9 votes

Anyone here like to argue about gun control?

I am staunchly pro-gun. I have been debating people on Facebook for a while. Recently I asked someone what kind of gun control they wanted. She laid out a well thought out response that is seemingly moderate. I am going to sleep on my response to her, but since the DP has such a depth and breadth of collective knowledge, I thought I'd share her post. If anyone wants to suggest how to reply feel free to respond. Here's what the gun control advocate said:

I am for EXPANDED gun control legislation. I don't want anyone to be able to legally purchase any gun without having a background check. This includes gun shows, Internet, family, friend or any other outlet.

I'm also a little more extreme in my interests than Dale as far as I know. I think that people should have to pass a test (as we do in order to drive legally) before being allowed to purchase a gun. If they pass the background check and the test, then they can have access to legal guns. The test would question someone's good sense in ensuring the safety of their weapon. It should demonstrate that the person has at least read and understands some basic safety materials including safe storage and use of the weapon and who should and should not be allowed access to their guns (Newtown).

Finally, I would like a law that says that large magazines and fully automatic weapons are not legal for purchase by the general public.

I know that irresponsible gun owners will not follow the safety rules no matter what, but at least they will have had access to the knowledge and can face prosecution for the irresponsible use or storage of their weapons. I also know that criminals will still break the law. If the laws I want were passed, we would then have a means for prosecuting criminals who have guns that are not legal. Finally, I know that these are not complete solutions to the mass killings in America, but they are a start. And, I'd like to get started, please.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Yes indeed, a true liberals thankless response, coming from

Someone who believes government control is the best control. The problem is that most gun owners do not want the government involved if they wish to hand down a family heirloom firearm, or simply leave ones firearms to family members when they go. A responsible gun owner will not leave their firearms to a family member who is mentally unstable, so we do not need government deciding whether I can leave my gun to my son of whom I've hunted with since he was 7, it is none of their business and he has passed his hunters safety course, and been completely competent and safe for the last 13 years.

The only thing gun owners might stand for is for the local gun rights community to provide first time gun owners with a mandatory safety course when purchasing their first firearm at the legal age, this will ensure more than anything that those who acquire firearms are taught the safety aspects. They should be able to provide their certificate to anyone who would sell them a firearm, and the people could police themselves without the governments nose in it at all.

The full auto weapon meme is a useless one. You must already go through a thorough background check and pay a $200.00 license fee should you get the go ahead. After that one would have to find an automatic weapon to purchase, and the small end Uzi, mac 10 style weapons start around $5-7,000 while the larger AK's and military style weapons are $15-25,000 dollars and they are already registered with the ATF. This is why there are almost no crimes committed with automatic weapons, simply because of their expense and difficulty to obtain. Large capacity magazine arguments are ignorant as well. I do not want to go to the range with my AR and have to spend half of my time reloading when shooting 4-500 rounds. Aside from that, if 5 men break into my house or better yet a mob I want to be able to use my human right to self defense protecting my children from harm, which is no bureaucrats business.

This seems like someone so scared of guns that they want to attack full auto's that is not responsible for 1 tenth of 1 percent of crimes so while the ignorance in making this a ban-able item shows that in reality many anti gunners work from pure emotion and media propaganda and there is no way one can have a rational discussion when they speak of banning me from something when I have not committed a crime.

In the end the constitution; specifically the 2nd amendment, is why we can keep and bear arms. So to understand what the founders meant here are a couple of items that may help your friend understand why those that believe in the constitution are not too quick to recognize those that would take that right away. After reading and understanding in full the items posted in the link ahead the person still argues about taking anyone's rights away without trial for violating law, then they are too far gone to reason with. It was also established that the word "arms" would mean the light arms rifle, pistol, sword, and other weapons a foot soldier could carry in defense of ones state, it is pretty clear the intent of the founders.

What the founders said about our right to keep and bear arms. It holds as true today as it did back then:
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/arms.html

And of all quotes written on the page, the most important being:
"The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... "The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... [I]f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order."
-- Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]

Always remember:
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." ~ Samuel Adams
If they hate us for our freedom, they must LOVE us now....

Stay IRATE, remain TIRELESS, an

My story ...........

The country I come from had a revolution in the mid seventies. Basically a bunch of street thugs took over and declared a socialist state. The first law they wrote and enforced was making the private ownership of guns a crime.So they forced the people to give up all their weapons.

