Gun Control & RKBA

beevul

(12,194 posts)

75. I'll stand pat.

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 01:51 PM

Apr 2016

I like how the post ends, pondering if the NRA has the same type of guide.
Probably the exact opposite. Stick with the facts and don't get emotional.
Hence the deep divisions between the sides.

If there is one, the anti-gunners can't seem to find it or provide evidence of its existence. We on the other hand have documented at least 2 different anti-gun talking point manuals.

But your comments appear to indicate a certain level of insensitivity to other firearm deaths.

Debates are no place for emotion, they're a place for logic and reason.

But the bigger problem, I now realize, is to go back to the anti-gun side and get them to tone down the total ban attacks and get them to see the subtle changes required to move this subject forward.

I'll probably spend more time bitching at them to tone it down, than the time I've spent here understanding the root cause for the pro-gun stance.

I wish you luck. You should, however, be forewarned. Engaging anti-gunners as you describe will get you labeled a 'gun humper', an 'ammosexual', inferences that you're 'compensating', and much worse". I suggest you skim this thread, it is an eye opener:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11729858

Firearms aren't the most dangerous product to buy at Walmart?
I hope you were smiling when you wrote that one.

I guess I don't view things the same way as you. Something is either potentially lethal, or it isn't, as far as I'm concerned. I don't differentiate much deeper than that, since it is how an individual decides to use a thing, that determines its lethality, not the thing itself.

This is where I like to propose mandatory universal training in 12th grade(thanks gejohnston!)

That wasn't GE, it was me.

To me the word arms is just that .... a word.
The issue at hand is reducing firearm deaths by some means.
I don;t want to debate what is considered an "arm" for war use or for recreational use.

Debating it wasn't really the point. Pointing out that were way past the middle towards the prohibitionist end of the scale right here and right now today, was the point.

Its also interesting that you compare gun ownership to free speech and voting.
I get the Bill of Rights reference, but not much after that.

Fundamental rights are fundamental rights, in this case, fundamental constitutionally protected civil rights. If a restriction or condition wouldn't be tolerated on voting rights, why should it be tolerated on second amendment rights which enjoy greater protection than voting rights? Or, for more of a direct parallel, why should restrictions be tolerated on second amendment rights, which would never be tolerated on first amendment rights?

16. National wide open carry reciprocity?

Not open carry, concealed carry.

Eliminate Gun free zones? - This is a tough one for me to agree on, since I am about choice for the people.

Gun free zones eliminate freedom of choice for people who carry.

If the town wants a gun free zone, then they should vote for it and implement it, if they don;t want it, then don;t create a referendum for it.

I see. And if they want to bring back slavery, enact debtors prisons or bring back tar and feathering, using the process you've outlined?

This has to be to protect the gun/ammo manufacturers here in the USA

No, its generally because the firearms in question offended someones delicate sensibilities.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

79 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Cruz’s Gun Control Deception [View all] SecularMotion Apr 2016 OP

This message was self-deleted by its author CompanyFirstSergeant Apr 2016 #1

Glad I'm not voting for Cruz. Anyway... jmg257 Apr 2016 #2

What I see TeddyR Apr 2016 #3

Chicago rate = 14.35, DC rate = 14.72 discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2016 #5

This message was self-deleted by its author CompanyFirstSergeant Apr 2016 #4

Who gives a rip what Cruz says? GreydeeThos Apr 2016 #6

re: "In 2014, Washington, D.C., reported 15.9 murders for every 100,000 people..." discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2016 #7

Except that flooded the streets with guns... scscholar Apr 2016 #28

I'm legitimately not sure what point you are trying to make TeddyR Apr 2016 #30

Really??? discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2016 #37

Is The NRA Wrong? New Study Shows Guns Rarely Used For Self-Defense aurelius2112 Apr 2016 #8

Why are you bringing up the NRA, nobody else is? DonP Apr 2016 #9

What's this "we" nonsense? SecularMotion Apr 2016 #10

Oooh look, it can speak DonP Apr 2016 #11

Wow, a response Duckhunter935 Apr 2016 #12

Fair enough - Although credible sources could be a matter of opinion. aurelius2112 Apr 2016 #16

"Or should we do nothing and watch the numbers rise? " DonP Apr 2016 #18

One firearm death is one too many..... aurelius2112 Apr 2016 #19

"how can we move to a consensus to protect the 2nd and the rest of Americans?" beevul Apr 2016 #20

An open minded discussion allows for good conversation...... aurelius2112 Apr 2016 #23

