Have all the anti-gun-rights twits finished starting new threads?

Quote from RedDuke:

Very good post. I also researched one of the "facts" that Lucrum posted that only 0.7 % of guns purchased at gun shows end up in crimes. It turned out to be far from fact.
More...
All ONE of them eh.

I've posted dozens.

22,000 laws number is being thrown too often, but instead if saying that may be we need to toss some of them out and improve others, the usual answer is, nothing should be done, the current system works great.
More...
The current system IS the 22,000 regulation we already have and no it's not working. It's not working because limits, laws, restrictions and regulations have not do not and never will prevent someone bent on murder from committing murder. Which has already been illegal for a very long time BTW.


So...which of the 22,000 existing firearms regulations would you like to throw out?
 
Quote from IShopAtPublix:

Lucrum and his ilk don't present any facts, they present some very selective and very massaged statistics. Let's look at popular delusions:

Delusion 1: "Points to purported decrease in gun crime and attaches it to shall issue laws". This delusion conveniently ignores improved policing as a factor at all and assumes if crime went down it must be due to availability of conceal carry. One must point to NYC vs Chicago and see how aggressive policing and tough gun laws make a difference. NYC had 400 homicides Chicago 500 and NYC is 3 times bigger.

Delusion 2: "Gun crime in UK and Australia went up/doubled since gun bans, it must be that bans are ineffective". No it must be that police have to be more aggressive dealing with gang infestations. London had riots recently which is indicative of collapse of law and order (even though temporary and in limited areas). Lucrum finds it scandalous that in UK in SOME areas cops started carrying guns. It is not because of the gun ban, it is because this is not 1960s anymore and UK/Australia is being swamped by third worlders and needs to get with the times. UK and other gun control countries don't have mass shootings NEARLY as often as USA and that is precisely because not every kid/nut can easily obtain a gun (columbine style). Even with less aggressive policing gun crime is far less frequent in UK/Australia than here. If London was policed NYPD style, gun crime would essentially not exist.

Delusion 3: "States with strict gun control have more crime than states with less". That part is frequently not true but even in places where it is true it underlies a faulty comparison. You can't in your sane mind compare a state like NY to a state like Alabama. If you compare urban areas to urban areas, you will see a lot of interesting things.

Delusion 4:"Criminals will always have access to guns" Yes, just like they always have access to C4, semtex, tovex, TNT and Dynamite. This principle is laughable on its face.

Delusion 5: "We have over 300 million guns in the country, they are not going anywhere". You can have a mandatory handgun buyback that solves the existing guns in circulation problem.

Delusion 6: "Law abiding citizens are not the problem, nuts, criminals, BLACKS are the problem. It takes exactly one second to go from law abiding to felon. "Law abiding citizens" are quite content to be straw purchasers for monetary gain. The problem is that easy access to guns GUARANTEES that all but most lazy/incompetent criminals will have them. It simply changes the baseline.

Delusion 7: "Points to Switzerland and how high ownership of guns did not cause any problem of significance there" In Switzerland gun ownership was tied to the very need to defend the country (as was in USA except for crazy interpretation of the 2nd amendment Scalia style). Switzerland never had a bloody civil war(it had a "civil war" where 100 people died), never had slavery, never was hellbent on conquest of its neighbors. Switzerland as a country was able to make 3 distinct language groups (Italian, German, French) and several religions coexist without violence. Switzerland, at its core, is simply a (substantially) less violent society and comparisons to USA are not appropriate.

Delusion 8: "Points to 2nd amendment" 2nd amendment and its obvious mention of militias and security of the country were obviously references to the need to protect the country from foreign invasion. Even discounting that, founding fathers lived in an era of muskets not semi and automatic weapons.

Delusion 9: "If everyone is armed criminals would be afraid to mess with you" Worked real well in Wild West and 1920s... Even if you are armed, your chances against 5 gang members armed to the teeth are slim.

In Summary: The issue of gun control in USA is a very simple one. In gun control and many other issues, there is a fundamental disconnect between people living in cities and people living in rural areas or well off suburbs where nothing ever happens. People living in comfortable suburbs simply don't give a shit that some poor minority kid gets shot on the streets of Chicago, just as they don't care about the quality of the school that kid goes to. It won't affect John Boehner if Chicago and other urban areas drown in crime but it would affect John Boehner if some nut picked up hundreds of pounds of highly sophisticated explosives.
More...

