I agree, criminals should not be allowed to have firearms. What has not been demonstrated is that the restrictions that primarily affect those who are not criminals is the way to proceed. I'll go further. To say that restrictions that primarily affect the law abiding citizen are the answer to criminal activity raises serious doubts as to the honesty of those who suggest such things. Police chiefs are a significant political group who typically favor increased gun control. In this specific case, it's so important to recognize that rifles, of any sort, are relatively seldom used in crimes. The comment about "assault weapons" and "assault magazines" remains nothing more than dishonest exaggeration. It reflects either a lack of knowledge regarding how quickly a magazine can be changed or a refusal to take that into consideration. Finally, this whole debate, in the wake of the horrendous events in CT, is an example of the fallacy of misleading vividness. Other than 1) the continuous erosion of civil liberties, including though not limited to gun rights, and 2) people clinging to the idea that more gun control, with its failed history, is the answer, this fallacious reasoning is what frustrates me most.
We don't have a history of failed gun control, for the simple reason that we've never tried it, not proper gun control anyway.
The guns flowing into the criminal world like the Mighty Mississippi are coming from the lawful-gun owners. That's why law abiding citizens need to have their gun rights restricted and controlled.
But Mike, you've been telling me that you're not going to restrict my rights, and that I would be the first to benefit from your proposals. Now you tell Mustang that you're going to restrict and control my rights.
But this time, if we go with say, your proposals, if we'll tolerate this oh so very reasonable and minor restriction of our gun rights, we will actually see the benefits that were promised so many times before. Does that about sum up your argument? You'll pardon me, I trust, if I decline this particular invitation. Also, I have a question. If the things you support are as good as you suggest, can we repeal all the other gun control measures from the past?
"We don't have a history of failed gun control, for the simple reason that we've never tried it, not proper gun control anyway." I don't understand. If multiple pieces of legislation have consistently not delivered the promised results what more would you say is necessary to declare that a history of failed gun control?
RT, I think you know exactly what I mean, but I'll spell it out for you. What we've had up till now is a hodge-podge of easily circumvented laws that are quite ineffective. What the hell good is requiring background checks from ONLY FFL guys? What the hell good is strict gun laws in CA and lenient ones in NZ and AZ?
Hopefully this is about to change and guys like you and the Tennesseean will be the first to benefit.
And no, I did not know what you meant. Now I do. I happen to disagree. And how, exactly, will people like us "be the first to benefit"? Also, I note you elected to not answer my other questions. Perhaps you thought they were rhetorical in nature. They were not.
Further, laws differ from state to state because the states get to pass laws that their citizens support. The supremacy clause only applies when the federal government is operating within its constitutionally defined sphere.
Mikeb, there you go again with that line about how we will be the first to benefit. Are you E.N.? Do you believe in some nonsense idea of "the right of civilian disarmament"? If not, explain how any of us will benefit from having our property made illegal, from being denied the legal ability to carry our property, from having to wade through bureaucracy to possess our property, and so forth. Where's the benefit?
Under a system of proper gun control laws, you gun owners would be the first to benefit by finally freeing yourselves of the terrible burden of guilt you now bear. You would no longer be responsible for the gun violence which is so much a part of our lives. It would be so diminished with very little change to yourselves, everybody will breathe easier, especially you.
Unfortunately, I have a background in, among other things, mental health. Your diagnosis of guilt sounds good and lacks only a basis in reality to make it meaningful.
Mike, for some reason I thought you were a gun owner, too, albeit one with whom I disagree. Apparently, based upon your choice of words, I was mistaken. I'd appreciate some clarification. Thanks.
Mikeb, just as with supposed white guilt, male guilt, and all other guilts that the loony left wants me to feel, I don't feel any guilt about gun violence in this country. How about offering something that I actually want and could use?
I have no feelings of guilt of which I need to be relieved. The suggestion that there is some widespread guilt that can be relieved by passage of stricter gun control is patently absurd. Allow me to suggest the belief in such widespread guilt suggests a lack of understanding of the basis and cause of guilt. Now, it may be that you believe gun owners, including those who never have and never will commit any crime, OUGHT to feel guilty. But that's a different argument than what you've put forth, though it's one I've heard before.
I'm tired of politicians lying. I know--what else do they do? Still, when this weasel tells us that this is about criminal access and not gun control, his nose should have grown twenty feet. Not one thing that he said has anything to do with controlling criminals. It's all about deciding for good citizens what they may and may not own.
At this point, rather than the good parts of this country seceding, can we force the sesspools like Chicago to leave?
This is funny coming from the son of a terrorist.
