I agree with Piers

[essence]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Keep licensed ranges where any kind of weapon can be used as recreation What do you mean licensed ranges? It sounds good but what does it mean? State owned? Lockers for your guns like England? Wouldn't that be construed as infringing on a right?

What I mean is that if somebody wants to have fun with an arm which they are not able to purchase because of restrictions (like a missile) then they can go to licensed range and try it out. Anything wrong with that? Or should everybody be able to have missiles in their yard?

Stricter control on types of weapons allowed Who is going to decide what weapons will be allowed? Obama? The state government? The local government?

Whatever, stop ranting, I am talking about strategy, not tactics.

Stricter control on licensing, two independent proposers, 5 day wait I don't understand this unless you want a cooling off period. If you can get a 2 minute background check then why not go with that. Ask any woman who is trying to protect herself from a stalker. Can she wait five days?

In most realms of life there is a few days to get all the paperwork together and run checks. Why should it be different for arms?

Mandatory training for anybody owning a gun What if you can't pass the training do you lose your right to self defense. If they can't pass handgun training what about a shotgun. You didn't specifiy what type of gun.

Again, stop throwing in details, I am not writing legislation.

Stricter control on sales of ammunition What is the point of this? Why not stricter controls on gasoline to reduce traffic deaths?

You know the point.

Amnesty for anybody handing in spare guns/ammunition if they want to This one is really amazing. You assume that everyone is some kind of law breaker and they need amnesty. Amnesty is for criminals.

Maybe amnesty is the wrong word, but some people with a lot of arms, or who have arms which violate the regulations, may feel very comfortable handing them in. They don;t need them all, and it prevents arms being stolen and getting into the hands of criminals. What is wrong with that? Purely voluntary. But encouraged, especially if they violate the new regulations.

All the above across all states What happened to the Constitution and the 10th amendment?

My point is that it doesn't make common sense to have different regulations in different states, arms cross state borders. I don;t think you would be happy if there was one state which drove on the left, and they came to texas and continued driving on the left.


Anytime you put restictions on a right then it ceases being a right and becomes privilege.

Complete bollocks, you repeat this vicious lie again and again, it remains bollocks. I can come up with 100 examples where this is not true, and you would agree with every example, except where it applies to arms. Why is that? What is wrong with you? Grandstanding again, repeating the cliches and posturing of your puppet masters.

end (I have to say something otherwise I can't post)

[JD Barleycorn]

Getting too crowded

Why do people like you always put forth a rediculous argument about missiles or something. It has no validity. For the record, private citizens used to be able to own cannon. I still wonder about that licensed range. License for what exactly? What if I own a couple of hundred acres and I want to shoot off my back porch? According to you that would be illegal.

I don't think you know what ranting is. Anytime a law is passed the devil is in the details. Who will make the decision and how are they chosen. Can you imagine Obama putting together a nine person panel, hand picked by him, to determina new gun laws?

I can walk in and drive out in one day with a car. If a background check is instantanous then why wait five days or even two days? What do you tell someone who was threatened today with violence and they want protection now but, unlike a celebutard, can''t afford private security.

No, I don't know the point. I reload my own ammunition and it sounds like that would be illegal as well.

You do want to create criminals just like I thought. Amnesty is for criminals and a couple of other things above would create criminals. Purely voluntarily....where have I heard that before.

You're talking about a constitutional right again and not the privilege of driving.

If you have to ask permission to do something that is a right then you can be refused. It is no longer a right.

[essence]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Why do people like you always put forth a rediculous argument about missiles or something. It has no validity.

It is because people like you think the 2nd amendment gives you the right to own any kind of arms.

It is because people like you never state what controls and regulations of arms you think are appropriate.

It is because people like you think any restrictions are a violation of your freedom.

If you don;t like my arguments, then contradict your previous comments and state what restrictions you want.

-None.

-More.

-Less.

-Same as current.

If you continue with the 'None' answer then I will continue with the 'missiles' argument.

Answer the question. Contradict your previous fatuous posts.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by essence

I don't get it.

Joe Bloe, gnadfly, JDB and others seem to be saying there should be absolutely no regulation, control or restriction on availability of arms, nor on the type of arms. Otherwise the 2nd amendment is violated.

This is so jaw droppingly irrational and stupid that the first time i read it I thought they were having a laugh and being provocative, or else had imibed too much tea.

But then they repeat it.

Again and again.

Can somebody explain how anybody can be quite so stupid?

Even CoG, in his libertarian extremes, doesn;t always say there should be absolutely no restriction.

Is rational debate futile?

At least they have come out of their closet.

I believe you are just trying to be provocative in not better describing your position.

Try to order a .50 cal. sniper rifle or an automatic weapon and see what you have to go thru. Try to purchase an ordinary deer rifle or 9 mm pistol at the local sporting goods store - without a drivers license in Texas.

