Some Thoughts About the 13 yr Old with the AK and Responses

Such a typical simplistic response to a complex question....see the same thing all the time on DU:barf:

WildradicalsarenoonesfriendsAlaska
 
If you want us in, use reason as one member of a 300,000,000 person society.
Click to expand...


We've been using REASON as a counter to nonsensical gun control "solutions" since day one. It doesn't work on anti-gunners; anti-gunners use hysteria in place of reason. If reason was ever going to work with them, it would have already.

You can parade facts and logic in front of an anti-gunner all day long, and he's still going to say that he wants gun bans, concealed carry bans, magazine capacity limits, "gun-free zones," ammunition bans, 10000% ammunition taxes, caliber bans, registration, ballistic "fingerprinting," 5-to-15-day waiting periods, and a host of other anti-gun laws, all of which have been clearly shown do not reduce violence.


-azurefly
 
gvf -- I'm having a hard time reading your posts. Can you structure them with a few more paragraphs and double-space the same?

All the words jumbled together make it hard to read. Thanks. :)
 
woops

woops! Sorry, well one last cent I guess. To the gentleman who mentioned the good record of guns in the home relative to accidental shootings, that's good news. and no, common sense would say to me, it's not a problem so laws are not needed.

Again,
Best Wishes
j

ps Sorry about the squishing together of the paragraphs as was pointed out. I tired to indent but once posted they were all in one block. I'll ge back and try and fix it for any new readers. Sorry
 
gvf said:
Why is it necessary to even try to prove over and over again that any gun-control is bad? Especially given some of the above? What is so bad about it? Why must it equate to outlawing guns. It doesn't.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of people believe (I somewhat share this belief) that gun control laws - in an indirect way - equate to outlawing guns and gun ownership as shown in the old 'incremental argument' -- that is, our 2A rights will be stripped over time, by small infringments that are rationalized based on the good of society (i.e., safety).

I admit this argument is too often used as a reason against gun control of all types (good/bad). However when more serious gun control proposals are put forth (i.e., broad, sweeping or otherwise all-encompassing proposals...etc), based on the beliefs noted above, I want to make absolute certain the gun control law or restriction in question is sound, will work, makes sense, and isn't just a temporary solution to quiet the publics outrage.

I admittedly come from an initial standpoint that a gun control law is bad - that's my default position. I then have to prove to myself that it's a good idea through general research. I don't work in the other direction -- that the law is inherently a good idea, and I should have to prove that it's bad.

PS - thanks for making your posts easier to read, gvf.
 
You can parade facts and logic in front of an anti-gunner all day long, and he's still going to say that he wants gun bans, concealed carry bans, magazine capacity limits, "gun-free zones," ammunition bans, 10000% ammunition taxes, caliber bans, registration, ballistic "fingerprinting," 5-to-15-day waiting periods, and a host of other anti-gun laws, all of which have been clearly shown do not reduce violence.
Click to expand...

You can parade facts and logic in front of an pro gunner all day long, and he's still going to say that he wants unlimited access to all firearms, no rules regarding concealed carry, no rules as to where you can carry a gun, indeed, no rules or regulations at all, all of which have been clearly shown do not reduce violence.


WildtitfortatbothsidesneedtogrowupAlaska
 
WildtitfortatbothsidesneedtogrowupAlaska
Click to expand...

Both sides need to cut the rhetoric and all that jazz - yep no argument.

WA (or anyone else) what would you answer to these questions?

Lets say the progun side did cut the rhetoric.

What do you believe that would do to the pro vs anti debate, and do you feel it would make the antigunner 'job' easier, or more difficult? Meaning, if we didn't fight for the exact opposite extreme, but instead fought for a more middle-ground approach.

Do you feel the antigun side would concede some from their end and we'd meet in the middle? (Is this battle that fair?)

Or are you coming more from the "don't stoop to their level" angle?

I'm picturing a tug-o-war, and asking one side to let up a little usually doesn't make the otherside do the same. Some may say that doesn't make sense when applied to this topic, but I somehow see it as a pretty clear representation as to the pro vs anti debate.
 