Except anti-gunners do not have open minds. beevul Apr 2016 #25

Gun Control talking points..... aurelius2112 Apr 2016 #32

Yup. beevul Apr 2016 #33

All we need is an unbiased SC who rejects the monstrosity known as "Heller" and Actor Apr 2016 #26

Why do you think the 2d limits gun ownership to militia members TeddyR Apr 2016 #29

In other words, you want a biased court. beevul Apr 2016 #34

"The majority of Americans DO want gun control - based on polling data. " DonP Apr 2016 #24

gun studies by the VPC is like a climate change study gejohnston Apr 2016 #13

All very good points TeddyR Apr 2016 #14

The control side has to buy into some myths DonP Apr 2016 #15

The "Do Nothing" approach isn't working to reduce firearm deaths aurelius2112 Apr 2016 #17

"The "Do Nothing" approach..." beevul Apr 2016 #21

Of course we do nothing. aurelius2112 Apr 2016 #27

You can stop with the pretense. beevul Apr 2016 #31

Unfettered access to guns? - Sounds like the middle east! aurelius2112 Apr 2016 #38

Ahh, more pretense. beevul Apr 2016 #42

OK - maybe unfetterred was not the best word to use aurelius2112 Apr 2016 #43

It was predictable. beevul Apr 2016 #49

Ahhh, there's that word again; Compromise - "What are you willing to give up?" DonP Apr 2016 #52

Ed Zachary. beevul Apr 2016 #53

I think they just desperately want to think of themselves as "moderates" on gun control DonP Apr 2016 #55

I can appreciate conjecture........but........ aurelius2112 Apr 2016 #56

Its not conjecture. beevul Apr 2016 #59

Simple Definition of conjecture : an opinion or idea formed without proof or sufficient evidence aurelius2112 Apr 2016 #61

"I have come here...with the objective of trying to draw some consensus" I doubt that very much friendly_iconoclast Apr 2016 #67

Glad you came to post! aurelius2112 Apr 2016 #70

OK, which *extant* gun regulation(s) would you be willing to give up, in exchange for others? friendly_iconoclast Apr 2016 #71

I have learned alot from this forum but... aurelius2112 Apr 2016 #74

You can't help but double down, can you. beevul Apr 2016 #69

Texas Hold'em Poker! aurelius2112 Apr 2016 #72

I'll stand pat. beevul Apr 2016 #75

Gonna fold for now...you have given me plenty to ponder aurelius2112 Apr 2016 #76

Fair enough. beevul Apr 2016 #78

You've pointed out once again the gun controller's fraudulent version of 'reasonableness': friendly_iconoclast Apr 2016 #73

Almost missed this post aurelius2112 Apr 2016 #79

an assault weapon is any gun gejohnston Apr 2016 #39

Interesting talking points on assault weapons aurelius2112 Apr 2016 #41

still not one valid argument gejohnston Apr 2016 #44

Valid argument? Who's arguing? aurelius2112 Apr 2016 #48

"Assault weapons" are civilian non-automatics (mostly small caliber), not machineguns. benEzra Apr 2016 #50

I can appreciate being specific in this forum aurelius2112 Apr 2016 #58

They are indeed rifles. The most common rifles in U.S. homes, in fact. benEzra Apr 2016 #68

Thank you benEzra! aurelius2112 Apr 2016 #77

Shrug? Straw Man Apr 2016 #22

Good points aurelius2112 Apr 2016 #40

A few more clarifications. Straw Man Apr 2016 #45

Thanks aurelius2112 Apr 2016 #47

You're welcome. Straw Man Apr 2016 #54

I didn't say anything about doing nothing gejohnston Apr 2016 #35

This is a perfect example of why... beevul Apr 2016 #36

Very interesting analysis aurelius2112 Apr 2016 #46

"Assault weapons" are legal in Germany, Sweden, France, Norway, Hungary, Switzerland, Finland... benEzra Apr 2016 #51

Informative post! aurelius2112 Apr 2016 #57

Is your goal saving lives or culture war? gejohnston Apr 2016 #60

Hmmm...it is reducing deaths, but it is quickly becoming a culture war aurelius2112 Apr 2016 #62

It has always been about culture gejohnston Apr 2016 #64

Thank you gejohnston aurelius2112 Apr 2016 #66

Were it not for the ongoing Holy War against lawful and responsible ownership, benEzra Apr 2016 #63

Great post! aurelius2112 Apr 2016 #65