Do you support the second amendment?

[upant]

the data used was from a pro gun control group. i can see a conflict of interest here. did you click the links for the gov offices? they both take you to the gun control webpage where if you click the source takes you to the home page of the office. kind of misleading, why not link directly to the data?

 

[Vonsalza]

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

I’ll be pithy.

Vonsalza “Guns should be difficult to obtain.” “I recommend a permit system.” “Police and military do plenty in order to be issued their guns”.

Jon: So, in short, you believe that only government should have arms.

These statements are not equal. Thus your error. And if you can’t see the obvious difference, you should probably excuse yourself from these sorts of discussions.

I think the citizenry should own guns too. They should be difficult to obtain. When limited to folks who have to really work to get them, these people usually have stable lives and actually have something to lose by chancing a gun crime.

“Man, if I got caught, I’d go to jail. Bye bye house, bye bye retirement accounts, bye bye college fund for my kids, bye bye the social acceptance my kids enjoyed before it was common knowledge their daddy was a criminal.”

Folks at the bottom simply have less to lose. As a result, they have fewer barriers to extreme behavior.

Twist this with some unambiguously fallacious and cliche retort (your modus operandi, it seems), but you know I’m right.

 

[Cathoholic]

Vonsalza “Guns should be difficult to obtain.” “I recommend a permit system.” “Police and military do plenty in order to be issued their guns”.

.

Somebody else might say:

.

“Voting should be difficult to do.” “I recommend a permit system.”

.

“Having your home free from Red-Coats or other military being forcibly housed should be difficult to do.” “I recommend a permit system so as to exempt the rich and/or powerful” (the plebeians or “average joes” will just have to put up with housing military in their homes DESPITE what the Constitution says.)

.

“Protection from unwarranted search and seizure should be difficult to do.” “I recommend a permit system to protect the elite.” (everyone else can be subject to “search and seizure” without cause or reason! That’s good enough to fulfill the spirit of “The Constitution”.)

.

---

.

Vonsalza “Guns should be difficult to obtain.” “I recommend a permit system.” “Police and military do plenty in order to be issued their guns”.

.

Why do you think police and military should be able to have guns Vonsalza??

.
Brow beating isn’t going to do it either Vonsalza.

.

And if you can’t see the obvious difference, you should probably excuse yourself from these sorts of discussions.

.

No I don’t see the obvious difference.

I want a real answer.

Because police need to protect themselves to NOT BE DEAD.

And a single mom ALSO needs to protect herself FROM NOT BEING JUST AS DEAD (from an “ex” who ignores his restraining order for example).

Otherwise SHE is going to be just as “dead” as police or military who ALSO NEED protection.

Do you not value HER life as much?

WHO else NEEDING defense should make up the ELITE in YOUR paradigm Vonsalza and need special “privilege”?
.

---

.
Vonsalza.

You don’t attack the innocent to get at the bad guy (that is an elitist idea).

As I said: You don’t bomb Costa Rica because of aggression from North Korea.

Likewise you don’t penalize innocent people because of bad guys.

.

You said regarding the innocent children’s college fund of a bad guy . . .

.

bye bye college fund for my kids

.
WHY?
.

WHY attack the innocent kids here because of something their dad did? WHY go after THEIR collegiate funds? What right do you have to do this?

I think its just the way you think Vonsalza. You are merely carrying over your low-ball view of humanity to the children here not protecting them and their interests with your flippant “laws” you invent.

.
Vonsalza:

.

you know I’m right.

.
Vonsalza’s right, and everybody else who had roles of leadership in beginning the country and gave us the Constitution is wrong . . . (according to Vonsalza).

 

[Cathoholic]

Some people think Government “scrutiny” will protect them.

The worst mass-shooting in American history recently from a guy who passed such scrutiny.

---

.

Vonsalza: “Guns should be difficult to obtain.” “I recommend a permit system.”

.

Gun Store Manager: Vegas Attacker Passed Background Check for Three Firearms
Published: Monday, 02 October 2017 10:01 Written by AWR Hawkins, Breitbart

The manager of Guns & Guitars in Mesquite, Nevada, says the Las Vegas attacker bought three guns at his store within the past 12 months and passed a background check for the firearms.

The manager–Christopher Sullivan–said the attacker bought “a handgun and two rifles.”
According to the New York Times, Sullivan said the attacker “does not have a criminal history.” Moreover, he said the attacker conducted himself like “a normal fellow, a normal guy.” . . .

Gun Store Manager: Vegas Attacker Passed Background Check for Three Firearms | GOA

Gun Store Manager: Vegas Attacker Passed Background Check for Three Firearms The manager of Guns & Guitars in Mesquite, Nevada, says the Las Vegas attacker bought three guns at his store within the past 12 months and passed a background check for the firearms. Click here to see more 2A articles...

www.gunowners.org

.

Vonsalza: “Guns should be difficult to obtain.” “I recommend a permit system.”

.

Vonsalza . . .

. . . You know I’m right.
.

I am not saying this is “secular messianism”, (“savior-ship” via political programs) but some COULD take it that way.

Scrutiny will save us.

More Government programs and intrusion will surely protect us (despite the Supreme Court saying there is no obligation on law enforcement to protect the citizenry).

We are just one more Government program away from utopia.

.

CCC 676 The Antichrist’s deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism,577 especially the “intrinsically perverse” political form of a secular messianism. 578

 

[JonNC]

Vonsalza “Guns should be difficult to obtain.” “I recommend a permit system.” “Police and military do plenty in order to be issued their guns”.

Okay. I’ll take your word for it.
So the question:
Why should it be made hard by government for a law abiding citizen to access a constitutionally protected right?
Remember now, the question is not about a criminal, or an individual who has been adjudicated as mentally unfit. Narrowly and specifically the law abiding citizen.

They should be difficult to obtain. When limited to folks who have to really work to get them, these people usually have stable lives and actually have something to lose by chancing a gun crime.

Really have to work to get them. Be specific. What exactly would the law abiding citizen have to do in order to access this constitutionally protected right?

Man, if I got caught, I’d go to jail. Bye bye house, bye bye retirement accounts, bye bye college fund for my kids, bye bye the social acceptance my kids enjoyed before it was common knowledge their daddy was a criminal.”

That is already the case. If I commit a crime with my gun. All done, and I’m no rich guy.

Folks at the bottom simply have less to lose. As a result, they have fewer barriers to extreme behavior.

Twist this with some unambiguously fallacious and cliche retort (your modus operandi, it seems), but you know I’m right.

I don’t have to twist it at all. The comment speaks for itself.
On the one hand, constitutional conservatives are told that the government (taxpayers) should pay for the healthcare of the poor because it is a right, but on the other hand that same government should put up targeted barriers to prevent those same people from accessing a constitutionally protected right, even if they are law abiding. And please don’t tell me a huge tax or fee isn’t targeted on the poor unless you are willing to condemn progressive taxation of all kinds.

 

[upant]

Australia hasn’t seen a public mass shooting since 1996

they have had 14 mass killings in the 20 years prior and 14 mass killings in the 20 years since. they missed this bit of info but are correct in that the weapon wasn’t a gun.

List of massacres in Australia - Wikipedia

 

[upant]

This is only your lack of education speaking, respectfully. Guns are not completely banned in Australia.

when you can’t argue the facts; throw stones

no one said they were totally banned. the ban was an event from which the aussie gun experiment is tracked. called the ban by some because specific guns are banned!

a federal ban on the importation of “all semi-automatic self-loading and pump action longarms, and all parts, including magazines, for such firearms,

the ban is seen as the gun control solution for our county and its gun problem. they cite that no mass killings have occurred since the ban. this is obviously not because of a lack of guns because they have more now than before the ban

50k illegal guns off the street? Rejoice!

what is to rejoice over? 200,000 illegal guns still are on the street. yeah ok if that made you happy

article written by an Aussie “gun nut”

the numbers come from the australian criminal intelligence commission.

I think we agree that a vial of crack is probably easier to hide than an AK-47, wouldn’t you think?

doesn’t matter what you think, what actually happens is important. how many got through before these guys were caught?

in August 2016,
a multi-agency operation resulted in two men being charged with firearm offences and a
cache of firearms and firearm parts being seized in Australia and the US.21 The majority of
firearms and firearm parts seized (six fully automatic assault rifles and 96 semiautomatic
handgun frames) were intercepted in the US while being prepared for export to Australia. (ACIC)

 

[upant]

If we made guns more expensive to obtain, we’d see fewer poor folks with fewer guns

why stop at disallowing individuals certain rights based on status and set prices for all rights.

who gets to set the arbitrary figure?

couple hundred is too low how bout $10k? no, $100K would really keep the riff-raff from harming themselves and others

 

[Vonsalza]

On the one hand, constitutional conservatives are told that the government (taxpayers) should pay for the healthcare of the poor because it is a right, but on the other hand that same government should put up targeted barriers to prevent those same people from accessing a constitutionally protected right, even if they are law abiding.

Easily the most obvious error here is your claim that these folks have a constitutionally protected right to semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines. The document simply says “arms”.

The word appears to have very limited meaning as we’ve excluded all sorts of “arms” like automatics, rifles over a certain caliber and other, more destructive devices from the meaning of the word in its constitutional context.

Your “Bill of Rights” is not unlimited. For example, your freedom of speech doesn’t give you the right to falsely cry “fire” in a crowded theater.

To be clear: the constitution does not grant you the right to unfettered access to semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines. It grants you the right to “bear arms”. As to what, exactly, that means? SCOTUS decides. Neither your opinion nor your subjective scrying as to what some dead government founder thought on the issue is even remotely relevant.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

If we made guns more expensive to obtain, we’d see fewer poor folks with fewer guns

why stop at disallowing individuals certain rights based on status and set prices for all rights.

I didn’t bother reading after the opening line.

Incoming: Slippery slope fallacy.

 

[JonNC]

Easily the most obvious error here is your claim that these folks have a constitutionally protected right to semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines. The document simply says “arms”.

They have a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Semi-automatic firearms, both rifles and handguns, are legal. They aren’t legal just for elitist progressives and their body guards. They are legal for all law abiding citizens, even poor ones.

Your “Bill of Rights” is not unlimited. For example, your freedom of speech doesn’t give you the right to falsely cry “fire” in a crowded theater.

It isn’t just my bill of rights. It is a bill of rights for all citizens, even those some may hold in low regard because of their economic status.
But just as someone yelling fire in a crowded theater doesn’t diminish the right to free speech of others, the illegal use of s firearm by one person should not diminish the right of others to own one.

To be clear: the constitution does not grant you the right to unfettered access to semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines. It grants you the right to “bear arms”.

And it doesn’t grant you a greater right than the poor person some hold as less protected by that right.

Neither your opinion nor your subjective scrying as to what some dead government founder thought on the issue is even remotely relevant.

Not only does your overt prejudice against other Americans diminish your argument, so does your disparaging tone about those men and women who did sacrifice their lives, fortunes , and sacred honor so that we could have this debate. That said, what those dead folks said is far more relevant than your rhetoric.

 

[Morgan20]

Yes I support the 2nd amendment I am a republican catholic and proud

 

[Seeksadvice]

This debate leaves me scratching my head. People think that violent crime will stop if we get rid of guns; it won’t. Indeed the NYC mayor was bragging about the uptick in knifings, etc. as an indicator that gun control must be “working.” Mass killings won’t stop, there are a lot of ways of killing/injuring large numbers of people.

Still haven’t experienced any of my weapons get up and start firing. Folks need to realize that it’s a people problem and not a gun problem.

 

[Vonsalza]

This debate leaves me scratching my head. People think that violent crime will stop if we get rid of guns;

No, no they don’t.

They think it will diminish. And judging by the results yielded by other nations, they’re quite right.

 

[Theo520]

No, no they don’t.

They think it will diminish. And judging by the results yielded by other nations, they’re quite right.

ROFL, nope
Zero evidence that overall crime rates drop with making guns illegal.

 

[Vonsalza]

They have a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Semi-automatic firearms, both rifles and handguns, are legal. They aren’t legal just for elitist progressives and their body guards. They are legal for all law abiding citizens, even poor ones.

And lets keep them legal!

Let’s just also make them less available to obtain.

“Banned” and “controlled” are not synonyms, even if your argument really needs them to be in order to work.

But just as someone yelling fire in a crowded theater doesn’t diminish the right to free speech of others, the illegal use of s firearm by one person should not diminish the right of others to own one.

But it should raise the reasonable question of “how much firepower should one person be allowed?”

And it doesn’t grant you a greater right than the poor person some hold as less protected by that right.

They’re still available to the poor even if the permit is $10k. They just have the prioritize and save for it.

In this way, fully automatic rifles are still available to folks in America. You just have to meet the substantial requirements to have one.

Bonus Question: Consider, how much gun crime do we see committed in America with fully automatic rifles?
Why do you think it’s so low?

That said, what those dead folks said is far more relevant than your rhetoric.

Which is, just like yours, irrelevant when the matter is actually decided by the men and women in SCOTUS.
I’ll take this as a defensive and roundabout concession to this obvious point.

What any one individual thinks the 2nd amendment means is irrelevant compared to the high court.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

No, no they don’t.

They think it will diminish. And judging by the results yielded by other nations, they’re quite right.

ROFL, nope
Zero evidence that overall crime rates drop with making guns illegal.

The target isn’t “overall crime”, it’s gun crime.

And there is evidence in spades for that.

 

[Theo520]

The target isn’t “overall crime”, it’s gun crime.

And there is evidence in spades for that.

Yup and if we outlawed hoodies, we’d also see a drop in crimes where someone was wearing a hoodie. But if it doesn’t drop the overall crime stats then you were just playing a game. People wear other clothes and use other methods to commit their assaults and murder.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

The target isn’t “overall crime”, it’s gun crime.

And there is evidence in spades for that.

Yup and if we outlawed hoodies, we’d also see a drop in crimes where someone was wearing a hoodie. But if it doesn’t drop the overall crime stats then you were just playing a game. People wear other clothes and use other methods to commit their assaults and murder.

I’m glad to see that you at least agreed that reducing the availability of guns reduces the occurrence of gun crime.

Now all you need to see is that someone with murder on their mind is less likely to carry it out when the methods required to complete it are substantially more “involved” than merely pulling a trigger.

Fortunately, most would consider this “common sense”, even as some outliers may not.

Fact is, the more difficult something becomes, the less people are likely to do it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Vonsalza:

The target isn’t “overall crime”, it’s gun crime.

And there is evidence in spades for that.

Yup and if we outlawed hoodies, we’d also see a drop in crimes where someone was wearing a hoodie. But if it doesn’t drop the overall crime stats then you were just playing a game. People wear other clothes and use other methods to commit their assaults and murder.

Hoodies are not as useful in the commission of a crime as a gun. So its effect on crime overall is not comparable.