Gun control debate (merged)

#26,601
#26,601
luthervol said:
I'm against a lot of laws that would directly save a child's life. Because they are neither rational nor reasonable.
My logic.....evidently not yours.
Click to expand...
Your logic should be classified as anti-logic.

Your for laws against law abiding citizens, but at the same time you're against laws that have a direct correlation to children being murdered. You're for redflag laws but I'd bet your against reclassifying gender dysphoria as a mental illness when the evidence shows that a significant portion of the Trans community has a propensity toward violence. You're ok with children being murdered it seems.
 
#26,602
#26,602
luthervol said:
I'm against a lot of laws that would directly save a child's life. Because they are neither rational nor reasonable.
My logic.....evidently not yours.
Click to expand...
not really. you were all for the Covid lock downs. even when it was pointed out that more children were committing suicide due to the lock downs than were dying from Covid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol, hog88 and InVOLuntary
#26,603
#26,603
luthervol said:
It's not an infringement on anyone's right to keep or bear arms. Period. Absolute fact! To state otherwise is utter stupidity.

It would reduce the number of guns making their way into the hands of criminals and others who cannot legally purchase.
Click to expand...

It is an infringement since it prevents me from keeping how many arms I want at any one time.

I think I see your problem, you don't have a very firm grasp of the English language. Are you a Russin BOT like Volgr?

How would it reduce the number of guns making their way into the hands of criminals? Would it be as effective in reducing the amount of guns on the street as limiting the amount of Sudafed a person can buy has reduced meth?
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland and VOLS INC.
#26,604
#26,604
LouderVol said:
There you go twisting my words again.

I never said "you said to do" those things, I just said that you do them.

you constantly justify the various new gun laws as "at least they are doing something" when it gets pointed out the new laws either miss the problem, or have proven to be ineffective in the past.

hiding from the problem. "Assault weapons" aren't the problem. they kill 1/20th as many as handguns, and I like 1/100th of all gun deaths. You keep going back to their potential to cause harm. Their POTENTIAL is not the problem we have. We are dealing with the realities of deaths. you also hide from gun deaths being outside the top 10 leading cause of deaths in the nation, with most of the ones above it being even more preventable than gun deaths.

you are hiding from the racism of your proposed gun laws. Or at best you are downplaying it/accepting it; and not even attempting to find a method that would avoid racist outcomes. I am not sure if you align with LG on the stolen gun punishment thing, but making the victims of a crime, guilty of a crime is bound to have pretty severe repercussions. and at the very least I haven't seen you push back against the idea.

you say constantly to double down. Gun laws aren't working. what's your solution? more gun laws. back ground checks already exist, you want them to be more/better. Wait periods exist, you want them to be longer. tax stamps exist for a host of number of items, and you think the ATF should just be able to change the rules around those tax stamps at will with no input from the legislature. this also circles back to the first point of "just doing something".
Click to expand...
Pretty sure I have never used the "at least they are doing something' angle. Fail
My positions aren't related to assault weapons, I guess you have me confused with someone else, my two main recommendations have been x rounds in y time, and x purchases in y time - neither directly tied to assault weapons. Fail
I've never once claimed guns were the leading cause nor shied away from any discussion about the leading causes. Fail
There is no racism in my proposed gun laws, so nothing to hide from. Fail
I do believe people should be held legally responsible for reporting gun thefts and liable if they do not. Pass
 
#26,606
#26,606
InVOLuntary said:
Your logic should be classified as anti-logic.

Your for laws against law abiding citizens, but at the same time you're against laws that have a direct correlation to children being murdered. You're for redflag laws but I'd bet your against reclassifying gender dysphoria as a mental illness when the evidence shows that a significant portion of the Trans community has a propensity toward violence. You're ok with children being murdered it seems.
Click to expand...

I'd bet that he would be opposed to mandatory reporting to NICS anyone prescribed antidepressants, ADHD drugs or antipsychotics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#26,607
#26,607
hog88 said:
It is an infringement since it prevents me from keeping how many arms I want at any one time.