Once all the weapons were handed over within less then two years – in the name of protecting the people ( in this case anti-revolutionaries) the indiscriminate killings began. By the time they were done they have managed to get into the records books of the top ten genocides of the twentieth century – over 2 million unarmed civilians killed because they were perceived as a threat to the state – killed without any evidence. The killings happened everywhere, on the streets in the public squares and even in the backyard of the families of the victims, who were forced to pay for the bullets used to kill their loved ones. No day in court, no due process, - summary execution only.

For those who argue gun control, there is only one question I ask them. Simply this …..

Where does one get the authority to diminish another’s ability to defend themselves, their family or property?

An honest gun control freak knowing the honest answer to this question would immediately see the futility of their position.

"I know that irresponsible

"I know that irresponsible gun owners will not follow the safety rules no matter what, but at least they will have had access to the knowledge and can face prosecution for the irresponsible use or storage of their weapons. I also know that criminals will still break the law. If the laws I want were passed, we would then have a means for prosecuting criminals who have guns that are not legal."

All these acts are covered under existing law and can be prosecuted.

"I don't want anyone to be able to legally purchase any gun without having a background check. This includes gun shows, Internet, family, friend or any other outlet."

Does this apply to the government that will do the back ground checks? ie: when they hand guns to Mexico Drug cartels, Syria. ISIS? You know the ones that come over our border and kill our police and citizens?

"Finally, I would like a law that says that large magazines and fully automatic weapons are not legal for purchase by the general public. "

Only when the government is willing to do the same. The whole idea of guns in the constitution is so we can match our government should they over step. How many millions have governments killed? (Not in war) Stalin, Mao ect... America would not be if it couldn't have fought off the original British government.

A couple more

Using the power of the law to ensure that the law abiding are at the mercy of the lawless is an act of barbarism beyond the realms of logic. The dreamers and fools who force us to endure the carnage should be on trial along with the criminals they are creating. The world is not made more civil by forcing the civilized to be the victims of the predators.

[T]he next time you read or hear about a murder victim, a rape victim or an assault victim, preface it with the word “unarmed” so that murder victims become “unarmed murder victims”; this is especially true in rape. How many times have you read, “An unidentified woman, heavily armed with a semi-automatic weapon was raped by a man wielding a knife.” No answer is necessary, right?

Let it not be said that we did nothing.-Ron Paul
Stand up for what you believe in, even if you stand alone.-Sophia Magdalena Scholl

Some selected quotes from

Some selected quotes from attorney Jeffrey R. Snyder:

Is your life worth protecting? If so, whose responsibility is it to protect it? If you believe it reprehensible to possess the means and will to use lethal force to repel a criminal assault, how can you call upon another to do so for you?

Should you ever be the victim of an assault, a robbery, or a rape, you will find it very difficult to call the police while the act is in progress, even if you are carrying a portable cellular phone.

Laws disarming honest citizens proclaim that the government is the master, not the servant of the people… there is a weapon for preserving life and liberty that can be wielded effectively by almost anyone—the handgun. ... it can be used effectively by the old and the weak against the young and the strong, by the one against the many.

To own firearms is to affirm that freedom and liberty are not gifts from the state. It is to reserve final judgment about whether the state is encroaching on freedom and liberty, to stand ready to defend that freedom with more than mere words, and to stand outside the state’s totalitarian reach. - A Nation of Cowards, 113 Public Interest (Fall 1993).

Let it not be said that we did nothing.-Ron Paul
Stand up for what you believe in, even if you stand alone.-Sophia Magdalena Scholl

1. Do you accept that humans

1. Do you accept that humans kill, rape, burglar, and do bad things? These people have, do, and will always exist as human nature. I accept that the common man hurts the common man because that is on a terrifically small scale in a world of 6 billion people.

2. It's not about gunpowder, its about power.

3. Do you believe people in power today are different than those in power a thousand years ago?

4. What do you study? How would things be if conclusions were drawn from very minor studying and research?

5. I study history. And history proves bad people gain control of good people and hurt them.

6. Is your only concentration on micro human dynamics or not on macro human dynamics?

**

The key is to move the box. I do not even discuss micro human nature. I move right into the core of a free humanity and mankind itself; that those in power take advantage and hurt us commoners.

I tend to have to discuss every weekend when I am exhibiting with those that considered us adversaries. More than once I have heard their final comment be - "you have given me something to think about."

Honing box movement has been since 1/2013 due to the SAFE Act in New York state.

MOve the box from micro to the core of what is the last resort to keep a free humanity and the reason for the Consistution - to keep the common man free.

