's a whole different kind of problem.

[Albrenia]

I think you're thinking of conservatives.

Conservatives are the same except they don't brag about how freedom loving they are.

We must know different conservatives. Some even declare war on countries to prove how much they love freedom.

[Fartsniffage]

96% of Americans support UBCs far more strict than those proposed by Manchin-Toomey.

I highly doubt that 96% of Americans would agree to something like that.

Please say whether you favor or oppose each of the following. [RANDOM ORDER]. - Use this as your search on the page because it's big.

http://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

[Ors Might]

So then we go from UBCs to Universal Gun Registration.

Which we don't comply with either. Until they're willing to start kicking doors wholesale it isn't really a problem, and once they are, it's a whole different kind of problem.

“But all we want is common sense gun laws!!!”

[The South Falls]

Conservatives are the same except they don't brag about how freedom loving they are.

We must know different conservatives. Some even declare war on countries to prove how much they love freedom.

Some try to control drugs to prove that they love freedom, to... life... I guess?

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

I doubt 96% of Americans would agree to anything.

100% of Americans agree that water is needed to continue living.

[Hammer Britannia]

I doubt 96% of Americans would agree to anything.

100% of Americans agree that water is needed to continue living.

Nope

There are stupids who believe they don't need food or water.

Mostly in America and Tibet

[Ors Might]

I doubt 96% of Americans would agree to anything.

100% of Americans agree that water is needed to continue living.

Cue Water Truthers

[The South Falls]

I doubt 96% of Americans would agree to anything.

100% of Americans agree that water is needed to continue living.

No, not true. We have the ones who diet, and follow breatharianism. So, no. Not true. Not even breathing is fully agreed as required. So guns, no. That's never *scoffs* going to happen.

[Northeast American Federation]

100% of Americans agree that water is needed to continue living.

Cue Water Truthers

Dihydrogen monoxide is a dangerous chemical that kills more people per year than any mass shooting. This horribly dangerous compound needs to be banned and restricted immediately.

[Fartsniffage]

And as I said to Telconi, at some point there with be a Democrat controlled government who will simply impose UBCs on you without even the compromises you deemed insufficient.

With Manchin-Toomey it was at least restricted to selling to people you don't know.

Sure, and I'll just ignore that law like I do with our current state level UBC's. The problem with those kinda things is that they're totally unenforceable without registering every single gun in the country.

Law-abiding gun owners could just choose to obey the law. But now I'm just being silly.....

[The Lone Alliance]

Conservatives are the same except they don't brag about how freedom loving they are.

We must know different conservatives. Some even declare war on countries to prove how much they love freedom.

Actually I edited my post to be a little more correct now that I thought about it.

[Chernoslavia]

I don’t see what that has to do with my argument. Do you seriously think that 96 percent of the American population support the Manchin-Toomey UBC proposal?

Well, I know for a fact that half of america did not vote for Trump. You said that half the country voting for Trump means that most of Americans don't support it.

However, Trump did not get half of the votes of the US citizens meaning that your Trump comment was... a non sequitur.

You brought up Trump, not me.

Fine then let me reiterate - Almost half the people who voted, voted for trump. 60 million. Fart says 96 percent of people support Universal Background checks. Which is bullshit.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Sure, and I'll just ignore that law like I do with our current state level UBC's. The problem with those kinda things is that they're totally unenforceable without registering every single gun in the country.

Law-abiding gun owners could just choose to obey the law. But now I'm just being silly.....

For about the entire time I've been on this site I've urged peaceful non-compliance on a huge variety of issues. This isn't anything new.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Ok, danger to self or others. How about we add people who have urges to commit violence sometimes and violent intrusive thoughts?

Sounds good to me, and is one of the reasons why I support something like a federal gun restraining order. It gives police more granular control and some better tools to use when they gain evidence that a person poses a danger, in whatever form. It is something, as long as the due process side is covered well, that you could probably get the pro gun crowd to jump on. Especially if you threw them a bone in the form of reducing the regulation on silencers, or something like that. Biggest problem is, no one really proposes stuff like this at the federal level.

That sounds good to me. I wish more of my debates on NSG could go like this.

I wish someone would do something like this.

[Ors Might]

Sure, and I'll just ignore that law like I do with our current state level UBC's. The problem with those kinda things is that they're totally unenforceable without registering every single gun in the country.

Law-abiding gun owners could just choose to obey the law. But now I'm just being silly.....

Law abiding Muslims could just choose to comply with God-King Trump’s Mandatory Quaran burnings. But now I’m just being silly.....

[Northeast American Federation]

Sure, and I'll just ignore that law like I do with our current state level UBC's. The problem with those kinda things is that they're totally unenforceable without registering every single gun in the country.

Law-abiding gun owners could just choose to obey the law. But now I'm just being silly.....

The day one ceases to determine at what point the laws in existence are unacceptable and simply blindly obeys all of them is the day one ceases to be a citizen and begins to be a serf. That does seem to be the goal, though.