Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Gun Control - moved from E-cig thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    I think I've said what I think on this and have given ample opportunity to hear other views and offer my comments on them. Thanks all for the conversation, but there is little more to be gained by continued discussion at this time.

    Jim
    I agree. Thanks for the debate.

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    "Guns are dangerous weapons" -- that's kind of the point Jim. They are supposed to be dangerous weapons. That is why people have them for self-defense. If I am defending my life or my family I want as dangerous of a weapon as I can get my hands on. I want it to be as unfair to the guys attacking us as possible. I want a fast shooting, high capacity weapon that can kill them before they can kill me or my family or friends. And I have the RIGHT to have those weapons and to defend myself. And that right is not given to me by the constitution. It is an inalienable right. The 2nd amendment doesn't give us the right to own and bear arms. It just says the government can't infringe on my right to do so.

    And taking them out of my hands isn't going to take them out of the criminal's hands. They will still find a way to get them.
    I think I've said what I think on this and have given ample opportunity to hear other views and offer my comments on them. Thanks all for the conversation, but there is little more to be gained by continued discussion at this time.

    Jim

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    I don't believe you are taking into account all of what I said, but since you don't reference the post you are referring to, I have no objective means of evaluating that. I can tell you that your characterization of gun control as 'punishment' is wrong. A gun is a dangerous weapon, and high capacity semi-automatics a seriously dangerous weapon, and so there is a responsibility to the public to do what can be done to keep such weapons out of the hands of those that would use them to kill innocent people. Gun control laws are part of that process. Having them, complying with them, is just the civic duty of the gun owner.

    Jim
    "Guns are dangerous weapons" -- that's kind of the point Jim. They are supposed to be dangerous weapons. That is why people have them for self-defense. If I am defending my life or my family I want as dangerous of a weapon as I can get my hands on. I want it to be as unfair to the guys attacking us as possible. I want a fast shooting, high capacity weapon that can kill them before they can kill me or my family or friends. And I have the RIGHT to have those weapons and to defend myself. And that right is not given to me by the constitution. It is an inalienable right. The 2nd amendment doesn't give us the right to own and bear arms. It just says the government can't infringe on my right to do so.

    And taking them out of my hands isn't going to take them out of the criminal's hands. They will still find a way to get them.

    Leave a comment:


  • lilpixieofterror
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    We have no problem enforcing the licensing and taxing of automobiles. They are in public view of course, which does make it easier. The hardest to enforce would be private sales by individuals. But I don't see it being that hard. If guns are licensed, then there is a record of ownership. If that gun ends up in the hands of another person committing a crime, you'd better have a document showing you had a background check done, or you'd better have reported it stolen. And when you report a gun stolen, you'd better be able to show you took reasonable precautions against it being stolen.
    Your claim runs into the problem that car licensing and tags are only required if you plan on driving on a public road. It is legal to drive around an unregistered car, without a license, on your own property. Most people donít own that kind of land and own a motor vehicle for the purpose of driving on public roads, so most tend to be registered and licensed. Most gun owners own them for defense and donít normally take them out, so your comparison fails right there. Second, arresting people for having their guns stolen will only lead to people simply not reporting them stolen. Third, your plan is against the 4th amendment. It is the governmentís job to prove you did something wrong, not yours to disprove. Again, your plan had all sorts of issues that you choose to ignore because you donít like the cold splash of reality. Thereís an estimated 300 million to 500 million guns, in private hands. Most mandatory gun buy backs have failed to collect or register even 10%. What is your plan for the other 90%+ that wonít comply?

    We don't have to take away guns. We just have to have and enforce reasonable laws governing their ownership. When they are used in a crime, any person that bent the rules, cut corners, refused to comply with those laws, needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in a way that allows them to be held accountable for the deaths that occurred.
    Thatís a great plan, letís make criminals out of millions, what could possibility go wrong? We already have a drug war flushing billions down the drain, whatís a few billion more?


    I just can't imagine anyone responsible enough to own a gun that would risk his life and career and family by trying to bend such laws. Just the act of eschewing them would indicate the person probably should not be allowed to own guns in the first place. Our rights can be forfeited if we commit a crime. Just make irresponsible gun ownership a crime and there should be no 2nd amendment conflict.
    You canít imagine it because you stick your fingers in your ears, cover your eyes, and hide from the facts that you donít like and puff, your plan is great. Your buy back ideas donít work, ask New Zealand, your mandatory registration wonít work, ask New Zealand again. Your plan for arresting people for reporting their property stolen will lead to people simply not reporting it stolen. Youíll make criminals out of millions and clog up the legal system in prosecuting these crimes and make it even easier for mass shooters to carry out their plans. Great plan.
    Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 09-22-2019, 09:35 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
    Itís still illegal to sell to known felons and how do you plan on enforcing this law Jim?