Human Rights: Gun ownership is a human right antidote to genocid

Genocide is a human rights violation that dwarves all other crimes. If we are to be serious—and not merely sanctimonious—about human rights, then we must be serious about eradicating genocide. If the people of the world were better armed, many fewer people would be the victims of genocide. [There are] three key preconditions of genocide: hatred, government, and gun control. Without any of these three elements, genocide is not possible. - Book Review: LETHAL LAWS. by Jay Simpkin, Aaron Zelman, & Alan M. Rice, Jews for The Preser-vation of Firearms Ownership, Inc., 2872 South Wentworth Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53207, (414) 769-0760, 15 N.Y.L. SCH. J. INT’L & COMP. L. 355, 397-398 (1995)

The more power a government has, the more it can act arbitrarily according to the whims and desires of the elite and murder its foreign and domestic subjects. The more constrained the power of governments, the more power is diffused, checked and balanced, the less it will aggress on others and commit democide. [Note: Dr. Rummel coined the term democide to refer to the many and regular genocides and mass murders committed by govern-ments.]. . . . In total, during the first eighty-eight years of this century, almost 170 million men, women, and children have been shot, beaten, tortured, knifed, burned, starved, frozen, crushed, or worked to death; buried alive, drowned, hung, bombed, or killed in any other of the myriad ways governments have inflicted death on unarmed, helpless citizens and foreigners. The dead could conceivably be nearly 360 million people. It is as though our species has been devastated by a modern Black Plague. And indeed it has, but a plague of Power, not of germs. - Rummel, Rudolf J. (professor of political science, University of Hawaii) DEATH BY GOVERNMENT (Transaction Press 1994).

Let it not be said that we did nothing.-Ron Paul
Stand up for what you believe in, even if you stand alone.-Sophia Magdalena Scholl

Gun Control in 47 seconds


http://youtu.be/rv7ZXLU51Hs

If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it's not that you are anti-gun. You'll need the police's guns to take away other people's guns. So you are very pro-gun, you just believe that only the Government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions. - Stefan Molyneux

Let it not be said that we did nothing.-Ron Paul
Stand up for what you believe in, even if you stand alone.-Sophia Magdalena Scholl

she is in good company

You can point out she is in good company. Many famous people support enforcement of gun control including:

Mao Zedong
Joseph Stalin
Adolf Hitler
Khmer Rouge
Idi Amin

and every other totalitarian dictator or group. Perhaps it is good basis to reconsider the issue from blank slate.

If your system depend on having the right ("good") person/people in power, than it is a flawed system.

Let it not be said that we did nothing.-Ron Paul
Stand up for what you believe in, even if you stand alone.-Sophia Magdalena Scholl

Appeal to emotion

By enlarge, the anti-gunners do not base their position on reason and logic but on emotion. They may attempt to rationalize the position with seeming facts and logic but that is post hoc rationalization for an opinion based on emotion.

The best way to reach an anti-gunner is through emotional arguments. And just realize you may never reach any particular person, and won’t change the opinion of most, but sometimes you can with the proper appeal and framing. And it may not be now, but the words and empathy and emotions you touch now may open their mind years from now. . And you may never reach them. If you simply want to hone your persuasion skills for practice and fun. Persuasion is an appeal, not an argument. If you find yourself arguing you may fell you have “won” but you will not have persuaded.

Let it not be said that we did nothing.-Ron Paul
Stand up for what you believe in, even if you stand alone.-Sophia Magdalena Scholl

The Constitution is Common-Sense

Great article on the subject, http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=220166

-A
New Membership Levels with Greeneville Outfitters - Gear at Cost:
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/bring-back-mom-pop-stores

A felon

doesn't care what laws there are or else he wouldn't be a felon. The fact is that any gun control we have or would have, is simply a feel good measure. GC advocates just don't get that, it's not the people following the laws that are the problem.

I grew up in the NRA Junior members. It's a lifetime's worth of knowledge and foremost safety! I highly recommend it even in schools. There is much that could be taught without the guns.

Good luck with your debate,

Know me, and you will know of the men and women that forged my soul.

Magazine limits are so stupid.

Do people who preach magazine limits EVER consider the idea that the gunman might just RELOAD?

No to mention you already need to go through an extremely lengthy process (including a thorough background check) through the ATF and FBI to attain a Class 3 Federal Firearms License in order to get a fully-automatic weapon, and only 2 states (I believe) allow them. Plus, fully automatic firearms are almost always in the ~$15,000 range (or more), so the idea that it's easy to get them is asinine.

And she already admitted in her poorly thought out response that such government intervention won't do anything to deter actual criminals. How she comes to the conclusion that the solution is to persecute and treat every gun owner as a possible mass-murderer is completely beyond any rational human being.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.

www.simplefactsplainarguments.com

"These are ammunition, they're bullets...

