Been a week…….
- Thread starter Mike Zierath
- Start date
As we determined (and I agreed with), conviction doesnt mean binary. If you cant comprehend the difference, thats a "you" issue. Enjoy your Friday.
You sure did want it binary for quite a while in this thread. Glad you realized your error.
Again, if you cant comprehend the idea of establishing a position on a spectrum, theres no reason to continue the discussion or engaging in further discussions. (and just an FYI, ill be placing you on the ignore list as your previous handle was, so any unanswered points or questions following this post aren't me being rude, just simply ignoring you. Have a good one, and best of luck).
In our debate, I have a position. you just didn’t consider acceptable because I don’t think it’s one there is a 100% right or wrong position on.
like the current conversation on guns. While I personally have no desire to own a gun personally, I understand some people collect them, or else want them for protection/hunting. I do believe there should be controls in place as to how one can acquire a gun legally, and what kinds should be readily available.
Oh…..he smelled terrible, and I accidentally made eye contact with him and he took that as an invitation to bend my ear with all sorts of stuff. Swear to God he stood there for a half hour, you try holding your breath that long!
I guess the only harm he was really doing was just being a dip shit, Which, has gotten people killed before.
I didnt say it wasnt acceptable, but yes, I think you should be able to justify it more than "I dont know enough to have a strong position" in a discussion that I didn't actively engage you in. If you disagree, thats fine, but im not going to not ask probing questions. Ignore if you dont like them.
Regarding guns, let me ask more probing questions (and again, if you dont like them, just ignore them).
What "kinds" do you not think should be readily available?
What constitutes "readily available"?
What is the end goal from this position?
First, engaging in discussions about stuff I’m not as familiar with is the best way, imo to both learn more about a topic as well as getting a better idea of where I might stand on something. Or at least getting to know where I might be willing to compromise.
as far as guns, I don’t think military-style weapons, such as the AR-15 which sure seems like the mass shooters weapon of choice should be commercially available. I’ll allow for exceptions in areas such as private security, armored trucks, etc. i think private citizens should have to wait until a background check, and red flag provisions are cleared before they get to take their gun home - again, allowing for examples such as where someone has a credible threat to their safety.
the end goal is to try and make it harder for impulse gun purchases and hopefully prevent the impulse buys such as the (was it Tulsa?) where the guy purchased the gun and went on his rampage on the same day. In others, in at least some I would hope that by requiring a delay would either allow for red flag laws to work, or again perhaps allow for the shooter to have second thoughts. If nothing else, I don’t think it should be easy to purchase a gun. We accept numerous hoops to jump through o get a drivers license, purchase a car, etc. I think it’s reasonable to do likewise with guns.
your turn.
At this point, I think we've beaten the hell out of a dead horse on the first part of your response, so lets just agree to disagree and acknowledge we're not going to see eye-to-eye there.
- Do you have no worries about agencies/PDs/etc have "superior" weapons over citizens? (and im quoting superior because im using your position about those firearms - not mine)
- What constitutes "military style"? Ill give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not referring to any aesthetic classifications. Keep in mind, a 7-rd 1911 is as much a "military style" firearm as any AR - more so in fact.
- How many gun purchases are you under the impression currently happen through FFL transfers? (i.e. a background check happens)
- Odd that you are mainly concerned with the events in the news, but data shows those deaths make up only a tiny fraction of homicides or gun deaths. Why wouldnt you be more concerned with those? its not so much the deaths, but rather the optics and circumstances surrounding them?
Last edited:
If you’re asking in terms of civilians being able to fight back against cops/army, then no. That battle, pun intended, has long since been lost. No matter what civilians could come up with, they would get trumped by anything the military could offer, and for years cities have been able to buy surplus military equipment as well - not a positive development imo.
For the sake of this discussion I’ll just focus on the AR-15, which I’ve seen described many times as a weapon of war.
If the number of gun purchases that happens under background checks isn’t 100%, that’s a problem.
And of course I’m focused on the recent shootings. In part because I would be less than human if the murder of 19 kids didn’t hold my focus. And in part because to me it’s a shooting that is preventable. The rest rely on a number of other factors, not least being the need to make a concerted effort to try and get guns off the streets.
Just because you've seen it described in some fashion doesn't make it true. What is true is a 1911 is more of a "weapon of war" than the civilian AR. So how are you going to define it?
We'll disagree on the background check as that would require a national registry. But do you acknowledge the majority of gun purchases currently happen with a background check?
And at least you admit your position is based on optics/feeling and not logic or data. Unfortunately these debates won't evolve past this point until feelings get on the bench and logic & data take center stage.
Last edited:
I certainly hope the majority of gun purchases get background checks - tho I wouldn’t be surprised if that number is lower than you or I would think. At minimum tho, I don’t think anyone should be able to take a gun home until the check is completed. Why is that or a gun registry bad? We already have that for many other things.
And I’m talking former military guys describing many of these weapons like the AR-15 as something that wouldn’t be out of place on a battlefield. Seriously, what do you need from an AR-15 that you can’t accomplish with a handgun or shotgun?
I know the numbers (at least according to the latest data) and it's a majority. A registry makes confiscation a possibility (and don't tell me no one wants to take guns - beto just doubled down on that not more a couple weeks back).
Again, anyone can describe them any way they want - doesn't make it fact. As for what does an AR accomplish that a handgun or shotgun doesn't? Ergonomics, modularity, versatility, cost effectiveness. They're not really comparable. And if we're qualifying by necessity; what need does alcohol fill? Vehicles in excess of 65 mph? High cal/sugar foods? All known to kill on par or in excess of guns. See how asinine the "necessity" position is?