    I understand that you want to pass unenforceable laws that run foul of the constitution.
    We have no problem enforcing the licensing and taxing of automobiles. They are in public view of course, which does make it easier. The hardest to enforce would be private sales by individuals. But I don't see it being that hard. If guns are licensed, then there is a record of ownership. If that gun ends up in the hands of another person committing a crime, you'd better have a document showing you had a background check done, or you'd better have reported it stolen. And when you report a gun stolen, you'd better be able to show you took reasonable precautions against it being stolen.

    We don't have to take away guns. We just have to have and enforce reasonable laws governing their ownership. When they are used in a crime, any person that bent the rules, cut corners, refused to comply with those laws, needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in a way that allows them to be held accountable for the deaths that occurred.

    I just can't imagine anyone responsible enough to own a gun that would risk his life and career and family by trying to bend such laws. Just the act of eschewing them would indicate the person probably should not be allowed to own guns in the first place. Our rights can be forfeited if we commit a crime. Just make irresponsible gun ownership a crime and there should be no 2nd amendment conflict.

    Jim
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 09-21-2019, 10:28 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • lilpixieofterror
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    What I've said, in a nutshell, is - enforce what we have AND close the loopholes (e.g. require background checks for private sales).
    Itís still illegal to sell to known felons and how do you plan on enforcing this law Jim?

    It is important to recognize that when a person proposes an idea that includes more than one element, or more than one choice, that in order to process that idea, or respond intelligently to it, one must take into account the entirety of what was said.
    I understand that you want to pass unenforceable laws that run foul of the constitution.

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    so your answer to me was not in fact correctl. Your answer to my post was that we need background checks and such. Yet that isn't really what you want is it? Because we already have that. You want to ban AR15s or make them so hard to qualify to own that the average citizen can't get one. Which means my initial post was correct. You want to punish the law-abiding owners to try to stop a handful of criminals.
    I don't believe you are taking into account all of what I said, but since you don't reference the post you are referring to, I have no objective means of evaluating that. I can tell you that your characterization of gun control as 'punishment' is wrong. A gun is a dangerous weapon, and high capacity semi-automatics a seriously dangerous weapon, and so there is a responsibility to the public to do what can be done to keep such weapons out of the hands of those that would use them to kill innocent people. Gun control laws are part of that process. Having them, complying with them, is just the civic duty of the gun owner.

    Jim

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by RumTumTugger View Post
    We don't know if they are sufficient or not they have not been really tried. Lack of enforcement means it wasn't tried. ENFORCE WHAT IS IN PLACE then you can say it was tried until then stop saying it has been tried.
    What I've said, in a nutshell, is - enforce what we have AND close the loopholes (e.g. require background checks for private sales).

    It is important to recognize that when a person proposes an idea that includes more than one element, or more than one choice, that in order to process that idea, or respond intelligently to it, one must take into account the entirety of what was said.


    Jim

    Leave a comment:


  • RumTumTugger
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    I'm not claiming they don't. I'm claiming they are insufficient.

    Jim
    We don't know if they are sufficient or not they have not been really tried. Lack of enforcement means it wasn't tried. ENFORCE WHAT IS IN PLACE then you can say it was tried until then stop saying it has been tried.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    ... The consistent rise in mass shootings in the last few decades


    [ATTACH=CONFIG]39799[/ATTACH]


    Jim
    We have a lot more gun control now then we did back then so why are the numbers rising, and why would more gun control lower it in the future?

    Leave a comment:


  • lilpixieofterror
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    ... The consistent rise in mass shootings in the last few decades


    [ATTACH=CONFIG]39799[/ATTACH]


    Jim
    And yet, I have demonstrated that human error accounts for much of these failures. Ignoring that little detail, wonít make it go away.

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
    And this opinion is based on....
    ... The consistent rise in mass shootings in the last few decades


    shootings in the us.png


    Jim

    Leave a comment:


  • lilpixieofterror
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    I'm not claiming they don't. I'm claiming they are insufficient.

    Jim
    And this opinion is based on....

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    I'm not claiming they don't. I'm claiming they are insufficient.

    Jim
    so your answer to me was not in fact correctl. Your answer to my post was that we need background checks and such. Yet that isn't really what you want is it? Because we already have that. You want to ban AR15s or make them so hard to qualify to own that the average citizen can't get one. Which means my initial post was correct. You want to punish the law-abiding owners to try to stop a handful of criminals.

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
    Controls already exist, so stop claiming they donít.
    I'm not claiming they don't. I'm claiming they are insufficient.

    Jim

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by Thoughtful Monk, Today, 11:36 AM
6 responses
14 views
0 likes
Last Post mikewhitney  
Started by Charles, Today, 09:40 AM
6 responses
45 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 08:34 PM
8 responses
45 views
0 likes
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Started by LiconaFan97, Yesterday, 07:31 PM
9 responses
60 views
0 likes
Last Post LiconaFan97  
Started by Bill the Cat, Yesterday, 02:47 PM
46 responses
208 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Working...
X