A yes the name calling. Gee I forgot how much fun it was to post things contrary to the extremists.....
AH yes, the name calling. It is so simple to blow them off with the “extremist†tag when all they do is post a simple opinion to nobody in particular. Much easier to simply rattle off the one-liner to feel like their position is morally inferior without ever trying to bring the debate to them. It is like dunking on the retarded kid when he isn’t looking.
Uhhh...OK.....now that’s a position supported by the Courts.....
An opinion does not have to be supported by the courts nor does it require a THR member’s approval to be valid. At least kbarrett acknowledges that he is simply posting an opinion and not trying to construct a legal argument.
Let me pose a question to you. Before segregation was ended the Courts created rulings that allowed rampant discrimination against blacks, ala Plessy v. Ferguson. Does that mean that all the people who held the opinion that blacks were equal to whites and deserved equality were extremists who deserved to be ridiculed? Were those extremists’ opinions morally inferior to those of the KKK and unfit to be spoken? Do you, personally, stop talking about an issue when a court has sided the opposite from your opinion? By your logic, you would be wrong and that means that you would be foolish to continue to talk because you would be… a wild extremist?
Just because the Courts support something doesn’t make it morally correct or even a decent thing. There are many court opinions that are on shaky legal grounds and other courts, in another opinion, overturn them. Just because the SCOTUS says something does not mean it is morally or constitutionally correct, i.e. Brown v. Board correcting a, in my opinion, poor 1898 ruling.
Rather than come up with a logical challenge you offer the typical “extremist†scenario, i.e. issuing guns to felons, that people standing on shaky ground always come up with. “Well, would you support gun control if it meant that 1 million infant children would be spared from an agonizing death because you know, uh… a huge outbreak of criminals could occur and uh… they could take all the babies hostage in the world and uh… they could raid the HK factory and so um… yeah they would kill those babies with those guns!â€
As the wolf says in Shrek… “Come onnnnnnnn…â€
Ah but weapons were easily available to released felons prior to 1933 were they not? So then the analogy holds....
Sorry Wild, but I believe that you are going counter to your own scenario to try and make it work. You said,
OK....lets test this....every gangbanger released from prison will be issued a full auto AK...two if they are certifably psychotic......
You made no mention of them breaking the law to obtain a weapon that they could not legally obtain. You stated they would be issued weapons and buzz_knox rightly called you on your point that in 1933 they were not being issued weapons so your point was moot. You are, indeed, grasping at straws to support a statement that you might have made in haste without any thought because it sounded good.
Now on one hand you aregue my lack of staistical suppoirt, yet you fail to provide same.
Are you going to provide some statistics to back up YOUR claim that former released inmates were acquiring guns in large enough quantity through legal venues to rival them being issued a weapon on release?
you fail to prove that the laws prohibiting felons or psychotics from owning weapons have had any effect other than providing a charge for prosecutors to tack on to other charges, or in lieu of some other indictable offense
You are mad at him for challenging your one-liner and so you demand that he prove his point in his response with statistics even though you didn’t answer kbarretts original opinion with statistics proving that gun control after 1933 has made anyone safer. Why is it that everyone else has to come with statistics first but you don’t, even though you replied second? By your reasoning, you should have proven kbarrett incorrect with some statistics, so, let’s see them.
In terms of the Brady Bill, your own argument is self defeating.
He is attacking your position that there is a reason to accept restrictions on a Constitutional principle. Perhaps it goes something like this?
"If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, Constitutional protection for the right to bear arms to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, Scud missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16's, are arms.
"Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms. Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can Constitutionally restrict arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction."
Maybe you would like to discuss reasonable federal gun control, i.e. the Brady Bill, in the context of a intra-state setting? That was the topic of this post, was it not? Intra-state laws? Considering your FFL, lawyer background, and general attitude, I’m all ears and am waiting with bated breath to soak up the breadth of knowledge you are about to drop into this thread.
Well Buzz, you may be wrong but at least you argue reasonably....
Perhaps you should consider revising your sentence so that it makes you seem like less of a pompous individual. I’m not trying to attack you personally but I had the same problem until I realized that despite what I think, there are other opinions out there backed by valid reasons that I may have never seriously considered. It was a revelation for me and has made the last 20 years of my life much easier. I figure in 4 years when I turn 30, I might change but I doubt it.
Something like, “Well Buzz, you may be, in my opinion, incorrect in thismatter but your argument is very good. Let me tell you why I disagree.â€
..Sorry I cant take you too seriously, I have this nasty habiit of getting my panties in a bunch when someone who was poopin his diapers when I graduated law school tries to tell me what the world is all about..... 
