-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS June Giveaway ***Keltec SUB2000***
What gun control would you actually support?
- Thread starter zbrod
- Start date
- Status
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
Twigg
NES Member
The only regulations I would support would be Constitutional carry, combined with a Florida style castle defense "Stand your ground." law. Everything becomes self regulating after this.
As for the C-4, People need to remember the regulars were not sent to Lexington and Concord to confiscate the Colonial's squirrel guns. They were there to confiscate their cannons. "Arms" at the time were all state-of-the-art military weapons and this included explosives. If the Constitution is indeed a "living breathing" document as some claim, then the same state-of-the-art military weapons in the hands of todays military need to be in the hands of citizens to insure our liberty.
(RE: collective good) <--- The same wording is used in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to deny its subjects the right to bear arms.
Last edited:
Felons and seriously mentally ill shouldn't be able to buy guns. But then again, felons (especially repeat offenders) should be locked up for the majority if not their whole lives.
Besides that, ABSOLUTELY no gun control laws should be put in place because they only hurt law abiding citizens. LOOK AT CHICAGO!!!!!!!!
If my 7 year old cousin wants a 12ga to make her feel safer, then by all means get it
Besides that, ABSOLUTELY no gun control laws should be put in place because they only hurt law abiding citizens. LOOK AT CHICAGO!!!!!!!!
If my 7 year old cousin wants a 12ga to make her feel safer, then by all means get it
So if someone made a mistake once in their life and were convicted of a felony they should never be able to buy a firearm?
J
Jose
Considering a single OUI in this state disqualifies you forever I totally disagree. Lock people up who commit crimes with guns.
No gun laws. You want it, you buy it, you commit a crime with it you do time. Simple as that.
Only if the guy in back is wearing a seatbelt and a helmet, and he is not texting while firing.
Back in mid 95, the Republican Congress passed a Bill about low flow toilets and Clinton signed it into law. Something about water conservation (despite the fact that it falls from the fringing sky). It was against the law to manufacture or import the old standard toilets. Well the new low flow toilets were awful and some models required the plunger for #2 almost 100% of the time.
There was a guy up here that got fed up with that BS and went to Canada to the Home Depot and got an old style toilet. He got pinched (pun intended) at the border and was arrested on felony charges. All because he wanted to take a crap and flush it down and not have to plunge it every singe time.
What is that stuff that Ayn Rand wrote about making everything illegal?
B
There was a guy up here that got fed up with that BS and went to Canada to the Home Depot and got an old style toilet. He got pinched (pun intended) at the border and was arrested on felony charges. All because he wanted to take a crap and flush it down and not have to plunge it every singe time.
What is that stuff that Ayn Rand wrote about making everything illegal?
B
Excellent use of the implied social proof argument plus the false premise that that gun control actually keeps guns out of the hands of criminals:
So I ask you: what, if any, gun regulation do you support in order to keep them out of the hands of bad guys (people seem to generally agree this is a legitimate aim)?
You aren't really posing an objective question. Somehow "people" already agree with the false premises of your question so somehow it must be correct. Who are these people? In my experience when a person prefaces their argument with "people generally think" really means "I think this and other smart people would agree with me". If the entire population thought the world was flat, would that make the world flat? The only thing that matters is the rational analysis of the argument, not how many people agree to a false premise.
You also imply that gun control keeps guns out of the hands of criminals. A criminal by definition does not obey laws. It is therefore a logical error to try and modify the behavior of someone who doesn't obey a law by insisting that they obey a law.
Also, another interesting tactic is how you try in one question imply that gun control is generally accepted, you then turn around and try and build rapport with the board by "not cluttering the forum" (but instantly make your own thread off topic) asking about recommendations about a 1911, trying to imply that you are pro-gun. So in one sentence gun control is acceptable (which if we take to a logical consequence result in handgun bans like in DC and Chicago before the Supreme Court overturned them) and then in the very next statement say you want recommendations on a 1911...handgun.
You are confusing education with rational thought. There are plenty of people who are college educated but can't form a rational argument. Based on what you have posted in this thread and the other one you started you are still having trouble figuring out inconsistencies in your arguments. Saying that you disagree with Obama but from the left's perspective can not work when it comes to individual rights in the context of the right to keep and bear arms or property rights, to name a few.
Shocking! The social proof argument again with a mix of elitism as well. Somehow "civilized society" is the ultimate representation of "truth", and that "truth" is however you personally feel about a particular topic.
