Then you just ruled out most of his votersif somebody voted for obama its because theyre politically ignorant or truly believe in karl marx thinking......this does not include those on welfare.
...
The trouble here is that the same premise gets used over and over. The premise is that if one law is failing to prevent crime, why should another law succeed. While on its face, this seems valid, all it serves to accomplish is...nothing. It isn't an actual argument. They haven't countered the opposition.
The biggest problem here is that such arguments, when applied to a national stage, offer no solution to gun violence. More comprehensive screenings of gun buyers might yield a few more guns kept out of the hands of criminals. More importantly, it is a seemingly meaningful concession that may be of little actual use but it puts the ball back in the hands of the pro-gun groups. Now we can use our concession to begin something truly useful like the legalization and regulation of drug sales. The strengthening of social programs to actually fight poverty.
While not popular topics in conservative circles, they have a much larger impact on criminal behavior which we all know to be the real problem. Guns simply make it easier to kill the member of an opposing gang. You can take the guns away from them but you still leave the gang bangers. Start by removing the things they fight over and they won't fight over them. Begin to improve their social and economic standing and you'll find the gangs aren't as attractive.
but I had to constantly go back and beat down the same tired arguments so the thread degenerated into clusterf***.
Ah yes, appeasement and socialism. Clearly they both have a track record of raging success in Europe.That thread you locked last night had a slew of them.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=8662707&postcount=202
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=8662678&postcount=194
Both of those implied some doom and gloom scenario of gun confiscations stemming from background checks yet when called on it, never offered any evidence to back it up. The ONLY attempt at it came from a third person who posted a picture of various dictators, none of whom were Americans. The attempt was half-hearted and blatantly faulty in that none of these countries enjoyed the legal protections of firearm ownership that Americans do. Most of them do not have a constitution in place or were the subjects of military coups.
I even cited current registration schemes that have not lead to confiscation.
When crime statistics were brought up, the example of Los Angeles came forward. I quickly destroyed that by pointing out Houston has a larger violent crime problem than Los Angeles. This should not be the case if guns in the hands of citizens really do prevent crime.
The trouble here is that the same premise gets used over and over. The premise is that if one law is failing to prevent crime, why should another law succeed. While on its face, this seems valid, all it serves to accomplish is...nothing. It isn't an actual argument. They haven't countered the opposition.
The biggest problem here is that such arguments, when applied to a national stage, offer no solution to gun violence. More comprehensive screenings of gun buyers might yield a few more guns kept out of the hands of criminals. More importantly, it is a seemingly meaningful concession that may be of little actual use but it puts the ball back in the hands of the pro-gun groups. Now we can use our concession to begin something truly useful like the legalization and regulation of drug sales. The strengthening of social programs to actually fight poverty.
While not popular topics in conservative circles, they have a much larger impact on criminal behavior which we all know to be the real problem. Guns simply make it easier to kill the member of an opposing gang. You can take the guns away from them but you still leave the gang bangers. Start by removing the things they fight over and they won't fight over them. Begin to improve their social and economic standing and you'll find the gangs aren't as attractive.
but I had to constantly go back and beat down the same tired arguments so the thread degenerated into clusterf***.
Ah yes, appeasement and socialism. Clearly they both have a track record of raging success in Europe.
Could you provide some specific letters or quotes for future reference? I imagine this would be very useful when debating the intent of the Founding Fathers.The Founding Fathers were intelligent, wise men. One need only read a few of the their letters arguing for and against adoption of the BOR to understand that they believed without a doubt that progress would lead to increasingly dangerous weapons.
Appeasement is exactly what is being discussed. We don't need to "offer" anything to anti-gunners. If we did, what do you suggest we would get in return?Nobody is talking about appeasement and I don't think you want to get into the socialism argument here. Plenty of countries in Europe with standards of living meeting or exceeding our own. "Socialism" on this board rarely seems to match the definition most other places know it by. Indeed, here it simply seems to mean "any government spending I don't agree with."
Same here. However they will always point their finger at the NRA. I tell them the NRA members go to movies, malls and have kids in school. The NRA is your fellow neighbor, friend, lawyer, doctor, teacher...whatever. Also ask the people that know me personally "would you feel safer if I tossed my HC mags out"I debate, I do not argue. I debate with facts, logic and reason. If the other side of the argument does not want to have a civil discussion then I will not engage them at all. I`ll not be baited in their illogical unworkable schemes and talk.
Appeasement is exactly what is being discussed. We don't need to "offer" anything to anti-gunners. If we did, what do you suggest we would get in return?
You are right, socialism is a hot button topic. I guess you and I will have to differ on our views regarding European standards of living and the value of "strengthening social programs to fight poverty."
Your best bet is to reference the various Militia Acts that have been enacted all the way up into the 1900's. They all reference being trained and issued current military arms, that includes automatic weapons. Whether or not the Founders could envision the types of weaponry that we have today is completely irrelevant, because legal precedent has kept apace with technology.Could you provide some specific letters or quotes for future reference? I imagine this would be very useful when debating the intent of the Founding Fathers.
I'm not sure they even had to envision much. The idea is simply that if the citizens have the right to arms, then no matter hows arms developed, they would match that of the government and any standing army. Once you decided to ensure parity, the specific nature of the tools reflected in that parity are not so important.I never understand the argument that the founders couldn't have known what future weapons would be developed so the 2nd amendment is no longer applicable to many modern firearms. Many of our founding fathers were inventors, entrepreneurs and innovators in their time. I'm pretty sure that people of their intelligence and determination were keenly aware of what the future of weapons development could bring.
I'm having exactly the same "debate" on another forum with a couple of AHSA fifth columnists.Appeasement is exactly what is being discussed. We don't need to "offer" anything to anti-gunners. If we did, what do you suggest we would get in return?
What's that got to do with restrictions on gun owners?However, you might find that because you are willing to acquiesce to the background checks, you could ask for the removal of certain drugs from controlled substance lists thus allowing states to make their own calls on what is OK and what is not.
On a couple forums. There have been a couple with good knowledge about guns and respond polite who take their opinion for whatever reason but I got to say the vast majority of them deflect the issue, use insults instead of challenging what they have been asked or shown, and who use stupid responses or questions like " should you be able to own a nuke then?"
One of their most common responses is " the founders couldn't have envisioned such modern lethal firearms therefore the 2nd is outdated". Which I then respond " well if true then they couldn't have envisioned internet, TV and radio so therefore the 1st is outdated so should certain entertainers and radio people be fingerprinted and registered or banned and should certain video games be banned?"