There are already regulations and laws already in place. COG is right, I'm not seeing anything discussed (or more importantly PROPOSED) that would have stopped what happened in Connecticut.

The rush to have a "National Conversation" is just a national "hen party". Folks are understandably and rightly upset...but they being "irrational."

What I proposed - legalization of many types of drugs - would drastically reduce the number of deaths along the Mexican border and, yes, reduce the 500 murders by guns in Chicago and all around the country.

Mass Murders by psychos are a whole different animal.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by essence

It is because people like you think the 2nd amendment gives you the right to own any kind of arms.

It is because people like you never state what controls and regulations of arms you think are appropriate.

It is because people like you think any restrictions are a violation of your freedom.

If you don;t like my arguments, then contradict your previous comments and state what restrictions you want.

-None.

-More.

-Less.

-Same as current.

If you continue with the 'None' answer then I will continue with the 'missiles' argument.

Answer the question. Contradict your previous fatuous posts.

Controls and regulations are infringements. The second amendment doesn't allow infringements. Your problem is with the second amendment. You're avoiding the core problem.

Liberals constantly work to bastardize and corrupt the Constitution by deliberately misinterpreting the document. They do this because it's easier to lie about what the Constitution says instead of amending it when they disagree with it.

Cheer up Essense. In the next four years, Obama will probaby have a solid five to four Marxist majority on the Supreme Court. Then the Constitution will say whatever the left wants it to say. The court will rule that the second amendment was written in a different age and is no longer binding.

[TGBeldin]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

The number who "shouldn't" will remain constant. Unless you think gun laws will make people less crazy. None of the proposals I've seen would have kept Adam Lanza from getting the guns and doing what he did.

So your view is since it would not have stopped Lanza, then it is not worth stopping anyone? You are correct, the number of sick people will not be changed by restricting "free access" to guns, but the number of sick people with guns can be. Or are you actually arguing guns should be available to anyone and everyone just for the asking?

You seem to only allow anarchy or perfect safety in your universe of desierable end states. That is absurd.

[essence]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

Controls and regulations are infringements. The second amendment doesn't allow infringements.

I have told you what your problem is. You admit your problem. Yet you deny it is a problem.

So there isn't much chance of getting you to agree to any remedies for your problem.

Again, thank you for a clear exposure of your views.

I make no further comment.

You are luckily in a very small minority in the US, but not in this forum.

[essence]

Originally Posted by TGBeldin

Or are you actually arguing guns should be available to anyone and everyone just for the asking?

.

Yes, that is what these lunatics are saying, lunatics like Joe Bloe, it is hard to believe, that is why it doesn't immediately hit us like a train, but after they repeat it a few times we realise they mean it, and the train hits us.

Unbelievable.

Yes, they are arguing exactly what you say.

Otherwise, in their deluded minds, the 2nd amendment is violated.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by essence

I have told you what your problem is. You admit your problem. Yet you deny it is a problem.

So there isn't much chance of getting you to agree to any remedies for your problem.

Again, thank you for a clear exposure of your views.

I make no further comment.

You are luckily in a very small minority in the US, but not in this forum.

My "problem" is that I believe the Constitution is the law of the land and I believe it actually means what it says. You clearly don't have that "problem."

[essence]

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by essence

You've completely missed my point. I believe you're being deliberately obtuse. I'll try once more. I'm not saying there should be no restrictions on gun ownership. I am saying before you can put restrictions on gun ownership you must first repeal the second amendment.

Debating what sort of gun restrictions are appropriate is a moot point until you repeal the second amendment.

Your tactic of waving a white flag is comical. You give up, not because I can't be reasoned with, but because you can't overcome my argument. You have yet to explain why the second amendment allows for gun restrictions when it clearly doesn't.

Why not simply admit that you don't think we should have to abide by the Constitution? That's the core belief of all liberals.

[essence]

I understand your point completely.

It is completely batty.

Given that the 2nd amendment has not yet been repealed, how do you explain the current restrictions on the ownership of arms?

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by essence

I understand your point completely.

It is completely batty.

Given that the 2nd amendment has not yet been repealed, how do you explain the current restrictions on the ownership of arms?

That's an easy question to answer. The current restrictions are unconstitutional. Just because a law exists does not mean it's constitutional.

The Supreme Court ruled that seperate but equal was constitutional for a long time before they reversed their prior ruling with Brown v. Board of Education.

The Supreme Court ruled that blacks could not be citizens in the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision and then reversed the ruling.

If we follow your line of reasoning, we have to believe that all current laws must be constitutional, otherwise how could they exist? Reductio ad absurdum.

[essence]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

Reductio ad absurdum.

Quite.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by essence

Quite.

This is where you're supposed to concede the point, assuming you have any intellectual integrity. That's the problem; liberals don't have intellectual integrity. Their whole ideology is based on lies and can not be honestly defended.

That's why, when they're cornered, they always resort to ad hominem attacks.