Perhaps you can articulate the virtues of "civilized society"? Given your previous comment that you disagree with many of Obama's policies but from the left's perspective, I doubt you will be able to do this. Oh wait! I specifically asked you to do that in another thread and you never did. Since you are much more "in line with civilized society" it should be very easy for you to articulate these things.
And when your arguments (arguments is a term used loosely) you resort to a personal attack because anyone who disagrees with you must be a hillbilly. No one here, of course, has ever started a business, or is intelligent, or has actually understood what it takes to be productive in their lives and have the audacity to defend their rights and disagree with you.
No, it would appear that you are the logical consequence of what happens when an individual elects not to think, not to understand what works in reality, and the indoctrination that many people get thinking that they are better "educated" because they have a diploma from a university. And when their arguments are torn apart because those arguments don't rest on a rational foundation they take the argument to the emotional realm and use personal attacks.
1. No
2. No
3. No
Though, I guess there's no way to be sure of that.
I've got some questions too though.
1. How many times do I have to state I'm not in favor of gun control before anyone believes me?
2. How do the above 3 questions relate to my ability to have an opinion on such issues, and how do they relate to the other political issues you mentioned (taxing the wealthy, etc) and
3. I'm going to bed.
Good night. I'm sure you will all sleep like babies tonight![[grin]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/041.gif "Grin [grin]")
You are in favor of gun control. It is even possible that you don't know that you are in favor of it because you may not understand really what a right is. "A right" expressed in a longer form really means "a right to be left alone". Once you start adding "reasonable" restrictions it is no longer a right, but a privilege, one that can be taken away according to whatever the powers that be determine to be "reasonable".
One more suggestion. If you really value being educated and feel that you have an open mind, go read about rational arguments and as a bonus, the concept of the social proof. Then come back and share what you learned.
Last edited:
The GCA of 68 has already answered your question. and it seems to be working pretty good. I mean it's not like we ever hear about "prohibited persons" in possession of firearms.
I say deregulate the entire "industry", and let the "market" sort itself out.
I had this argument with a liberal friend. He was making the same points as the OP - that there should be laws to prevent felons and lunatics from getting guns. I told him that I would argue with him and win the argument.
He said, "You won't win, I already know how you're going to respond, and you won't convince me."
I said, "I bet you think so. I think I know what you'll say after hearing my argument too. Here's what we'll do - you write down what you think I'll say in response to your argument. Don't show me. If I say it, you win. I'll do the same thing for you. I one of us says the magic phrase, flip over the paper and the other guy wins, OK?"
He agreed and we both wrote down our answers.
He went through his argument, saying the he was all for hunting and having a gun for self defense, but that it was necessary to have 'common sense' laws in place to prevent felons and the mentally ill from getting their hands on guns. Blah, blah, blah....
I listened and replied. Here was the gist of my argument:
"Your argument is flawed. You want laws to prevent bad guys from getting guns. If you could write the laws yourself and have them enacted, they wouldn't do what you want them to do, because laws don't prevent people from doing anything."
I asked him if he considered himself "law abiding" (he said Yes), then I asked him how that could be when he used marijuana recreationally. He said nothing. I went on...
"The fact that there is a law against marijuana doesn't prevent you from using it. You always seem to have it even though there's been a federal ban on it for almost a century, and the government has spent trillions of dollars to keep you from getting it. They've enacted laws upon freedom limiting laws, put more people in prison per-capita than any other civilized nation in an attempt to keep you from getting it, and yet you still smoke. You want it, and there's no law that can possibly prevent you from getting it."
"Guns are no different. A felon or a lunatic is unencumbered by the rules. They can do anything they want until they're caught and locked up. Your proposed laws would do nothing to stop a bad guy from getting a gun. Even if the feds banned all guns and confiscated the ones they knew about, bad guys would still get guns. There's been a ban on illegal drugs since the early part of the 20th century, and anybody can get them any time they want, as long as they're willing to break the law. Gun regulations would be ignored in exactly the same way."
He said, "Well... Putting regulations in place is better than doing nothing!"
I was turning over my paper as the words were coming out of his mouth.
He said, "You won't win, I already know how you're going to respond, and you won't convince me."
I said, "I bet you think so. I think I know what you'll say after hearing my argument too. Here's what we'll do - you write down what you think I'll say in response to your argument. Don't show me. If I say it, you win. I'll do the same thing for you. I one of us says the magic phrase, flip over the paper and the other guy wins, OK?"
He agreed and we both wrote down our answers.
He went through his argument, saying the he was all for hunting and having a gun for self defense, but that it was necessary to have 'common sense' laws in place to prevent felons and the mentally ill from getting their hands on guns. Blah, blah, blah....
