Dems introduce HR Bill 5717 severely attacking 2nd Amendment rights

[Paladin3]

Are you crazy? I love and own guns. My love for them is such that I do nothing to support getting rid of them because I don't give a shit how many people die from them. I am just like you only I know who you really are.

Sorry, my point is that we don't ban constitutional rights just because a tiny minority of criminals/sick/evil people abuse those rights. Claiming that gun rights are abused to such a level that it's time to put unreasonable restrictions on them is basically a lie. Gun violence is on the decline, and criminal violence from semi-auto "assault weapons" is not even a drop in the bucket. So seeking to ban them is unreasonable.

 

[Paladin3]

you see we have all these people saying that no matter what is done nothing will work....yet we need to try to do something.....until it is tried you don`t know what will or what will not work.

Wasn't the 10 year long 1993 assault weapons ban trial enough? After 10 years it couldn't be shown to have any impact on gun violence so it had to be allowed to expire. You speak as if we don't have any gun control laws at all and this is all a new idea.

The only new idea is that you want to take away lawful guns from lawful gun owners that are currently being uses overwhelmingly safely for perfectly legal activities. Not to mention for self-defense. Even thought past efforts to reduce gun violence by restricting guns has failed.

We just haven't gone far enough, you might say. Well, sure, institute martial law, start a civil war and go grab all those guns out of civilian hands. I'm sure you will be on the front line trying to get that done and will enjoy the resulting police state.

 

[Paladin3]

I know, that's why I wish I owned millions of nuclear weapons

But we can bet, can't we, that no guns would result in less lives given. I realize that illegal gun ownership can't be addressed by law, but we conservatives know that the way to achieve compliance is via threat. We can make gun possession a death penalty offense. As an accomodation from liberals we can start by gradual enforcement by population density, meaning outlawing them by threat of death in cities first and gradually extending it. Those are the most dangerous places and ironically, where people just don't seem to own that many guns.

I quit reading when you starting talking about executing anyone not willing to surrender their guns. You'll be killing a lot of folks, if you can.

I think you often dream of making changes that would require more than laws, but a fundamental change in human nature. I, too, dream of a Star Trek reality where all mankind is united, but still have to operate in reality.

 

[Paladin3]

Just in case you weren’t aware, the constitution not only prohibits what you are describing but there are actual articles that say that one of governments sutures is to put down insurrections. So being the big proponent of the constitution you claim to be I suspect now you won’t be claiming that rising up against the government is somehow righteous or patriotic.

I've never claimed the War of Independence was legal according to British law, nor was the Civil War legal according to U.S. law. And a future Civil War would be technically equally as illegal. And I have never said I felt our current government was anywhere near a tyrant we needed to overthrow.

That doesn't mean I would like to see civilians disarmed to the point that if it ever did happen we would be unable to resist. You mistake my desire to keep my fire extinguisher with thinking the house is on fire.

 

[Rebel_L]

No, it isn't a matter of feeling safer but of actually being safer. It is your egotistical desire to be free to choose to own a gun that will cause others to die. You simply don't have the courage to see that you don't care. You believe the bullshit that choice is sacred and rationalize the consequences away. The world would be better off without guns but that will never substitute for a world where people don't have enough ego to kill.

I didnt rationalize any consequences away, I know full well that freedom of choice leads to more deaths. The problem is that many safety side people dont seem to realize that safety is just as bullshit to hold sacred as choice is. You can never have a productive discussion if two sides are just defending their own sacred cows as neither side will ever be willing to budge.

In the case of guns in particular when I have a look at US mortality rates I dont see how guns are really having a disproportionately large impact on the yearly amount of deaths. The homicide and suicide rates are both a little higher than in other first world countries where guns are much more difficult to obtain but they dont have a significant impact on population from year to year. I was actually shocked that guns are not nearly as prevalent in suicides as homicides and that suicides outnumber homicides by as much as they do.

 

[Paladin3]

Where are you getting this number from and where did the source get their data from?

I did the math with 2013 statistics from the FBI for crime rates and some neutral and even anti-gun sources for the causality rates from gun violence about two or three years ago. Lots of math. And lots of giving the opposition the benefit of the doubt trying to find out what percentage of guns in civilian hand were used in a year to hurt someone. I included all injuries, deaths, suicides, accidents, justified and unjustified injuries and deaths with a gun. I even assumed each one of those events was done with a separate gun.

My result, and this is only for the year 2013 which was the latest FBI statistics I could find at the time, was that a bit more than 99.92% of civilian owned guns didn't hurt anyone that year. And that's assuming each shooting was with a different gun, and included even lawful and justified uses of a firearm in self-defense in the numbers.

I Posted my calculations and sources many, many times in many, many threads. I begged for feedback, for folks to find any mistakes I may have made or dispute my findings if they could. All I heard back were basically *crickets*.

Additionally, I've posted links to some of those early threads over the years, so if you want to find them please feel free to look at my history. I no longer have the link, sorry.