Delusional self serving unsubstantiated nonsense.
 
This from the poster boy of no facts and delusion. :p

Under what authority would your "mandatory handgun buyback" be conducted? Reality check: the Constitution trumps EVERYTHING and you can't simply wish it into the cornfield because you don't like it. :D http://youtu.be/_C34g5mz1ZQ?t=23s And even if you could, only a total loon would "think" criminals would comply.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., PETITIONERS v. DICK ANTHONY HELLER
In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

As for your militia nonsense, here's another part of that ruling you can't simply wish into the cornfield:
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., PETITIONERS v. DICK ANTHONY HELLER
Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people”.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

Spare us your "musket" illogic. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution himself, intended for the Second Amendment to keep a national military force in check, if need be. Your ignorance and denial can't negate the fact that what Madison wrote here is as valid today as it was when written. Which means, dipshit, that it makes the case for the peoples' right to keep and bear MODERN arms.

Federalist No. 46
Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._46

Quote from IShopAtPublix:

Lucrum and his ilk don't present any facts, they present some very selective and very massaged statistics. Let's look at popular delusions:

Delusion 5: "We have over 300 million guns in the country, they are not going anywhere". You can have a mandatory handgun buyback that solves the existing guns in circulation problem.

Delusion 8: "Points to 2nd amendment" 2nd amendment and its obvious mention of militias and security of the country were obviously references to the need to protect the country from foreign invasion. Even discounting that, founding fathers lived in an era of muskets not semi and automatic weapons.
More...
 
ROFL! This one's priceless! With so many "gang members armed to the teeth" your solution is to disarm law abiding citizens by wishing the Second Amendment into the cornfield so it's even easier for predators to prey on victims? Or do you think gang members will turn in their weapons too during your mandatory buyback? :D :D :D
Quote from IShopAtPublix:

Delusion 9: "If everyone is armed criminals would be afraid to mess with you" Worked real well in Wild West and 1920s... Even if you are armed, your chances against 5 gang members armed to the teeth are slim.
More...
 
Calling Red Duke, IshopatKroger and futurecurrrents (who has me on ignore)

You three guys should be the ones masterdebating each other.

Red Duke wants to ban all long guns except side by sides, which includes futurecurrents lever action 30-30.

futurecurrents wants to ban anything with more than a five round capacity and all handguns, which includes Red Duke's 9mm

(if I'm not mistaken)The grocery store guy wants to ban all firearms including Red Duke and futturecurrent's firearms.

So instead of bloviating with me and the others, who are not advocating taking away ANY law abiding citizen's rights.

You should be disusing amongst yourselves as to which of your proposed infringements on the 2nd amendment you unanimously agree to implement.

You guys are your own worst enemies, and you don't even realize it.
 
Quote from Trader666:

This from the poster boy of no facts and delusion. :p

Under what authority would your "mandatory handgun buyback" be conducted? Reality check: the Constitution trumps EVERYTHING and you can't simply wish it into the cornfield because you don't like it. :D http://youtu.be/_C34g5mz1ZQ?t=23s And even if you could, only a total loon would "think" criminals would comply.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., PETITIONERS v. DICK ANTHONY HELLER
In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

As for your militia nonsense, here's another part of that ruling you can't simply wish into the cornfield:
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., PETITIONERS v. DICK ANTHONY HELLER
Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people”.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

Spare us your "musket" illogic. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution himself, intended for the Second Amendment to keep a national military force in check, if need be. Your ignorance and denial can't negate the fact that what Madison wrote here is as valid today as it was when written. Which means, dipshit, that it makes the case for the peoples' right to keep and bear MODERN arms.

Federalist No. 46
Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._46
More...

Federalist papers were a propaganda tool advocating for the ratification of Constitution after it was written and adopted. One of the issues of the day was the fear that Federal government will overpower the states, (laughable I know). Madison here is trying to assuage those fears.

He talked about a large standing federal army to ridicule the fears of people who thought federal governments could overpower the states not as a concept in and of itself. Militia in the 2nd amendment talks about protection of the country (from outside forces) not protection from federal government.

Section I article 8 also talks about calling up a militia. There is absolutely no reason to talk about a militia when you want people to have an individual right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top