"These are ammunition, they're bullets, so the people who have those now, they're going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high-capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won't be any more available,” said Rep. Diana DeGette, Democrat from Colorado."

These are the types of people representing more strict gun laws.

I wish I could find the humor to laugh, but not today.

http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_22971620/inaccurate-re...

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

"The Government is us" claimed Obama..

"These representatives were elected by you..."

"Fat chance" says a reader...

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?

solution

Simple solution is to ban EVIL. start with banning suicidal pharmaceuticals. Then educate the next generation on the philosophy that to thine own self be true. Do unto others as you would have them do to you...or something like that. Follow the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence. And most of all stop the hate.
For the power hungry sociopaths..elite laugh at them and dont work for them. Stop saying "I'am just doing my job" and grow a conscience. That should be good for a start. Oh yeah and dont trust the MSM. If you can't follow these simple rules then maybe you dont have a soul and shouldn't be here anyway.

error

sorry duplicate

The Only Effective Gun Control...



Is a firm grip, steady aim and a gentle squeeze.


Exercise Liberty.


America Rising.
The Constitution Stands.

"That the pen is mightier than the sword would be proven false; if I should take my sword and cut off the hand that holds the pen" - American Nomad

deacon's picture

if i was going to comment

^^^^^^
that would have been the one
wait..i did comment,didn't I?
deacon

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

"I don't want anyone to be

"I don't want anyone to be able to legally purchase any gun without having a background check. This includes gun shows, Internet, family, friend or any other outlet."

Right off she shows she's hardly well thought out. She's a zealot. How does she expect to intercede in personal sales? This is impossible without gun registration. She either knows this and this is her goal, or doesn't and needs to reconsider.

"If the laws I want were passed, we would then have a means for prosecuting criminals who have guns that are not legal"

We already have means for prosecuting criminals for illegal guns. We do it all the time.

"Finally, I know that these are not complete solutions to the mass killings in America, but they are a start"

Well we know they aren't a solution because we see mass killing in places where guns are completely banned.

Barring the real purpose of the Second Amendment, which she, as a statolater, is clearly not moved by, the question boils down to this:

An individual should have access to any weapon police claim to need. The purpose of police is to protect us from criminals. If they think they need high capacity magazines, then there are criminals out there which only high capacity magazines are the appropriate defense. When seconds matter, police are minutes away.

We are not, and she should not, be willing to let her family die because she didn't think it through.

Compare Gun vs Auto Deaths

Which one has more training and licensing and regulation?

It's not even close

Although I don't advocate owning guns without training, but it is clear the comparison to autos is ludicrous. Gun owners as a whole have a considerable amount of respect for their weapons and act accordingly unlike auto drivers.

Another strategy that I use.

Gun control freaks always tell me "The founding fathers did not envision ..." or "Nobody needs a..."

I always apply their argument to the other amendments in the bill of rights to try to show their inconsistency.

Freedom of speech: The only form of mass media was the printing press, therefore print media should be fully free, however the founding fathers never envisioned TV, radio and internet. The internet is dangerous because someone with little money can reach millions of people with no expense and say things that are dangerous. People should have a background check, fingerprinted, licensed and restricted before being allowed to use the newer forms of mass media.

I've used this on religion, assembly, speech, searches, jury trials and others.

Trying to reason ...

Trying to reason with someone that bases their logic on emotions is always a dead end. You will never convince her with facts, logic, statistics, and common sense. And lets not forget the last four words of the second amendment " shall not be infringed".

RickStone

She answered herself

"I know that irresponsible gun owners will not follow the safety rules no matter what, but at least they will have had access to the knowledge and can face prosecution for the irresponsible use or storage of their weapons.".

Irresponsible gun owners are the ones issues arise from. She knows they wont follow the rules and there are already laws to prosecute them.

If she wants to get started she can start educating the public on how to handle a gun. Knowledge and understanding is the issue, not not having enough regulation. She wants to pin educating people on the State, I say it's the person's responsibility.

If ignorance is bliss, Washington DC must be heaven.

I thought Cato was

I thought Cato was libertarian leaning?
http://www.cato.org/blog/further-thoughts-sensible-gun-legis...

-A
New Membership Levels with Greeneville Outfitters - Gear at Cost:
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/bring-back-mom-pop-stores

Comparing gun ownership to driving is incorrect.

