Why We Should Never Compromise On Gun Rights

[TreeFrogTrader]

So let me get this straight, the government is being run like a shithole by republicans and you think the answer is more republicans?

You are doing analysis in Tard-style assuming that how people feel is the way to approach it.

Dem senators in red states up for re-election have to navigate some dicey turf in november. The guns rights issue is dicey. Advocating an illegal-friendly census is another minefield. This is true regardless of how you or I feel. But of course, as a lib, its all about how you feel.

 

[UsualName]

You are doing analysis in Tard-style assuming that how people feel is the way to approach it.

Dem senators in red states up for re-election have to navigate some dicey turf in november. The guns rights issue is dicey. Advocating an illegal-friendly census is another minefield. This is true regardless of how you or I feel. But of course, as a lib, its all about how you feel.

Where did you construe my feelings in the question I posed?

This government is being run like shit. I’m sorry if you think that is a feeling but it’s not. These republicans are steering this country into disaster.

Maybe gun rights and the census will help republicans in the midterms but that would not be good for the country. We are in a bad place since Trump took over and it’s getting worse.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Where did you construe my feelings in the question I posed?

No the question was about where you construed my belief or feeling when you said:

"you think the answer is more republicans?" in response to my post.

My point was that those issues about gun control and immigration/census/illegals rights etc will reappear bigly as election time approaches so libtards need to be careful about bantering about repealing the 2nd etc. even if they believe it will not happen. It has nothing to do with "my answer is more republicans" or beliefs or feelings. The point I made would be true if I were supporting Bernie.

 

[Poindexter]

Constitution-hating shitlibs don't want to take anyone's guns. They only want "common sense" reform like repealing the Second Amendment:

 

[piezoe]

Most gun owners do not own guns because they are worried about the government coming for them. They realize that if the government wants to come for them, the government has bigger guns and more people. Only a fringe of the 2A folks believe that. Now, in aggregate, millions of gun owners prevents the government from doing something that might cause an uprising of some sort - that much is true. And please stop pretending you speak for the "majority". That's a non-starter to any conversation.



What Kid? All I've said is that restricting firearms for purchase has been challenged in court before and the restriction has been overruled, citing constitutional rights. You can see that in Washington DC, or Chicago for example.



Again, you're trying to speak for the majority, which is horseshit. You surround yourself with those who have your views, never venturing out into the discussion of the opposing viewpoint and somehow believe this represents "the majority".

When you say "a fraction of the population owns the majority of the guns", this is a disingenuous statement, and completely irrelevant to the conversation. What matters is the percentage of Americans that own 1 or more firearm, because that is who a ban would affect. And that percentage is 42%.



When it doesn't happen, will you finally shut up about it?



The Kids from Parkman are going after what your left groups like Soros funded action committees tell them to. They're pawns in a game where one side has money from the gun lobby and the other from your progressives - and any attempt to paint this in any other way is pure bullshit - no one but very gullible folks believe that. And the laws will fail because there won't be the political will to enforce them when it gets down to it. Promises will be made, and broken as they always are - because the system is broken.

I am only interested in arguing facts not opinion. Although we are both free to state our opinions. It's a fact that my opinion is in line with the majority opinion, whereas yours is not. Check the opinion polls please with regard to gun controls.

Also its a fact the Parkman kids began expressing their own opinions right after the massacre at Parkman, before they were organized and marching, and before any outside money such as Soros's would have had any influence. Their opinions re gun control have not changed. They want action on gun control and they want it NOW! And they are going to get it. (I hope Soros is giving them financial support. I don't know that he is, and neither do you, but it's the kind of thing he might support. )

The distribution of guns is important as well as the number. The probability of a particular gun being used to kill another person goes down as the average number of guns per owner rises. This issue is about probability, but the NRA has tried to frame it as being about the Second Amendment.

The NRA has been spectacularly successful in stopping gun control at the legislative level. But it has not been via logical argument. On rare occasions when some legislation does get signed into law, the NRA is right there to challenge it. Filing a pleading is not, however, the same as getting a judgement in their favor. You're assuming the NRA filings are a fait accompli; they aren't.

Not all gun owners are as sane as you. And there are also a surprisingly large number that are more reasonable than you! So there are gun owners on both sides of you. There are those hoarding ammo, stockpiling guns and barricading the door, and there are those who recognize you don't need a large magazined, bump-stocked, assault style semi-automatic and teflon jacketed ammo to hunt deer or rabbits. (They are the better sportsmen, and I will stand with them in support of their right to own and bear sporting firearms.)

 

[Tsing Tao]

I am only interested in arguing facts not opinion. Although we are both free to state our opinions. It's a fact that my opinion is in line with the majority opinion, whereas yours is not. Check the opinion polls please with regard to gun controls.

Ah, I see. Please provide the link to the poll you are referring to that supports an opinion of yours that also does not support an opinion of mine. I assume you have these links since you are stating them to be fact, and I assume also that they are scientific polls.

Also its a fact the Parkman kids began expressing their own opinions right after the massacre at Parkman, before they were organized and marching, and before any outside money such as Soros's would have had any influence. Their opinions re gun control have not changed. They want action on gun control and they want it NOW! And they are going to get it. (I hope Soros is giving them financial support. I don't know that he is, and neither do you, but it's the kind of thing he might support. )

Stating one's opinion and then being able to organize a march in DC are two, different sets of issues.