I think I see your problem, you don't have a very firm grasp of the English language. Are you a Russin BOT like Volgr?

How would it reduce the number of guns making their way into the hands of criminals? Would it be as effective in reducing the amount of guns on the street as limiting the amount of Sudafed a person can buy has reduced meth?
Click to expand...
yeah I doubt gangs having to turn to more straw-buyers is going to slow them down or limit how many guns get out there.

if anything it makes the problem more difficult to track as sales get broken into smaller deals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#26,608
#26,608
LouderVol said:
not really. you were all for the Covid lock downs. even when it was pointed out that more children were committing suicide due to the lock downs than were dying from Covid.
Click to expand...
Are you nuts??????????????
You are having some serious memory loss and/or mass confusion.
 
#26,609
#26,609
luthervol said:
Pretty sure I have never used the "at least they are doing something' angle. Fail
My positions aren't related to assault weapons, I guess you have me confused with someone else, my two main recommendations have been x rounds in y time, and x purchases in y time - neither directly tied to assault weapons. Fail
I've never once claimed guns were the leading cause nor shied away from any discussion about the leading causes. Fail
There is no racism in my proposed gun laws, so nothing to hide from. Fail
I do believe people should be held legally responsible for reporting gun thefts and liable if they do not. Pass
Click to expand...
you've never backed a gun law that didn't/wouldn't have any impact? Pretty sure you have.
what do you think defines an assault weapon beyond X over Y?
There is TONS of racism in your proposed gun laws if you hold it to your voting standard. and thats just the easiest to point to.
 
#26,611
#26,611
LouderVol said:
yeah I doubt gangs having to turn to more straw-buyers is going to slow them down or limit how many guns get out there.

if anything it makes the problem more difficult to track as sales get broken into smaller deals.
Click to expand...

Yep, right now this is the law so anyone doing straw bulk buys gets reported.

The Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968 requires federal firearms licensees (FFLs) to send a report to ATF when there is a sale of multiple firearms to the same purchaser within a certain time period.
Click to expand...
 
#26,613
#26,613
hog88 said:
I'd bet that he would be opposed to mandatory reporting to NICS anyone prescribed antidepressants, ADHD drugs or antipsychotics.
Click to expand...
You know it. His ultimate goal is totalitarianism. He wants the populace disarmed at least to the point of single shot shotguns. That way it's easier for his police state. He says these things under the guise of saving lives but he's against laws that would affect his people and actually save lives. (I'm against any law that would prohibit a class of people from exercising their rights. That includes Trans, lbgtqxyz, race ect. I was just using it to show his hypocrisy)
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#26,615
#26,615
hog88 said:
It is an infringement since it prevents me from keeping how many arms I want at any one time.

I think I see your problem, you don't have a very firm grasp of the English language. Are you a Russin BOT like Volgr?

How would it reduce the number of guns making their way into the hands of criminals? Would it be as effective in reducing the amount of guns on the street as limiting the amount of Sudafed a person can buy has reduced meth?
Click to expand...
It is not an infringement because you are still granted your 2a right to keep and bear arms.
It would reduce the number by reducing the number of guns purchased with intent to resell to criminals.
I hope it would be as effective. And I would also hope that as loopholes and alternatives were discovered, changes to the laws or new laws would be made to address the newest situation. It's not a war that is won or lost, it's a never ending series of battles.
 
#26,616
#26,616
LouderVol said:
you've never backed a gun law that didn't/wouldn't have any impact? Pretty sure you have.
what do you think defines an assault weapon beyond X over Y?
There is TONS of racism in your proposed gun laws if you hold it to your voting standard. and thats just the easiest to point to.
Click to expand...
LOL....It was you gun nuts that went all ape sh!t over all guns firing at the same rate. What was the company line? "It's not the gun, it's how fast the person can pull the trigger." Something like that. Now you want to conveniently change your position? Nah
 
#26,617
#26,617
LouderVol said:
why wouldn't they? If they want X number of guns, why wouldn't/couldn't they use Y number of people to get them?
Click to expand...
The X number they want is the number they can easily and legally purchase. If they wanted to bring others in, they would have already done so.
 