I listened and replied. Here was the gist of my argument:
"Your argument is flawed. You want laws to prevent bad guys from getting guns. If you could write the laws yourself and have them enacted, they wouldn't do what you want them to do, because laws don't prevent people from doing anything."
I asked him if he considered himself "law abiding" (he said Yes), then I asked him how that could be when he used marijuana recreationally. He said nothing. I went on...
"The fact that there is a law against marijuana doesn't prevent you from using it. You always seem to have it even though there's been a federal ban on it for almost a century, and the government has spent trillions of dollars to keep you from getting it. They've enacted laws upon freedom limiting laws, put more people in prison per-capita than any other civilized nation in an attempt to keep you from getting it, and yet you still smoke. You want it, and there's no law that can possibly prevent you from getting it."
"Guns are no different. A felon or a lunatic is unencumbered by the rules. They can do anything they want until they're caught and locked up. Your proposed laws would do nothing to stop a bad guy from getting a gun. Even if the feds banned all guns and confiscated the ones they knew about, bad guys would still get guns. There's been a ban on illegal drugs since the early part of the 20th century, and anybody can get them any time they want, as long as they're willing to break the law. Gun regulations would be ignored in exactly the same way."
He said, "Well... Putting regulations in place is better than doing nothing!"
I was turning over my paper as the words were coming out of his mouth.
I'm really not sure how you were able to do this...never happened to me and my brain is desparately searching for how being left handed makes accidentally dropping a magazine out while shooting more likely. Edit: Not saying it's not possible...just that I'm not seeing it.
But don't worry! There was a cocky recon marine on "One Man Army" who had this same problem!
Last edited:
![[coffee]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/028.gif "Coffee [coffee]")
this ![[troll]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/016.gif "Troll [troll]")
thread is ![[popcorn]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/043.gif "Popcorn [popcorn]")
In God We Trust
NES Member
Just a clarification on the liberal anti-gun argument as I understand it.
The idea in their minds is not that a criminal is going to obey a gun control law, but rather that having gun control laws will make it harder for criminals to get guns at all. The argument has merit to a point as a total ban would indeed make it harder to get a gun IMO. As has been said here however, criminals will still be able to get guns, they just might be moe expensive and harder to find. The well connected and successful criminal will have little problem arming himself however as the ban in the UK has shown.
The real victims of a gun ban are the law abiding citizen that will obey the law out of fear and be left at the mercy of those that choose to break it and have the means to do so.
The idea in their minds is not that a criminal is going to obey a gun control law, but rather that having gun control laws will make it harder for criminals to get guns at all. The argument has merit to a point as a total ban would indeed make it harder to get a gun IMO. As has been said here however, criminals will still be able to get guns, they just might be moe expensive and harder to find. The well connected and successful criminal will have little problem arming himself however as the ban in the UK has shown.
The real victims of a gun ban are the law abiding citizen that will obey the law out of fear and be left at the mercy of those that choose to break it and have the means to do so.
Morning gents! I hope no one shot any "looters" last night . Let's see if I can answer some of these posts.
On the 1-1 vs 1-many defense theory: my apologies, I did not make that clear. Like I said, I don't have things fully figured out. Part of posting on this forum is so that I can have discussions with people of differing viewpoints and thus work through my own perspective. Some of you have been helpful in this regard, many of you don't seem to get how these discussions are supposed to work. That's one thing you can give over-educated liberals credit for, they're generally down for a good philosophical debate.
When I talk about 1-1 defense, I don't literally mean "you can only kill one person with said weapon, and if you are attacked by more than one you are out of luck," so let's please stop with that silliness (again, my bad for not being clear). It is more that one person is not entitled to all the force necessary to defend themselves from all possible attack, including the entire government. The socialist in me believes that tasks of that magnitude need to be accomplished by the combined forces of the people, not one or a very small number of people. For example, Timothy McVeigh. If he wants to sacrifice himself to make a statement about government oppression by taking out a government employee or 2 with small arms, so be it. But he is not entitled to be able to take out, as one person, a sky scraper full of people.
Now, I'm sure some of you, who have thought about this more, have some responses to that. So please tell me, with reason, why I am wrong and I will listen. Any hateful blustering though, kindly shove it. It's the morning, I'm fresh and receptive, let's do this before I'm exhausted again. This is perfect hurricane activity.
