Do you support the second amendment?

[JonNC]

No. I believe exactly what I said.

And its a darn good argument because your only reply is to falsely-reduce it to something different that you’re comfortable dismissing with a well-rehearsed, canned reply.

I think my evaluation pretty much reflects what you said, but if it doesn’t maybe you could elaborate. For example, when you state:

It includes all men (and women). These weapons should not be easily obtainable. Period.

what exactly do you mean by “not easily obtainable?” What rules would you put in place to make it difficult for the common law abiding citizen to exercise his/her constitutionally protected right?

And there’s the slippery slope fallacy you use…

The slippery slope is not a fallacy. Incrementalism is a tactic. The problem now is that constitutional conservatives are no longer willing to negotiate on rights.

And there’s the ad hominem fallacy.

lol. Ad hominem is when you target someone because of the way they look (fat and balding?),or their economic status, or their gender.
I made an accurate comparison. Tyrants always target private firearm ownership. If you have evidence that they don’t, link to it.

It is an argument to restrict access of the law abiding citizen of the United States to their constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Now, you’re welcome to have your opinion, but don’t expect me to buy the facade of “I’m not in favor or bans”, when your stated purpose is to strictly restrict access, starting with certain groups.
There are lots of laws and rules and even restrictions in place already. Start to target criminals, not the law abiding, and we might have some success in reducing criminal gun violence.

 

[JonNC]

FiveLinden:

Well I don’t know, maybe people get their guns from other states and maybe, umm, drive them to California?

every time you ban something the black market will bring it in from somewhere.

australia has more guns now than before its ban. the bikie gangs are smuggling them in. but you don’t hear about this because it defeats the narrative. read about the gun violence in melbourne.

look at drugs most are banned but available on most street corners everywhere.

that is the problem with bans it doesn’t stop the flow of the product.

Keep in mind that it isn’t gangs or criminals with guns that a potential tyrant would fear. He would fear the law abiding who is willing to defend his rights.

 

[JonNC]

Thanks for clarifying that what you are really objecting to was having the 2nd amendment at the same time that we ignore it. I thought the question of the thread was whether we support the 2nd amendment in a debate over repealing vs not repealing. I didn’t think anyone was suggesting that we keep it but still violate it. Anyway, there is a real question as to which forms of gun control are consistent with the 2nd amendment as it is currently interpreted by the latest Heller decision.

This just isn’t true, Leaf. Local and some state governments run by progressives spend an incredible amount of time and legal expenses on laws they enact intended to do just that; undermine the intent and meaning of the second amendment. It is why we had Heller, and MacDonald. They want to undermine the second amendment because they know they will not win a constitutional amendment that overturns the 2nd.
“No fly, no buy” was another attempt to undermine, not only the 2nd, but also due process and presumption of innocence.

Not for a second do I believe the bolded part of your statement.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Not for a second do I believe the bolded part of your statement.

I was referring to posters here, and to overt suggestions. You are talking about government officials and covert attempts.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Not for a second do I believe the bolded part of your statement.

I was referring to posters here, and to overt suggestions. You are talking about government officials and covert attempts.

Understood…

 

[JonNC]

What the Supreme Court says is not my measure of truth or logic.

Maybe , but in the US, it is the law. Frankly, what New Zealand does isn’t my measure.

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafbyNiggle:

.

I was referring to posters here, and to overt suggestions. You are talking about government officials and covert attempts.

.
LeafbyNiggle thinks nobody would ban “all” guns if they had over “51 votes”. At least “overtly”.
.

The problem is, this is not true. Every once in awhile the gun-grabbers tell you words that are congruent with their actions (most of the time they attempt to fool the voters with their rhetoric, while continuing their harmful actions. And of course, actions speak louder than words).

In this video segment (the latter portion) Feinstein admits this openly (which surprised me).

Feinstein admits she would ban “all” guns if she could.

(I don’t believe her here though. I think she just means she would ban “all guns” from law abiding citizens.

I am almost certain, Feinstein would want guns for people to guard . . . (You know what I am going to say) . . . to guard HER (and other politicians).

This of course, is elitism.