And it's not a case of confirmation bias. I worked as a newspaper journalist for a long time and it was part of my job to see if actual numbers supported sources claims. In this case they did not support the idea that guns are only used to kill. In fact, only about .08% of those in America were used so that year.

 

[Paladin3]

Buybacks didn't work before because there was no teeth. If owners knew they'd be fined & jailed if caught with an illegal gun, they might think twice. Also ammo supplies for the banned guns would run out eventually.

Isn't murder punished by prison and even death? Why doesn't that ban work to stop the violence at least to the point that we can stop fooling ourselves banning guns will?

 

[Paladin3]

They aren’t impossible answers, you clown.

Then tell me what those answers are and confirm for me you are ready to accept the results.

And, while I'm no clown, I can juggle. And I worked in a theme park games and attractions department for several years, but don't call me a friggen carny!

 

[Bird222]

See, we were told a long time ago, "don't worry, we don't want your semi-autos, just give up your full-autos, short-barreled shotguns and such and you can keep the semi-autos."

Even though I feel some restrictions are ok. This illustrates the problem.

 

[ivwshane]

I've never claimed the War of Independence was legal according to British law, nor was the Civil War legal according to U.S. law. And a future Civil War would be technically equally as illegal. And I have never said I felt our current government was anywhere near a tyrant we needed to overthrow.

That doesn't mean I would like to see civilians disarmed to the point that if it ever did happen we would be unable to resist. You mistake my desire to keep my fire extinguisher with thinking the house is on fire.

In your analogy, it’s not a matter of allowing people to have a fire extinguisher, it’s a matter of people with the guns being the arsonist.

Our country was designed to be a representative democracy, the day the government becomes tyrannical is preceded by the people with the guns who take it over.

You are the cause, not the remedy. You are (in the metaphorical sense) what real patriots give their blood for in order to defend and keep liberty and democracy alive.

That’s the part you keep failing to understand. You are the British, you are the confederate, you are the tyranny. Your refusal to allow the US and Americans as a whole to regulate firearms and protect itself and to promote the general welfare of this country is what stands in the way of democracy.

 

[ivwshane]

Even though I feel some restrictions are ok. This illustrates the problem.
View attachment 18735

Meanwhile in reality, gun nuts have more guns than any gun nut in history.

 

[ivwshane]

Isn't murder punished by prison and even death? Why doesn't that ban work to stop the violence at least to the point that we can stop fooling ourselves banning guns will?

If we ban guns and force buy backs (a proposal no one is making), what are you going to do about it?

 

[Moonbeam]

Sorry, my point is that we don't ban constitutional rights just because a tiny minority of criminals/sick/evil people abuse those rights. Claiming that gun rights are abused to such a level that it's time to put unreasonable restrictions on them is basically a lie. Gun violence is on the decline, and criminal violence from semi-auto "assault weapons" is not even a drop in the bucket. So seeking to ban them is unreasonable.

But there's the rub. What strikes you as unreasonable can be very reasonable to other people. For example, it seems quite reasonable to me that a belief that one is reasonable when it means the deaths of other people, would be a very likely rationalization somebody of that stripe would make. For example, California gun laws are very unreasonable to me because I don't want to have to provide ID for any reason. I don't trust machines to be anything but mechanical. So I haven't bought anything in a gun store in ages and ages.

 

[Moonbeam]

I quit reading when you starting talking about executing anyone not willing to surrender their guns. You'll be killing a lot of folks, if you can.

I think you often dream of making changes that would require more than laws, but a fundamental change in human nature. I, too, dream of a Star Trek reality where all mankind is united, but still have to operate in reality.

OK. I quit reading when you said you quit reading.

 

[Paladin3]

In your analogy, it’s not a matter of allowing people to have a fire extinguisher, it’s a matter of people with the guns being the arsonist.

Our country was designed to be a representative democracy, the day the government becomes tyrannical is preceded by the people with the guns who take it over.

You are the cause, not the remedy. You are (in the metaphorical sense) what real patriots give their blood for in order to defend and keep liberty and democracy alive.

That’s the part you keep failing to understand. You are the British, you are the confederate, you are the tyranny. Your refusal to allow the US and Americans as a whole to regulate firearms and protect itself and to promote the general welfare of this country is what stands in the way of democracy.

You ignore the statistic that says very few guns are ever used to hurt anyone. And you ignore that a gun has any legit, legal use and that they are used for self-defense daily.

And it's laughable that you think our government is likely to be taken over by force when it can be taken over from within so much easier. How many times have our elections been attacked from without to date? How often are lies and fear and dirty tricks used to win an election? Why all the trust in our politicians to the point you want to make it impossible fore civilians to ever oppose them if the worst and they suspend the vote?

Yup, lawful gun owners are the devil.

The British were coming to confiscate weapons being stored by the colonists when the Revolutionary War began. And it was stated because Americans largely believed they were being taxed without sufficient representation in government. You seem to be forgetting that.

Democracy is both of our goals, I'm just not silly enough to put myself 100% at the mercy of someone else to provide it to me. Because humans succumb to greed for power, control, money and all that. And that doesn't mean I am all whooped up that the country is on fire today.