. Let's see if I can answer some of these posts.On the 1-1 vs 1-many defense theory: my apologies, I did not make that clear. Like I said, I don't have things fully figured out. Part of posting on this forum is so that I can have discussions with people of differing viewpoints and thus work through my own perspective. Some of you have been helpful in this regard, many of you don't seem to get how these discussions are supposed to work. That's one thing you can give over-educated liberals credit for, they're generally down for a good philosophical debate.
When I talk about 1-1 defense, I don't literally mean "you can only kill one person with said weapon, and if you are attacked by more than one you are out of luck," so let's please stop with that silliness (again, my bad for not being clear). It is more that one person is not entitled to all the force necessary to defend themselves from all possible attack, including the entire government. The socialist in me believes that tasks of that magnitude need to be accomplished by the combined forces of the people, not one or a very small number of people. For example, Timothy McVeigh. If he wants to sacrifice himself to make a statement about government oppression by taking out a government employee or 2 with small arms, so be it. But he is not entitled to be able to take out, as one person, a sky scraper full of people.
Now, I'm sure some of you, who have thought about this more, have some responses to that. So please tell me, with reason, why I am wrong and I will listen. Any hateful blustering though, kindly shove it. It's the morning, I'm fresh and receptive, let's do this before I'm exhausted again. This is perfect hurricane activity.
Morning gents! I hope no one shot any "looters" last night
On the 1-1 vs 1-many defense theory: my apologies, I did not make that clear. Like I said, I don't have things fully figured out. Part of posting on this forum is so that I can have discussions with people of differing viewpoints and thus work through my own perspective. Some of you have been helpful in this regard, many of you don't seem to get how these discussions are supposed to work. That's one thing you can give over-educated liberals credit for, they're generally down for a good philosophical debate.
When I talk about 1-1 defense, I don't literally mean "you can only kill one person with said weapon, and if you are attacked by more than one you are out of luck," so let's please stop with that silliness (again, my bad for not being clear). It is more that one person is not entitled to all the force necessary to defend themselves from all possible attack, including the entire government. The socialist in me believes that tasks of that magnitude need to be accomplished by the combined forces of the people, not one or a very small number of people. For example, Timothy McVeigh. If he wants to sacrifice himself to make a statement about government oppression by taking out a government employee or 2 with small arms, so be it. But he is not entitled to be able to take out, as one person, a sky scraper full of people.
Now, I'm sure some of you, who have thought about this more, have some responses to that. So please tell me, with reason, why I am wrong and I will listen. Any hateful blustering though, kindly shove it. It's the morning, I'm fresh and receptive, let's do this before I'm exhausted again. This is perfect hurricane activity.
Let's start with you describing how you dropped a mag while shooting lefty!
But he did. All the laws against it didn't stop him or save anybody's life.
CRSIII
NES Member
You posted at 1:14pm.Morning gents! I hope no one shot any "looters" last night
And I don't recall anyone asking you anything.
Go back to bed.
Tench Coxe said:
This is what was intended by the second amendment. That a free people need not fear their government, for those same arms that are available to government are available to the people.
No. No gun control, no arms control of any kind. Those convicted of violent crimes should be kept isolated from the rest of society forever, or put to death depending on the heinousness of their crime. Leave the innocent out of it.
Agreed, glad you've gotten that far, kudos to you, but you've got a long way to go and much liberal programming to override.
There are two primary (and profound) problems with this line of thinking:zbrod said:
1. You are assuming you can predict the threat that any one person may face. You cannot.
2. You are still deluded into thinking government can correctly decide "what is enough." They cannot. They are not all powerful, benevolent beings with super intelligence. They are politicians who's expertise is in getting elected. Many of them are corrupt.
So, the SS is coming for you and the people of the town not only are not sympathetic to you, but are out in the street ready to help pull you from your house... You are going to need a machine gun and more to defend against that and don't try to tell me that cannot happen here, again, etc...
A person in the ethical and moral right defending themselves against a lethal threat should be able to bring overwhelming force to bear - not balanced force. Ignoring the non-sense of who decides that balance (which cannot be done - do you ask the attacker to wait while you fax a form to the ATF to determine the appropriate level of response?).
For all the reasons you evidently support the concept of M.A.D., a civilian needs the same capability to deter/repel the threat they may face. The balance of power between the people and government operates on the same principle.
There is nothing "fair" about your fundamental right to self defense. No one tells a lion they can only bite "so hard."
