Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Honest question. If gun rights supporters are idiots... [View all]gejohnston
(17,502 posts)24. background checks have been federal law since the 1990s
when buying from any licensed dealer. Intra state private sales are up to the states per the tenth amendment and commerce clause. We do know that, based on at least one criminology study before background checks, criminals don't go to FFLs, gun shows, or anyplace they don't "trust". Meaning, they either get it from the same guy that sold them their coke.
But the "vanguard" leading the opposition to gun control takes a rigid and absolute position that teeters on sketchy legal arguments, dubious historical understanding, and defies both reason and common sense.
Actually, it is the gun prohibition supporters who have that problem. I would have to read his quote in context. Chances are, you never read the decision and copied and pasted some stuff from the prohibition lobby. Which begs the question, it seems that not only do they distrust people with guns, they also think the rest of us are too intellectually lazy or stupid to look up the cases, history, actually know the current laws, or anything else. I blew apart your earlier post just by going to Wikipedia.
Speaking of reason, why is it that the gun control fans constantly use the same logical fallacies all the time? Why the weasel words like "reasonable" without ever defining it? Why intellectual dishonesty? Why do they always resort to emotional appeals and name calling? Sorry, facts, evidence, and reason is not on their side.
As for common sense, I agree with Einstein. Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins125365.html?gclid=Cj0KEQjw7LS6BRDo2Iz23au25OQBEiQAQa6hwOEbgdKev7ND_Y9r4OSwgZmo5W1oGDwllVEnNpAY88IaAp1Z8P8HAQ
As for "sketchy legal arguments" I doubt you have ever read any of them, read the citations they used, or understand them.
OK, highlighted quote was a nice opening statement, now you have to provide the evidence. Of course, it will be "cross examined".
I don't care if you care or not. If you do start to care, it pays to be informed and know the arguments your opponent makes. Read what they say to each other, not just bullshit put out from Bloomberg, the other sexist and authoritarian billionaire, or his former Monsanto PR exec mouthpiece.
If we can't even agree that passing a background check in order to purchase a gun is a sensible requirement, then there really isn't much to discuss.
Every idea is open to question and has to stand on its own merit. Doesn't matter what it is, no exceptions. I view ideology, all ideologies, the same way I view organized religion. Created by the self serving who doesn't give rat's ass about anyone else, and is long on dogma and faith and very short on reason and evidence.Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
200 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
If you honestly aren't cognizant of "any form of serious debate or discussion"
cheapdate
May 2016
#1
Very rarely..gun control supporters usually just result to name calling. That's my take on it. n/t
Kang Colby
May 2016
#2
Then I would suggest you're looking in the wrong places for serious discussion.
cheapdate
May 2016
#3
You're far from the first self-appointed "new DU champion of gun control" we've seen
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2016
#111
"At least I'm looking out for your family's safety..." You merely *claim* that you are looking...
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2016
#80
Thanks for sharing your opinion - you don't like guns - we get it. I hope however,
jonno99
Jun 2016
#61
How many tanks, aircraft, guided missiles, and drones do the Taliban and ISIS/Daesh have?
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2016
#81
A first-world army that hasn't yet defeated the Taliban, after +/- 15 years of trying...
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2016
#109
Yes. Castro fought his revolution with T-34s & MiGs. Couple of cruisers, too.
Eleanors38
Jun 2016
#176
Actually we do. Gun rights supporters that hang out in forums and groups like this one
flamin lib
Jun 2016
#46
As a gun owner yourself, you are ok with arguing for restrictive legislation...
Marengo
Jun 2016
#51
Stop trying to hijack this thread. The OP asked why we don't have productive discussions.
flamin lib
Jun 2016
#63
Because IT IS OFF TOPIC. Typical attempt to launch a red herring and ignore the topic at hand.
flamin lib
Jun 2016
#68
Unless your commentary was off topic, it's spot on and you know it. Why are you so evasive?
Marengo
Jun 2016
#79
I will answer one more time that the OP asked 'why isn't there productive discussion
flamin lib
Jun 2016
#110
No, I refuse to engage you in a personal argument over a red herring. We can keep this going or you
flamin lib
Jun 2016
#113
Right, just as I said earlier, it's obvious you refuse because you can't without damaging...
Marengo
Jun 2016
#116
Oh, too much work to start a thread? Exhausted from typing so much trying to
flamin lib
Jun 2016
#137
You wouldn't be pushing back so hard unless you have realized your integrity is threatened...
Marengo
Jun 2016
#142
Sigh. This is a red herring. If you'd like to add something to the question posed in the OP
flamin lib
Jun 2016
#146
Are you the arbiter of who may and may not post a reply in this thread, and to what?
Marengo
Jun 2016
#143
And what game is that? Pointing out logical fallacies? Not taking bait? Or is it poor form to ask
flamin lib
Jun 2016
#145
Attributing logical fallacies where they don't exist in order to camouflage...
Marengo
Jun 2016
#147
Yes, attempting to take a conversation in an entirely different direction is, by definition,
flamin lib
Jun 2016
#160
I'm not fearful, just insistent that you stop attempting to hijack a thread so
flamin lib
Jun 2016
#163
The argument is clear. You either cannot comprehend it, or cannot respond without...
Marengo
Jun 2016
#166
I have made no premise, only steadfastly refused to engage your red herring. nt
flamin lib
Jun 2016
#169
The strength of you argument should easily be able to banish that red herring...
Marengo
Jun 2016
#172
Those are quotes from posts here on DU? Why haven't you provided links or cites...
Marengo
Jun 2016
#171
Because it would be like providing links to explain why the sky is blue. Everybody else in the
flamin lib
Jun 2016
#174
Not up to your other posts but still not bad, finding a way call me a liar without
flamin lib
Jun 2016
#188
As it wasn't imaginary fingers that typed that post, it would appear that you are either...
Marengo
Jun 2016
#189
Another way of calling me a liar is to to demand I provide links to established gungeon
flamin lib
Jun 2016
#198
I won't call you a liar. However, your claims as to what's been said remain faith-promoting rumor
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2016
#199
There can be no "productive discussions", when you refuse to answer questions asked of you.
beevul
Jun 2016
#103