Last edited:
Sigh. I knew we’d get to outright gun confiscation eventually. Yes, I know Beto and others have called for it. I also know it’s very far from a majority. It’s a bogus argument to me, because there’s no way outright gun confiscation would ever stand up in court, especially one with the conservative bent the SC will have in place for the next 30 years at least.
Please try another argument.
Whys it not valid? - its clearly the end goal. Its been stated. How we can not take them at their word?
So far youve made zero point - youve admitted you prefer reactionary symbolic gestures based on feeling that lack logic and date that have little to no positive impact. Youve displayed you can't even define what you're advocating be banned. Do you have a cogent argument, or are you going to just continue to regurgitate the uninformed talking points?
it’s not valid because the liberals you mentioned, don’t come close to a majority of Democrats. It’s not valid because even if they tried, it wouldnt be legal. it’s not valid because at the end of the day because it’s a straw man argument people like you throw out to scare the rest of us instead of trying to do anything that might stand a chance of working to reduce gun violence.
So you're asking me not to put any stock in what politicians are saying? Here's the thing; regardless of what you believe or think, you cannot guarantee me there will never be any sort of confiscation. However, I can guarantee you there will never be a comprehensive confiscation if there's no registry. So forgive me, but I'm not putting any faith or stock into a "trust me bro" statement... especially from someone who can't even define what it is they want to ban.
Schools in many places are campus like, with many buildings. The cost of two security folks at each building would be astronomical across a district.
Looking at restricting access is certainly needed, but it is attacking a symptom, not the causes.
You won't get anywhere with logic and facts with him. Nor asking him to answer his own questions. He's a hack.
A national registry is something that will be abused at some point in time and will have a difficult time getting through the courts.
1) The NRA needs to be on board with an increased focus on promoting gun safety and training. There are too many people purchasing firearms w/o any knowledge or respect for what the can do. There needs to be a change in focus and this is the best way to protect any erosion of 2nd amendment rights.
2) Tax incentives for safe/cabinet purchases
3) Must be 21 to purchase AK/AR style semi-auto weapons in certain calibers (.223 and larger and/or all pistol calibers
4) Permit to acquire for purchase of all AR/AK weapons and handguns
5) 14 day waiting period for all AR/AK type firearms, pistols & revolvers unless a member of a law enforcement agency or licensed security organization.
6) Increased funding for Civilian Marksmanship Program, which offers more training and education opportunities. Guns are not toys
1) The NRA needs to be on board with an increased focus on promoting gun safety and training. There are too many people purchasing firearms w/o any knowledge or respect for what the can do. There needs to be a change in focus and this is the best way to protect any erosion of 2nd amendment rights.
2) Tax incentives for safe/cabinet purchases
3) Must be 21 to purchase AK/AR style semi-auto weapons in certain calibers (.223 and larger and/or all pistol calibers
4) Permit to acquire for purchase of all AR/AK weapons and handguns
5) 14 day waiting period for all AR/AK type firearms, pistols & revolvers unless a member of a law enforcement agency or licensed security organization.
6) Increased funding for Civilian Marksmanship Program, which offers more training and education opportunities. Guns are not toys
It makes more sense to argue an all out gun ban barring law enforcement, military and licensed armed security. And then having zero tolerance laws with harsh punishments for those breaking the law.
Why is it not a valid argument to make if someone wanted to ban all guns?
Because it would never be passed could be argued about many of the gun control laws being proposed such as the registry. But it would require a constitution change. Great while going through the process, let's revisit the whole thing and make it more modern.
So the all out gun ban can be much more effectively argued as a preventative measure than the generic description of a rifle being targeted by many proposals. It needs to go along with strict punishments and zero tolerance for anyone caught breaking the law even if it has a disparate impact on rednecks, minorities and anyone else.
I don't agree with that proposal, but it makes much more sense to propose and actually eventually have an effective impact.
# 1 was an early focus of the NRA. Most of your very good points generally follow what would be a sensible progression for the NRA.
They were co-opted by the gun industry and other profiteers, culminating in Wayne LaPierre’s total sellout.
You could argue that the NRA changed their focus when the “ban everything” crowd started gaining traction. Much like abortion, the “do nothing” and “ban it all” elements are the main obstacles to any constructive dialogue and causing it to devolve into a messy political battle.
Why would the NRA totally abandon the earlier core values? Money. Money. Money. LaPierre sold them out.
Meanwhile, tomorrow we will read about the latest senseless… crap.
Instead of safe usage programs training young folks to be careful and safe with firearms, they pushed for basically unlimited sales of increasingly deadly weapons.
Why would anybody sensible person support them any longer?
Last edited:
Read what I said…almost all advocacy organizations act in response to the situation at hand. I was pretty clear about that and the NRA was used as a vehicle to combat any erosion of 2nd amendment rights. We can look no further than what hard line lawmakers have done to women’s rights in regards to abortion and reproductive health.
I respect your input.
2nd amendment rights took a wrong turn when modern weapons became available. Arguing that semi auto guns should be OK for all to own would be anathema to the early Constitutionalists. They are clearly contributing to societal failure.
Unless the modern gun “system” is somehow restrained, we can expect battles in the streets to become commonplace.
There was a coup to change the leadership in the early 70s when it went away from a sporting and gun safety group to the all out advocacy we see now. Lots of money from gun manufacturers and others. Prior to that republicans and democrats were united in support of gun control laws. Particularly the republicans (Reagan in particular) after the Black Panthers started employing their 2nd Amendment rights.
Democrats have been consistent in their positions throughout - republicans sold out to the NRA.
You really gonna back the IRA in their shift to money grubbing and away from gun safety?
The irony of you making that statement on a "system" that can reach millions of people in a blink is palpable.
