Gun control debate (merged)

#7,728
#7,728
luthervol said:
The issue is who determines what is rational and reasonable.
We will obviously disagree individually on what is rational and reasonable........that's a given.
Just for the sake of argument:
I think gun law A is rational and reasonable.
You think gun law A is not rational and reasonable.
Anyone shocked or surprised???????

The question is who decides which one of us is correct?
Click to expand...
Not one single person. But I'll take a flyer, you are most likely wrong.

There, feel better?

Now about those new rational and reasonable gun laws you wish to see implemented.

Let's see them.
 
#7,729
#7,729
luthervol said:
The issue is who determines what is rational and reasonable.
We will obviously disagree individually on what is rational and reasonable........that's a given.
Just for the sake of argument:
I think gun law A is rational and reasonable.
You think gun law A is not rational and reasonable.
Anyone shocked or surprised???????

The question is who decides which one of us is correct?
Click to expand...

Well at least there's an actual question worth addressing there. (In stark contrast to previous efforts) I'll offer the 2A in general and Heller/McDonald as recent examples of highest level jurisprudence.
 
#7,730
#7,730
luthervol said:
The issue is who determines what is rational and reasonable.
We will obviously disagree individually on what is rational and reasonable........that's a given.
Just for the sake of argument:
I think gun law A is rational and reasonable.
You think gun law A is not rational and reasonable.
Anyone shocked or surprised???????

The question is who decides which one of us is correct?
Click to expand...
One would have to present an actual argument for there to be a decision
 
#7,731
#7,731
Grand Vol said:
<sigh>

They just don't stop...

Dems Debut National Ammo Control Bill in Congress :: Guns.com
Click to expand...

Isn't this the one that sort of started this whole tangent?
I will not even look at this and for the sake of argument state that I think it is rational and reasonable. (because we all know I probably would)
I don't even need any of you to tell me that you think it is not rational and reasonable. (see how pointless all of that would be)
We'll let the deciders decide. And again, who are the deciders?
 
#7,732
#7,732
luthervol said:
Isn't this the one that sort of started this whole tangent?
I will not even look at this and for the sake of argument state that I think it is rational and reasonable. (because we all know I probably would)
I don't even need any of you to tell me that you think it is not rational and reasonable. (see how pointless all of that would be)
We'll let the deciders decide. And again, who are the deciders?
Click to expand...
so actual reasonable discussion is pointless? No wonder we are effed. Even if you dont agree, and wont, good discussion is important. Refine your points, take on new ideas, challenge yourself
 
#7,733
#7,733
LouderVol said:
so actual reasonable discussion is pointless? No wonder we are effed. Even if you dont agree, and wont, good discussion is important. Refine your points, take on new ideas, challenge yourself
Click to expand...
lol..........Within the first week of my discovery of the PF I spent a a lot of time in this thread having a "discussion". It was anything but. The 2A crowd in here had zero desire to discuss. I've fallen back into that trap a couple of other times with the exact same results. I'm not sure that I've ever seen anyone change their position from that which they initially entered. That's why it really all boils down to who decides what is rational and reasonable.
But again, out of boredom and depression from the TN game, I'll give you guys a shot.
I think background checks on the purchase of ammo is a great idea.
 
#7,734
#7,734
luthervol said:
lol..........Within the first week of my discovery of the PF I spent a a lot of time in this thread having a "discussion". It was anything but. The 2A crowd in here had zero desire to discuss. I've fallen back into that trap a couple of other times with the exact same results. I'm not sure that I've ever seen anyone change their position from that which they initially entered. That's why it really all boils down to who decides what is rational and reasonable.
But again, out of boredom and depression from the TN game, I'll give you guys a shot.
I think background checks on the purchase of ammo is a great idea.
Click to expand...
thank you for the interaction.

I can see some logic behind that.

Main issue I see with that is we already have background checks. Are these fundamentally different checks?

My counterpoint would be to make what we have better. Better checks instead of more. Far less intrusive to people's rights, should stop more people.

I will expand that check, include mental health aspects.
 
#7,735
#7,735
LouderVol said:
thank you for the interaction.

I can see some logic behind that.

Main issue I see with that is we already have background checks. Are these fundamentally different checks?

My counterpoint would be to make what we have better. Better checks instead of more. Far less intrusive to people's rights, should stop more people.

I will expand that check, include mental health aspects.
Click to expand...
I could certainly get on board with anything that makes the current checks better.
I'm basically for anything that reduces the growing number of guns in circulation.
 
#7,736
#7,736
luthervol said:
Isn't this the one that sort of started this whole tangent?
I will not even look at this and for the sake of argument state that I think it is rational and reasonable. (because we all know I probably would)
I don't even need any of you to tell me that you think it is not rational and reasonable. (see how pointless all of that would be)
We'll let the deciders decide. And again, who are the deciders?
Click to expand...
In this case, ultimately the Supreme Court.
 
#7,737
#7,737
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#7,740
#7,740
luthervol said:
I operate under the philosophy that as a nation we would be better off with 200 million guns in circulation rather than 400 million.
Click to expand...
So how will you accomplish this and again what difference would it make?

Isn't it more important who owns them?
 
#7,741
#7,741
37L1 said:
So how will you accomplish this and again what difference would it make?

Isn't it more important who owns them?
Click to expand...
Maybe limit purchases to 1 per year. The fewer the guns in circulation, the fewer the guns that end up in the wrong hands.
Who owns them is of paramount importance.
 
#7,742
#7,742
More gun laws...hmmmm. how about we get the ones we already have working correctly first, see where improvements can be made and make those tweaks. Adding more gun laws just seems to be a "hey, look at me" moment on the political stage and not a serious attempt to address issues.

If the nimrods in DC were in any way not just grandstanding for votes they wouldn't be ignorant in their statements. How on earth can one expect to be taken seriously when they state as fact that a semi-auto rifle expends as many rounds as a fighter jet machine gun in the same amount of time...try to fix the stupid first.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77
#7,744
#7,744
DynaLo said:
More gun laws...hmmmm. how about we get the ones we already have working correctly first, see where improvements can be made and make those tweaks. Adding more gun laws just seems to be a "hey, look at me" moment on the political stage and not a serious attempt to address issues.

If the nimrods in DC were in any way not just grandstanding for votes they wouldn't be ignorant in their statements. How on earth can one expect to be taken seriously when they state as fact that a semi-auto rifle expends as many rounds as a fighter jet machine gun in the same amount of time...try to fix the stupid first.
Click to expand...
I'm for whatever works.
 
#7,745
#7,745
luthervol said:
Maybe limit purchases to 1 per year. The fewer the guns in circulation, the fewer the guns that end up in the wrong hands.
Who owns them is of paramount importance.
Click to expand...
Your posit does not necessarily follow. You are just playing the law of averages.

Check the Law of Scarcity. Scarce items become more valuable and then more likely to be stolen.
 
#7,746
#7,746
Make no mistake, the liberals want total gun confiscation. They realize they can't do that quickly. How do you eat an elephant, one bite at a time. Their motivation has nothing to do with saving lives. If that were the case they'd be against murdering children (another conflict in the liberal brain). Their motivation lies in advancing their agenda. They can't force their will on an armed population. Their goal is total government control of the population.
 
#7,747
#7,747
InVOLuntary said:
Make no mistake, the liberals want total gun confiscation. They realize they can't do that quickly. How do you eat an elephant, one bite at a time. Their motivation has nothing to do with saving lives. If that were the case they'd be against murdering children (another conflict in the liberal brain). Their motivation lies in advancing their agenda. They can't force their will on an armed population. Their goal is total government control of the population.
Click to expand...
You're wrong. I'm liberal and I don't support total gun confiscation. that's just a red herring propaganda talking point from the 2A crowd.
 
#7,748
#7,748
luthervol said:
You're wrong. I'm liberal and I don't support total gun confiscation. that's just a red herring propaganda talking point from the 2A crowd.
Click to expand...
You're just one misguided liberal. Total gun confiscation is the ultimate goal of liberals, especially those in power. You're just one of their sheep.
 
#7,749
#7,749
luthervol said:
You're wrong. I'm liberal and I don't support total gun confiscation. that's just a red herring propaganda talking point from the 2A crowd.
Click to expand...
It's the only way to stop "Gun Violence." But in trying to confiscate you would create more violence and turn otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals.
 
#7,750
#7,750
37L1 said:
Your posit does not necessarily follow. You are just playing the law of averages.

Check the Law of Scarcity. Scarce items become more valuable and then more likely to be stolen.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty comfortable with the law of averages. Sure the more scarce the item come the higher the value will rise. We could hand out guns for free and then there would be no need to steal them or for a black market, but that doesn't mean that handing out guns for free would have an overall positive effect.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top