People choose VOLUNTARILY to enter into a commercial contract when they decide to title, register & license their property (ie, a car) with the government. As sovereign citizens they could also choose to travel freely along the public right-of-way with their property without such obligations if they so wish. Most choose to go into contract with the government out of ignorance or to just avoid being harassed, but as they say freedom isn't free. Other such as this man understand their constitutional rights and actively defends them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-F9OjC8qIaw

Not only is your right to own property protected under the USC but the framers reiterated this principle by SPECIFICALLY stating that no infringements can be put on owning bearable arms (whether that be muskets, semi-automatic rifles or laser cannons).

I would start by pointing this out to her before you start dissecting her other points. Thanks.

She says these laws are "a

She says these laws are "a start" so does that mean she plans to use background check legislation to springboard additional gun-control such as registration or confiscation?

Ask her if she trusts the government and want them to be the only ones with guns such as the DHS buying 7,000 AR-15 rifles. Ask her if she trusts the same gov that lied about the Gulf of Tonkin that led ot vietnam and over 50,000 US deaths or lied about Iraq that led to some 3,000 US deaths.

If our government is really for the people and wants to protect our freedom then why are they building a massive facility in UT to track every bit of electronic info on every American?

As for magazines, what would that law do to prevent anything? You can change a mag in seconds and most gun deaths are commited with a pistol with a standard magazine.

Ask why the gov. wants to ban AR-15's when handguns cause a vast majority of gun deaths in the US.

Also, check out my account. I have a couple of essay's I have written about gun control that you could send her.

We all share this eternally evolving present moment- The past and future only exist as inconsequential mental fabrications.

Ask her

to tell you where government has the authority under the Constitution to legally implement her suggestions.

"It does not take a majority to prevail but rather an irate, tireless minority keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."

--Samuel Adams

Her "plan" does nothing

Her plan does nothing to stop murders.

None of the stuff about safe storage of guns, responsible training/handling, etc. will do a damn bit of good to stop murders, mass or otherwise, of innocent people using guns.

All of those ideas could only possibly help reduce the number of accidental discharges... which NO ONE in the media or government is talking about.

So I say BS!

Plans like these are designed to sway people's hearts and appear as so-called common sense laws, but in reality they are just another round-about, deceptive way to expand gun control drastically. Personally, I think those who tout these ideas knowingly have the intentions of reducing the number of armed citizens capable of defending themselves as the Founders intended. Maybe they are only as gullible as the government hopes they are though. I have my doubts though. More likely they are state worshippers who truly think only state officials have any reason to be armed. We all know where a situation such as that leads.

Good luck with your rebuttal. Someone needs to set her straight

Our family's journey from the Rocket City to the Redoubt: www.suburbiatosimplicity.com

There is no reason firearms should be

a separate class of property regulated by government.

If I want to buy a fry pan, I do not need to pass a test or get a background check. Yet, I could burn myself on a fry pan. I could hit someone over the head and kill him with a fry pan. So, what? Does there need to be a government approval for fry pan ownership?

I learned how to responsibly handle guns when I was a kid. I learned how from an older brother who learned from our father. I didn't need a government certified trainer to tell me not to point a gun at someone unless I intended to shoot him. I didn't need a government quiz to know to double check the gun is unloaded when I put it away or transport it.

People who have never handled firearms believe there is something magical and complicated about them. They are not magical nor complicated. There is no need to do background checks on every gun purchase just like you don't need a government agent to fondle your gonads before getting onto an airplane.

What the current and proposed regulation of firearms does is it gives government an excuse to invade privacy without probable cause. It makes nobody safer. It creates an expensive bureaucracy. It justifies government databases.

When someone says "I want background checks and government safety courses," what she is saying is "I don't trust people and have no respect for their rights." Must people be screened by an institution that is unaccountable for its mistakes to make others feel safer?
As for people being punished for irresponsible use of a firearm, we have that now. Murder is illegal. Assault is illegal. Criminal use of any weapon is punishable already. A background check adds nothing to that. The skills needed to handle firearms are very accessible now. They have always been accessible. They are easy to learn.

Nobody needs a government agent to teach it. It is no more complicated than operating a weedeater or a lawnmower. Nobody buys one and doesn't read the instructions that comes with it. Or asks for some basic operation help. Nobody goes to a class for that, or needs to.

Just respect the individual right to own property and leave people alone. If the owner uses that property to violate the rights of others, then the crime should be punished. Owning a gun, or leaving it on the kitchen counter should not be a crime. Doing so harms nobody. Writing new laws will not make people more moral or smarter. All it will do is increase the cost of government and infringe on personal rights and liberties.

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson