Florida Gov. Rick Scott signs gun bill

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stephen_C
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cathoholic said:
LeafByNiggle:
But if universal background checks do become the law of the land, it will not be any usurpation of power, but a proper exercise of the public will being expressed through legitimate authority.
Click to expand...
This can happen right now, without universal background checks. And when it does, it should be evaluated and corrected on the merits of the case. And what if the kid was not his son, but the neighbor’s son? And what if it wasn’t a shotgun but an AR-15? And what if that kid used it in a mass shooting at his school? In your world how would you proceed against that man who conducted the sale, especially if he says “He seemed like a nice kid to me? How was I to know he had previously been committed to a mental hospital?”
On another thread I asked for just ONE of the gun-grabbers to come forward and say Emma Gonzales was wrong when she said she can get an automatic weapon EASIER than she can make weekend plans with friends.
Click to expand...
Just be advised that whenever you use “gun-grabbers” to describe anyone who proposes gun restrictions, I will use “gun-worshippers” to describe those fight tooth and nail against any restriction on the rights of law-abiding gun owers. So just to satisfy you gun-worshippers, I give you what you want - an admission that the hyperbolic statement you quoted by Emma Gonzales was factually incorrect. So now all you gun-worshippers can rest easy.
Click to expand...
 
LeafByNiggle:
If a cop thinks he needs a anti-tank . . .
Click to expand...
You are attempting to draw the discussion away frim “arms” by pretending anti-tank weapons are “arms”.

It’s a clever debating tactic to change the issue.

I’m not falling for it.
 
Look JoshuaIsLord.

Your story is wrong.

Citizens don’t have Assault-weapons by mail order.

And they cannot get Ar-15’s (which are NOT “assault weapons”) via mail order either.

Even with super-secret passwords.

The only exception is if they have an FFL license (which does NOT appear to be what you are talking about here).

I just don’t believe it.
 
Cathoholic:
And when “creative” judges and District Attorneys start proclaiming dad a “felon” (“straw purchaser”) because he bought his kid a shotgun at age 12 . . .
Click to expand...
.

LeafByNiggle:
This can happen right now, without universal background check
Click to expand...
Law-abiding citizens have ALREADY been victimized by over-zealous legal officials. Where have you been on this??

That was the purpose for stand-your-ground laws.

And guys with ideas like yours fought THAT too.

You guys won’t be around for the battles citizens need to undertake in such situations.

You guys will be OPPOSING those good people as you guys have in the past.

Citizens shouldn’t HAVE to wage multi-year costly legal battles to re-gain such rights.

They are SUPPOSED to be respected in the first place.

Government has an enormous power advantage in the courts.

They can just keep over-assessing taxpayers and appoint legal teams to bully the citizens.

And when this occurs, you guys either disappear, or ADD to the attacks against law-abiding citizens.

If you guys (not “you” personally) were being honest, you’d just ADMIT Parkland was the fault of Nikolas Cruz, with a heavy smattering of Government failure after failure, after failure.

And your solution?

Blame and victimize the good guy.
Blame the NRA.
Blame “Trump”.
Blame the GOP.
Blame FoxNews.
Blame, blame, blame everywhere except where it obviously belongs.

And so your people will NEVER be viewed as trustworthy by the supporters of the Constitution.

But supporters of law and order, will know you can be counted on to cry out for MORE Government, bloated Government, More Taxes, More programs.

It’s always the SAME solution for your guys.
 
Cathoholic said:
Law-abiding citizens have ALREADY been victimized by over-zealous legal officials. Where have you been on this??
Click to expand...
Universal background checks won’t make such victimization any easier or harder. It is a red herring.
That was the purpose for stand-your-ground laws.
And guys with ideas like yours fought THAT too.
You guys won’t be around for the battles citizens need to undertake in such situations.
You guys will be OPPOSING those good people as you guys have in the past.
Click to expand...
If you mean “stand your ground” laws, I don’t consider those who support them to be any better than those who oppose them (who are also “good people.”)
Citizens shouldn’t HAVE to wage multi-year costly legal battles to re-gain such rights.
Click to expand...
If you are talking about Risk Protection Orders, are you suggesting that Nikolas Cruz would have years of hearings before his guns are taken away? That would be far too late. I say take his guns away first and then have a swift hearing at which he can have legal representation.
 
Inisfallen:
No? Read up on Silk Road, Dread Pirate Robert, etc. It happens.
Click to expand...
This is utter non-sense inisfallen

I was talking about LEGAL venues.

YOU CHANGED my premise to ILLEGAL venues.

This is the FALLACY of equivocation.

If you want to target illegal arms smugglers, don’t victimize law-abiding citizens by lumping them together.

And ADMIT that Government itself has been involved in illegal arms smuggling with the same accountibilty as usual . . . .NONE. No one was held accountable.

www.latimes.com

Full Coverage: ATF's Fast and Furious scandal

A federal operation dubbed Fast and Furious allowed weapons from the U.S. to pass into the hands of suspected gun smugglers so the arms could be traced to the higher echelons of Mexican drug cartels.
www.latimes.com www.latimes.com

Your solution?

MORE Government.
More attacking the good law-abiding citizens.
More “Gun-Free Zone” stickers.
 
You said it doesn’t happen in America. I pointed out that it does.

Also, you’re really into your logical fallacies, aren’t you? You’re forever pointing out real or imagined “logical fallacies.” Look, a novice on a high school debate team knows that pointing out (rightly or wrongly, but that’s a whole other subject) that his opponent has (supposedly) committed a logical fallacy doesn’t mean he’s won the debate.

Also, you keep talking about stickers. I don’t know what you’re talking about. Stickers are something my four-year-old daughter is really into. I keep having to peel them off stuff at home.

NOTE: That (above, about the stickers) is a joke. Not meant to be taken as a serious point in this debate. Don’t spend a bunch of time picking it to pieces and then demanding that everyone else in the thread act as a jury and rule on whether or not I was joking, and whether or not that refutes everything I’ve said.
 
Last edited:
No. It’s a “red herring” to YOU because you think it doesn’t affect YOU.

But there are others it DOES affect.

Frequently in gun-grabber-world we see everything revolves around THEM, and their “FEELINGS”.

Just OBEY the law. Just OBEY The Second Amendment.
 
Inisfallen:
You said it doesn’t happen in America. I pointed out that it does.
Click to expand...
You’ve shown nothing except the fallacious reasoning I pointed out.
 
Inisfallen:
Don’t spend a bunch of time picking it to pieces and then demanding that everyone else in the thread act as a jury and rule on whether or not I was joking, and whether or not that refutes everything I’ve said.
Click to expand...
Now Inisfallen wants to CONTROL what I post on the forums.

Thanks for MAKING some of my points Inisfallen.
 
Cathoholic said:
Just OBEY The Second Amendment.
Click to expand...
I’m fine with the Second Amendment. It isn’t going anywhere. I know that.

Read up on Heller, and understand the degree to which it allows for regulation of what weapons the public may own, and the degree to which the government can regulate who may own those weapons, and the circumstances in which they may carry them.
 
LeafByNiggle:
If you are talking about Risk Protection Orders, are you suggesting that Nikolas Cruz would have years of hearings before his guns are taken away?
Click to expand...
Here LeafByNiggle ignores “probable cause”.

It was a “failure” of Government LeafByNiggle.

Not a failure of law-abiding citizens.

The fact that you are tip-toeing around the obvious just illustrates part of what I am talking about.
 
Inisfallen:
Again with the fallacies. Nope, it wasn’t.
Click to expand...
This is the falllacy of ipse dixit.

“It’s so, because I (Inisfallen) say it’s so!”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top