#26,619
#26,619
luthervol said:
It is not an infringement because you are still granted your 2a right to keep and bear arms.
It would reduce the number by reducing the number of guns purchased with intent to resell to criminals.
I hope it would be as effective. And I would also hope that as loopholes and alternatives were discovered, changes to the laws or new laws would be made to address the newest situation. It's not a war that is won or lost, it's a never ending series of battles.
Click to expand...

Ok, lets just forgo arguing over infringement. It's clear you don't understand the definition of the word.

Lets delve into how limiting the number of guns purchased over time will reduce the amount of weapons on the street. FFL dealers already have to report to the ATF multiple sales in a short amount of time to the same individual. And yes the ATF looks at these reports and runs them down, the gangs/criminals know this so the currently use multiple straw buyers. So again I ask, how would limiting the amount you can buy at one time reduce the guns on the street?
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#26,620
#26,620
luthervol said:
minimum wage.
The purpose of the minimum wage was to stabilize the post-depression economy and protect the workers in the labor force. The minimum wage was designed to create a minimum standard of living to protect the health and well-being of employees.
Click to expand...

This was your precursor to minimum wage laws in the US. It was implemented explicitly to prevent black labor from low balling white labor in construction. You’ll find the same history across the entire world. Canada for example their first minimum wage laws were to prevent Asian labor from low balling white labor in the logging industry.

These are basic established historical facts you’re disagreeing with.

Davis–Bacon Act of 1931 - Wikipedia
 
#26,621
#26,621
hog88 said:
Ok, lets just forgo arguing over infringement. It's clear you don't understand the definition of the word.

Lets delve into how limiting the number of guns purchased over time will reduce the amount of weapons on the street. FFL dealers already have to report to the ATF multiple sales in a short amount of time to the same individual. And yes the ATF looks at these reports and runs them down, the gangs/criminals know this so the currently use multiple straw buyers. So again I ask, how would limiting the amount you can buy at one time reduce the guns on the street?
Click to expand...
New laws would show they really, really, really mean it this time! Duh
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#26,623
#26,623
luthervol said:
The X number they want is the number they can easily and legally purchase. If they wanted to bring others in, they would have already done so.
Click to expand...
they are already buying the guns illegally. in fact that very problem is why they are buying the guns illegally, because they legally can't get the guns they want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#26,624
#26,624
hog88 said:
Ok, lets just forgo arguing over infringement. It's clear you don't understand the definition of the word.

Lets delve into how limiting the number of guns purchased over time will reduce the amount of weapons on the street. FFL dealers already have to report to the ATF multiple sales in a short amount of time to the same individual. And yes the ATF looks at these reports and runs them down, the gangs/criminals know this so the currently use multiple straw buyers. So again I ask, how would limiting the amount you can buy at one time reduce the guns on the street?
Click to expand...
It sounds as if what they are already doing is working to a degree, limiting the amount that can be purchased by each straw buyer would reduce the ease and amount of flow even more.
https://thehill.com/homenews/3521571-what-is-straw-purchasing-a-gun/
 
#26,625
#26,625
Vol8188 said:
This was your precursor to minimum wage laws in the US. It was implemented explicitly to prevent black labor from low balling white labor in construction. You’ll find the same history across the entire world. Canada for example their first minimum wage laws were to prevent Asian labor from low balling white labor in the logging industry.

These are basic established historical facts you’re disagreeing with.

Davis–Bacon Act of 1931 - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
minimum wage.
The purpose of the minimum wage was to stabilize the post-depression economy and protect the workers in the labor force. The minimum wage was designed to create a minimum standard of living to protect the health and well-being of employees. Others have argued that the primary purpose was to aid the lowest paid of the nation's working population, those who lacked sufficient bargaining power to secure for themselves a minimum subsistence wage. FLSA specifically provided for a minimum wage for full time and part time, public and private sector workers. Specifically, workers who are “engaged in” or “in the production of goods for” interstate (commerce between the states) and foreign commerce.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top