Last edited:
Let's see what else. Oh, I'd like to reiterate that this thread was inspired by a few weeks of lurking, where I got the impression from *you guys* that there was support for a certain "type" of gun control that did not trample on 2A rights, in order to "keep guns out of the hands of bad guys", which is a sentiment I *thought* I had seen multiple times on this very forum. I was not coming in assuming "most people" supported gun control because of my brainwashing at the hands of the liberal establishment. Though I will make the claim with some confidence that most people wouldn't support citizens having C4.
NHPatriot:
You seem to ignore the pretty extensive personal attacks your fellow members have resorted to and just focus on mine. The implication that I'm a (fat) chick, that my views are irrelevant because I'm young and went to college and therefore am one of those stereotypical college freshman idealist know-it-alls. Now, I'm the type of person who delights in good natured insults, so I have no problem implying in response that many of you are probably in a bunker in the woods, explaining to your niece-daughter how Glenn Beck is going to lead us all to the promised land. But I generally don't throw down until someone else has gone there.
Also, I'm still a bit confused by your preoccupation with the left's issues with Obama. I did make an effort to explain it in my last thread, but I guess I'm missing what the issue is. Yes, many on the left are disappointed with Obama because he has failed to live up to the ideals expressed in his campaign. He has not held Wall Street accountable, he has expanded our wars abroad rather than withdrawn, he has continued the excesses of executive power that Bush started (Patriot Act, etc), he did not go far enough on health care; the list goes on. On the other hand, most righties hate Obama because of the small amount he actually *has* lived up to those (liberal) ideals; they are mad at the very modest health care reform, they are mad at his toothless token effort to regulate Wall Street, they are mad at the pithy stimulus. That's what I meant, I'm not sure what I'm missing.
NHPatriot:
You seem to ignore the pretty extensive personal attacks your fellow members have resorted to and just focus on mine. The implication that I'm a (fat) chick, that my views are irrelevant because I'm young and went to college and therefore am one of those stereotypical college freshman idealist know-it-alls. Now, I'm the type of person who delights in good natured insults, so I have no problem implying in response that many of you are probably in a bunker in the woods, explaining to your niece-daughter how Glenn Beck is going to lead us all to the promised land. But I generally don't throw down until someone else has gone there.
Also, I'm still a bit confused by your preoccupation with the left's issues with Obama. I did make an effort to explain it in my last thread, but I guess I'm missing what the issue is. Yes, many on the left are disappointed with Obama because he has failed to live up to the ideals expressed in his campaign. He has not held Wall Street accountable, he has expanded our wars abroad rather than withdrawn, he has continued the excesses of executive power that Bush started (Patriot Act, etc), he did not go far enough on health care; the list goes on. On the other hand, most righties hate Obama because of the small amount he actually *has* lived up to those (liberal) ideals; they are mad at the very modest health care reform, they are mad at his toothless token effort to regulate Wall Street, they are mad at the pithy stimulus. That's what I meant, I'm not sure what I'm missing.
Oh yeah, I forgot about the mag discharging! Yeah, I'm not positive how it happens, but I think it's that some guns have that mag release button right underneath where my fingers are gripping. When I squeeze the trigger, it presses the button. Normally a right handed person wouldn't have their fingers over the button.
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2009
- Messages
- 4,937
- Likes
- 2,976
Great post! Sadly the liberals are all about doing something and as the above quote shows it doesn't matter to them if it will work or not. They have to have their hands in everything and they want to impose their will on everybody. Believe me when I tell you. Every liberal thinks they are much smarter than anyone who disagrees with them. They really are a heinous group.
If you want to think like a liberal you have to live by one single mantra. "People are too stupid to take care of themselves and it is our job to help them"
Liberals think they need to help everybody. The more you argue with them the more they realize they must do something to help you from yourself. Even the OP tried to tell us that he/she looks liberal here but in 'more normal' circles he/she is the conservative.
That's code for. You people are too stupid and you just don't get it.
Hey OP you're starting to get on my nerves. Show me one gun law that works and answer my question from earlier in this thread.
What gun law can you implement that does not infringe on the rights of the people?
Please describe a law that would have this effect.
Most shootings in urban areas are done by people that are already prohibited from owning a firearm. What new law will keep guns out of their hands?
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2009
- Messages
- 4,937
- Likes
- 2,976
Actually I'm mad that people like you were so enthralled with this guy that you voted for him based on 'hope'. Just wondering why your college eduction didn't help you recognize the red flags.
Since you're lefty, your left hand wraps around the grip from the left side to reach the trigger. The palm of your hand is therefore covering the mag release on right handed weapons preventing fingers from being there. It also acts as a barrier around the right hand which grips the left preventing fingers of your right hand from reaching that button.
- Status