Feinstein would ban all guns …if she could

 

[FiveLinden]

And wold not the banning of all guns lessen sin an promote goodness, with the grace of God?

 

[JonNC]

And wold not the banning of all guns lessen sin an promote goodness, with the grace of God?

No. Guns don’t sin. Guns are tools. Sometimes tools are used by sinful people to commit sins, but guns didn’t cause the sin.
If you want to ban guns, start with where most of the guns are and do the most harm: governments around the world. Then criminals. Then you might get some cooperation from the law abiding gun owners

 

[MonteRCMS]

There’s an idea!

Ban guns from criminals!!!

[How, exactly, would we do that, exactly … ]

[I mean, like, we DO know how to ban guns from law-abiding people.]

[And we do know how to ban guns from law-abiding uneducated people.]

[And we do know how to ban guns from law-abiding uneducated poor people.]

But how, exactly, do we ban guns from criminals?

 

[Cathoholic]

FiveLinden:

And wold not the banning of all guns lessen sin an promote goodness, with the grace of God?

As JonNC said. . . . No. (There is no sin in having guns.)

.

But there IS SIN when Feinstein takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, then admits she’d work against it.

There IS sin lying to the people to garner power.

There IS sin in some cases if you DON’T defend your family.

CCC 2264b . . . . Nor is it
necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of
moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man,
since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life
than of another’s.66
.

CCC 2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

.
The “sin” for the honest law-abiding citizen would be to NOT take reasonable measures to protect his/her family.

Firearms may be considered “reasonable measures” in my opinion, but even if they are NOT, then call upon Governments (including the Swiss Guard at the Vatican) to disarm (if you really believe that. I don’t “really believe that” so I won’t do that).

 

[LeafByNiggle]

As JonNC said. . . . No. (There is no sin in having guns.)

But there IS SIN when Feinstein takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, then admits she’d work against it.

There is no sin in saying that she would change the constitution if she could. I don’t recall she ever said she would violate it. And even if she did, that is not a sin until she does it. (It would not be a sin if I said I was going to skip Mass next Sunday - not until I actually skipped mass.)

 

[JonNC]

There’s an idea!

Ban guns from criminals!!!

[How, exactly, would we do that, exactly … ]

[I mean, like, we DO know how to ban guns from law-abiding people.]

[And we do know how to ban guns from law-abiding uneducated people.]

[And we do know how to ban guns from law-abiding uneducated poor people.]

But how, exactly, do we ban guns from criminals?

Good question. How do we ban drunks from driving. We use due process, and when convicted, we take away the privilege to drive, way take a significant amount of money from them, and if they’ve harmed someone, we might put them in prison.
We don’t make it harder for innocent drivers to get a car or a license because of the drunk driver.

While the analogy is not entirely parallel since driving is a privilege and firearms are an enumerated right, but the put is clear. If a convicted criminal has a gun, due process, and if guilty, enforce the law.

 

[Theo520]

Guns result in gun crime. They also result in suicide and accidents.Every house with a gun in it is more dangerous that a house without. That is because there are no accidental shootings in houses without guns. Or suicides by gun. The twisting of the argument to one of crime away from one of safety results in bad policy driven by fear.

No supporting logic for the above.

There is no correlation between guns and gun crime. In fact, the US numbers show an inverse correlation. We’ve had increasing gun numbers but a reduction in such crime over several decades.

Guns also don’t cause more suicides, they are just an option people taking that route select. Ropes are equally effective and the primary one used in many countries with higher suicide rates than the US.

NOthing you’ve said supports increased safety from restricting guns.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

FiveLinden:

Guns result in gun crime. They also result in suicide and accidents.Every house with a gun in it is more dangerous that a house without. That is because there are no accidental shootings in houses without guns. Or suicides by gun. The twisting of the argument to one of crime away from one of safety results in bad policy driven by fear.

No supporting logic for the above.

There is no correlation between guns and gun crime. In fact, the US numbers show an inverse correlation. We’ve had increasing gun numbers but a reduction in such crime over several decades.

As I said many times before, this inverse correlation is due to a cause and effect that goes the opposite direction from what you imply. Places and times with high crime cause the citizens and lawmakers to call for tighter restrictions on guns. The crime does not follow gun control. Crime leads gun control.