 

[Paladin3]

But there's the rub. What strikes you as unreasonable can be very reasonable to other people. For example, it seems quite reasonable to me that a belief that one is reasonable when it means the deaths of other people, would be a very likely rationalization somebody of that stripe would make. For example, California gun laws are very unreasonable to me because I don't want to have to provide ID for any reason. I don't trust machines to be anything but mechanical. So I haven't bought anything in a gun store in ages and ages.

"Reasonable" is the intangible yardstick we must apply to all decisions, even as imperfect as it is. If we spend more on our roads they become safer and we have fewer road fatalities. What is a "reasonable" amount to spend? We can debate it all day, but it sounds like with respect to 2A rights, no cost is too high if it has the slightest chance of saving a life. Even if it costs us what others have bled and died to provide us with. Even if it only disarms lawful civilians and puts them at the mercy of criminals who ignore gun bans.

 

[Moonbeam]

I didnt rationalize any consequences away, I know full well that freedom of choice leads to more deaths. The problem is that many safety side people dont seem to realize that safety is just as bullshit to hold sacred as choice is. You can never have a productive discussion if two sides are just defending their own sacred cows as neither side will ever be willing to budge.

In the case of guns in particular when I have a look at US mortality rates I dont see how guns are really having a disproportionately large impact on the yearly amount of deaths. The homicide and suicide rates are both a little higher than in other first world countries where guns are much more difficult to obtain but they dont have a significant impact on population from year to year. I was actually shocked that guns are not nearly as prevalent in suicides as homicides and that suicides outnumber homicides by as much as they do.

It's not like people who rationalize know they are. And I don't hold safety as anything sacred. But I do think that had our forefathers banned guns a lot of school kids who are dead wouldn't be.

 

[ivwshane]

You ignore the statistic that says very few guns are ever used to hurt anyone. And you ignore that a gun has any legit, legal use and that they are used for self-defense daily.

And it's laughable that you think our government is likely to be taken over by force when it can be taken over from within so much easier. How many times have our elections been attacked from without to date? How often are lies and fear and dirty tricks used to win an election? Why all the trust in our politicians to the point you want to make it impossible fore civilians to ever oppose them if the worst and they suspend the vote?

Yup, lawful gun owners are the devil.

The British were coming to confiscate weapons being stored by the colonists when the Revolutionary War began. And it was stated because Americans largely believed they were being taxed without sufficient representation in government. You seem to be forgetting that.

Democracy is both of our goals, I'm just not silly enough to put myself 100% at the mercy of someone else to provide it to me. Because humans succumb to greed for power, control, money and all that. And that doesn't mean I am all whooped up that the country is on fire today.

Are you done with the straw man arguments?

 

[ivwshane]

It's not like people who rationalize know they are. And I don't hold safety as anything sacred. But I do think that had our forefathers banned guns a lot of school kids who are dead wouldn't be.

As a side note, our forefathers did ban guns and heavily regulated them. Some states didn’t even allow for guns in the home to be loaded let alone have black powder on the premises.

 

[Paladin3]

Are you done with the straw man arguments?

Are you done with the canned replies because you can't actually debate the topic?

 

[JSt0rm]

Even though I feel some restrictions are ok. This illustrates the problem.
View attachment 18735

WOW. a comic that illustrates a logic fallacy. IMPRESSIVE!!!!

Slippery slope - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

how retarded are gun owners? the answer is very.

 

[Paladin3]

As a side note, our forefathers did ban guns and heavily regulated them. Some states didn’t even allow for guns in the home to be loaded let alone have black powder on the premises.

If you want to live in such a state then go ahead. Trying to pass federal bans or force incentivize states to comply with federal money to squash 2A rights, that's wrong. Nothing even close to what you are suggesting happened on a federal level back in colonial or early American history.

 

[Moonbeam]

"Reasonable" is the intangible yardstick we must apply to all decisions, even as imperfect as it is. If we spend more on our roads they become safer and we have fewer road fatalities. What is a "reasonable" amount to spend? We can debate it all day, but it sounds like with respect to 2A rights, no cost is too high if it has the slightest chance of saving a life. Even if it costs us what others have bled and died to provide us with. Even if it only disarms lawful civilians and puts them at the mercy of criminals who ignore gun bans.

All I ask is that you let me be the judge of what is reasonable. It's something I know instantly in my gut. It always lines right up with what my ego wants and I love my guns. And my rights are sacred, the gift of patriots' blood.

 

[ivwshane]

Are you done with the canned replies because you can't actually debate the topic?

If you can’t debate canned replies then perhaps it’s you who actually can’t debate.

Try again, nutter.

 

[ivwshane]

If you want to live in such a state then go ahead. Trying to pass federal bans or force insentience states to comply with federal money to squash 2A rights, that's wrong. Nothing even close to what you are suggesting happened on a federal level.

So if the American people vote for representatives that do just that are you implying that you’ll leave the country? Sounds like a win to me.