The distribution of guns is important as well as the number. The probability of a particular gun being used to kill another person goes down as the average number of guns per owner rises. This issue is about probability, but the NRA has tried to frame it as being about the Second Amendment.

Uh, what? We were talking about who a ban would affect. You said that most of the guns are owned by a fraction of the populace as an indication it would not affect many people. I pointed out that 42% of Americans own guns and it would affect far more than a "fraction" of the populace. The rest of your probability discussion is hilariously irrelevant. So you're saying if someone owns more guns they are less likely to kill another person with a particular gun? I'm trying to determine what this has to do with...well, anything we've been talking about or whether you've just lost your mind entirely.

The NRA has been spectacularly successful in stopping gun control at the legislative level. But it has not been via logical argument. On rare occasions when some legislation does get signed into law, the NRA is right there to challenge it. Filing a pleading is not, however, the same as getting a judgement in their favor. You're assuming the NRA filings are a fait accompli; they aren't.

Logic never seems to get in the way of your arguments, so why should the NRA worry about it?

Not all gun owners are as sane as you. And there are also a surprisingly large number that are more reasonable than you! So there are gun owners on both sides of you. There are those hoarding ammo, stockpiling guns and barricading the door, and there are those who recognize you don't need a large magazined, bump-stocked, assault style semi-automatic and teflon jacketed ammo to hunt deer or rabbits. (They are the better sportsmen, and I will stand with them in support of their right to own and bear sporting firearms.)

Who hunts rabbits or deer with teflon jacketed ammo or bump stocks? I think, as usual, you're getting your news from the lunatic left wing media. You've already proven yourself to poorly understand firearms multiple times.

Do crazy folks exist? Hell yes they do. That's why law enforcement exists - they need to do their job. None of your laws would have prevented Cruz from shooting up the school. Law enforcement, on the other hand, would have prevented it entirely.

 

[maximumpossiblesuffering]

No the question was about where you construed my belief or feeling when you said:

"you think the answer is more republicans?" in response to my post.

My point was that those issues about gun control and immigration/census/illegals rights etc will reappear bigly as election time approaches so libtards need to be careful about bantering about repealing the 2nd etc. even if they believe it will not happen. It has nothing to do with "my answer is more republicans" or beliefs or feelings. The point I made would be true if I were supporting Bernie.

How about less Republicans and less Democrats with more Americans taking their place?

 

[maximumpossiblesuffering]

I am only interested in arguing facts not opinion. Although we are both free to state our opinions. It's a fact that my opinion is in line with the majority opinion, whereas yours is not. Check the opinion polls please with regard to gun controls.

Also its a fact the Parkman kids began expressing their own opinions right after the massacre at Parkman, before they were organized and marching, and before any outside money such as Soros's would have had any influence. Their opinions re gun control have not changed. They want action on gun control and they want it NOW! And they are going to get it. (I hope Soros is giving them financial support. I don't know that he is, and neither do you, but it's the kind of thing he might support. )

The distribution of guns is important as well as the number. The probability of a particular gun being used to kill another person goes down as the average number of guns per owner rises. This issue is about probability, but the NRA has tried to frame it as being about the Second Amendment.

The NRA has been spectacularly successful in stopping gun control at the legislative level. But it has not been via logical argument. On rare occasions when some legislation does get signed into law, the NRA is right there to challenge it. Filing a pleading is not, however, the same as getting a judgement in their favor. You're assuming the NRA filings are a fait accompli; they aren't.

Not all gun owners are as sane as you. And there are also a surprisingly large number that are more reasonable than you! So there are gun owners on both sides of you. There are those hoarding ammo, stockpiling guns and barricading the door, and there are those who recognize you don't need a large magazined, bump-stocked, assault style semi-automatic and teflon jacketed ammo to hunt deer or rabbits. (They are the better sportsmen, and I will stand with them in support of their right to own and bear sporting firearms.)

Tony has or will give us some opninion polls on the majority position on gun controls. The majority of working Americans want their tax money spent well. Would you being willing to trade some Government spending on some social programs for more gun regulation?

 

[piezoe]

Tony has or will give us some opninion polls on the majority position on gun controls. The majority of working Americans want their tax money spent well. Would you being willing to trade some Government spending on some social programs for more gun regulation?

No I wouldn't. I would oppose that because it would be bad policy. Most likely funding to manage and enforce gun control will come from a combination of DOC and DOJ budgets, which is where it would seem to fit. That's where BATFE is now (DOJ). This will likely be supplemented by fees attached to gun purchases and perhaps licensing. This is a topic to be handled via legislative action.

 

[maximumpossiblesuffering]

No I wouldn't. I would oppose that because it would be bad policy. Most likely funding to manage and enforce gun control will come from a combination of DOC and DOJ budgets, which is where it would seem to fit. That's where BATFE is now (DOJ). This will likely be supplemented by fees attached to gun purchases and perhaps licensing. This is a topic to be handled by via legislative action.

Not talking about funding for gun control. Talking about a trade off. A change in the status quo regarding gun rights for a permanent reduction on spending on social programs. After all, in both cases, it is what the majority of people want, right?

One of your arguments was that the Government should give what the majortiy of people what they want and that should be applied to gun control, right?

Since you are apparently about the Government “giving” the people what they want, you should have no problem with the majority of taxpayers desiring to see less money wasted on social programs, correct?

I am not even addressing if indeed the majority of people want anything more than basic changes to gun laws, even though the media has been going nonstop on the issue.