Guns also don’t cause more suicides, they are just an option people taking that route select. Ropes are equally effective and the primary one used in many countries with higher suicide rates than the US.

It is an unsupported assumption that anyone who has a tendency to suicide will just as likely try an alternate means if a gun is not available. The depression that brings on suicidal thoughts is sometimes quite acute - coming and going over short periods of time. Suicide delayed (because of the time it takes to rig up a noose, say, versus grab a gun that is already there) is often suicide prevented.

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafbyNiggle on Senator Feinstein’s comments.
.

There is no sin in saying that she would change the constitution if she could.

.

But people with a rudimentary knowledge of civics know that you don’t “change the Constitution” with 51 votes (this is explicitly what she was talking about).

It IS A sin to lie.
It IS a sin to suggest to the voters you support the Constitution then turn around and ignore it.
It IS a sin to take an oath when entering office that you will work to UPHOLD the Constitution, then have no scruples about doing an about-face and UNDERMINING that same Constitution you pretend to be “under”.

No LeafbyNiggle. Taking away “ALL” guns with 51 votes IS dishonesty if you say out of the other side of your mouth you “support” the Constitution.

Yes she can work to amend the Constitution. That’s potentially legitimate.

But to do THAT it takes a two-thirds Congressional vote, AND three-fourths of the states to ratify.

This is NOT what Senator Feinstein was talking about.

So you are either being sloppy with the facts of her quotes, or you are attempting to mislead readers here purposefully. Or you just made a mistake and now you will admit it.

Lies from Senator Feinstein. Sin.

I stand by what I said.

 

[upant]

Most illegal drugs, common as they may be, are still way WAY harder to get than legal ones such as tobacco and alcohol.

you only stop those who obey the law. the others have just as easy a score’

 

[Theo520]

As I said many times before, this inverse correlation is due to a cause and effect that goes the opposite direction from what you imply. Places and times with high crime cause the citizens and lawmakers to call for tighter restrictions on guns. The crime does not follow gun control. Crime leads gun control.

This is conjecture on your part. Also, the crime areas with increased control did not see a drop after they implemented said response. They did what they thought was logical, but it didn’t work (because guns were never the problem)

It is an unsupported assumption that anyone who has a tendency to suicide will just as likely try an alternate means if a gun is not available. The depression that brings on suicidal thoughts is sometimes quite acute - coming and going over short periods of time. Suicide delayed (because of the time it takes to rig up a noose, say, versus grab a gun that is already there) is often suicide prevented.

No, I supported my argument sufficiently. Countries without guns often have equal or even higher suicide rates using many other means. There is no evidence that taking guns out of the equation would shift the overall numbers.

What you imagine goes through the mind of a depressed person does not constitute as evidence.

 

[upant]

And wold not the banning of all guns lessen sin an promote goodness, with the grace of God?

how?

those that would use them for harm will still get them.

remember australia has more guns now than before its ban. these are illegal guns since they ban the law-abiding owners from owning them and had a recent amnesty to get them off the street…

 

[upant]

It is an unsupported assumption that anyone who has a tendency to suicide will just as likely try an alternate means if a gun is not available. The depression that brings on suicidal thoughts is sometimes quite acute - coming and going over short periods of time. Suicide delayed (because of the time it takes to rig up a noose, say, versus grab a gun that is already there) is often suicide prevented.

can’t agree or disagree with this but it does point to the need for better mental health care. if they sought and got treatment, we wouldn’t be discussing this

Adam Lanza expressed his desire to commit the Sandy Hook massacre years before the tragedy took place — and when a witness alerted police, cops said there was nothing they could do, newly released FBI documents reveal

The Sandy Hook School Massacre took 28 lives, in a case where the laws worked perfectly. Adam Lanza was denied the purchase of a gun at least twice – but denied what he and his mother most needed, a bed in an a mental health facility.

Denied a legal purchase, Lanzaa stole guns, murdering his mother to get the key to their safe. And of course, the Supreme Court has ruled “the police have no duty to protect the public,” so it is our fault. (Extrano’s Alley)