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
I agree, criminals should not be allowed to have firearms. What has not been demonstrated is that the restrictions that primarily affect those who are not criminals is the way to proceed. I'll go further. To say that restrictions that primarily affect the law abiding citizen are the answer to criminal activity raises serious doubts as to the honesty of those who suggest such things. Police chiefs are a significant political group who typically favor increased gun control. In this specific case, it's so important to recognize that rifles, of any sort, are relatively seldom used in crimes. The comment about "assault weapons" and "assault magazines" remains nothing more than dishonest exaggeration. It reflects either a lack of knowledge regarding how quickly a magazine can be changed or a refusal to take that into consideration.
ReplyDeleteFinally, this whole debate, in the wake of the horrendous events in CT, is an example of the fallacy of misleading vividness. Other than 1) the continuous erosion of civil liberties, including though not limited to gun rights, and 2) people clinging to the idea that more gun control, with its failed history, is the answer, this fallacious reasoning is what frustrates me most.
We don't have a history of failed gun control, for the simple reason that we've never tried it, not proper gun control anyway.
DeleteThe guns flowing into the criminal world like the Mighty Mississippi are coming from the lawful-gun owners. That's why law abiding citizens need to have their gun rights restricted and controlled.
Need? You're sounding like E.N. now.
DeleteBut Mike, you've been telling me that you're not going to restrict my rights, and that I would be the first to benefit from your proposals. Now you tell Mustang that you're going to restrict and control my rights.
DeleteI'm hurt...
But this time, if we go with say, your proposals, if we'll tolerate this oh so very reasonable and minor restriction of our gun rights, we will actually see the benefits that were promised so many times before. Does that about sum up your argument? You'll pardon me, I trust, if I decline this particular invitation. Also, I have a question. If the things you support are as good as you suggest, can we repeal all the other gun control measures from the past?
Delete"We don't have a history of failed gun control, for the simple reason that we've never tried it, not proper gun control anyway." I don't understand. If multiple pieces of legislation have consistently not delivered the promised results what more would you say is necessary to declare that a history of failed gun control?
DeleteRT, I think you know exactly what I mean, but I'll spell it out for you. What we've had up till now is a hodge-podge of easily circumvented laws that are quite ineffective. What the hell good is requiring background checks from ONLY FFL guys? What the hell good is strict gun laws in CA and lenient ones in NZ and AZ?
DeleteHopefully this is about to change and guys like you and the Tennesseean will be the first to benefit.
And no, I did not know what you meant. Now I do. I happen to disagree. And how, exactly, will people like us "be the first to benefit"? Also, I note you elected to not answer my other questions. Perhaps you thought they were rhetorical in nature. They were not.
DeleteFurther, laws differ from state to state because the states get to pass laws that their citizens support. The supremacy clause only applies when the federal government is operating within its constitutionally defined sphere.
DeleteMikeb, there you go again with that line about how we will be the first to benefit. Are you E.N.? Do you believe in some nonsense idea of "the right of civilian disarmament"? If not, explain how any of us will benefit from having our property made illegal, from being denied the legal ability to carry our property, from having to wade through bureaucracy to possess our property, and so forth. Where's the benefit?
DeleteUnder a system of proper gun control laws, you gun owners would be the first to benefit by finally freeing yourselves of the terrible burden of guilt you now bear. You would no longer be responsible for the gun violence which is so much a part of our lives. It would be so diminished with very little change to yourselves, everybody will breathe easier, especially you.
DeleteUnfortunately, I have a background in, among other things, mental health. Your diagnosis of guilt sounds good and lacks only a basis in reality to make it meaningful.
DeleteMike, for some reason I thought you were a gun owner, too, albeit one with whom I disagree. Apparently, based upon your choice of words, I was mistaken. I'd appreciate some clarification. Thanks.
DeleteMikeb, just as with supposed white guilt, male guilt, and all other guilts that the loony left wants me to feel, I don't feel any guilt about gun violence in this country. How about offering something that I actually want and could use?
DeleteI'm a non-gun owner.
DeleteThank you. Now I'm far less confused.
DeleteI have no feelings of guilt of which I need to be relieved. The suggestion that there is some widespread guilt that can be relieved by passage of stricter gun control is patently absurd. Allow me to suggest the belief in such widespread guilt suggests a lack of understanding of the basis and cause of guilt. Now, it may be that you believe gun owners, including those who never have and never will commit any crime, OUGHT to feel guilty. But that's a different argument than what you've put forth, though it's one I've heard before.
I'm tired of politicians lying. I know--what else do they do? Still, when this weasel tells us that this is about criminal access and not gun control, his nose should have grown twenty feet. Not one thing that he said has anything to do with controlling criminals. It's all about deciding for good citizens what they may and may not own.
ReplyDeleteAt this point, rather than the good parts of this country seceding, can we force the sesspools like Chicago to leave?
I have to take what may be a once in a lifetime opportunity to inform Greg that he misspelled 'cesspool'. Sorry, Greg, I couldn't resist. LOL!!!
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
Aw, dang. You got me...
Delete*Golf clap*
Delete