"Nor do I want my neigbor's 12 year old to carry around his AR in his trunk"

Does your neighbor's 12-year-old drive? Does your neighbor's 12-year-old have his or her own vehicle? I mean drive at all, not just with an AR in the trunk. I'm 56 and haven't known one 12-year-old who drove regularly on public roads (farm vehicles, yes, public streets, no.) The few who did drive were arrested for car theft. So my question is, what are you talking about when you say "...carry around his AR in his trunk?"

Frankly, a lot of what you are saying does not make much sense to me.

John
 
What do you believe that would do to the pro vs anti debate, and do you feel it would make the antigunner 'job' easier, or more difficult? Meaning, if we didn't fight for the exact opposite extreme, but instead fought for a more middle-ground approach.
Click to expand...

The middle ground is always the preferable ground and will attract the most support from the electorate, since middle of the roaders comprise the vast majority of the electorate. However, the screeching of both sides with absolutely idiotic positions makes it difficult for the voices of reason to be heard.

I dont pretend to be the voice of reason, but I have no problem listening to non screech postions

WildletstoneitdownAlaska
 
Hey now, everyone and their uncle knows this school shootings wave only happened because of the flood of assault weapons on the streets since the AWB sunsat two years ago.

All these kids can just simply walk out to the street, and pluck a fresh, ready to kill with, assault weapon right from the street, where your kids play. Dont you want a safer environment for your kids?
 
GVF said:
Nor is the practicality of their responses do to some fundamental misreading of the Bill of Rights, the language and intent of which could be argued a plethora of ways in the case of the 2nd (and a few others as well) because the language is archaic and phrased elleptically
Click to expand...


Come on, now. There's only ONE other person on this board who would use a word like "plethora" in common talk, and you're readin' one of his posts right now.

Anyone else using that word here just has gotta be a NY liberal who's anti-gun, come in here trolling for the heck of it.

You have me convinced.

I don't see anyone else here coming in and saying, "Why not just let 'em keep throwing gun control laws at us, if we can't show what the real harm of it is? What's so bad about gun control laws that infringe on our rights and on what we can legally own and use even when they can't be shown to help anything or reduce crime?"

You really ought to hit the road with this. So far I count ONE adherent to your cause, and I already had severe doubts about what he thinks of gun owners and gun ownership.


-azurefly
 
Anyone else using that word here just has gotta be a NY liberal who's anti-gun, come in here trolling for the heck of it.
[snip]
You really ought to hit the road with this.
Click to expand...
Beg pardon? You paying for his bandwidth now or just rewriting Forum Policies for us?
Rich
 
wildalaska said:
You can parade facts and logic in front of an pro gunner all day long, and he's still going to say that he wants unlimited access to all firearms, no rules regarding concealed carry, no rules as to where you can carry a gun, indeed, no rules or regulations at all, all of which have been clearly shown do not reduce violence.
Click to expand...


Here we go again with you telling us what EVERYBODY says, making such grandiose, sweeping generalizations that they can't possibly be taken seriously.

Even IF this all were true,
what is so bad about "unlimited access to all firearms"? Indeed, what is meant by "unlimited" in this case? That I can buy thirty of them and not just one? So what? Can I fire more than one of them, possibly two, at a time?

What firearms are out there that you feel we should not be allowed to have? Full auto MP5s and M16s? Sawed off shotguns? .50 cal?

What are the indispensable rules for concealed carry that you feel we can't shed? Can you show where OTHER laws don't already cover these issues? Like, if someone carries into a bar, and pulls the gun, isn't there already a "plethora" of laws that cover that, and could provide jail time for the guy?

You say that having no rules has been clearly shown to not reduce violence. Can you tell us WHERE we have EVER experimented with having NO RULES?? :rolleyes:

On the other hand, we've done plenty of experimentation with having LOTS of rules, and still people are able to IGNORE them and take firearms into schools and shoot children -- despite the RULES. So tell us again how the rules are what keep us safe, and having no rules has been proven to be unsafe. We haven't even done the no-rules thing. If you're thinking about the olden days when no gun control laws were even on the books, well, how many school shootings or mass killings did we have then?

-azurefly
 
WA said:
The middle ground is always the preferable ground and will attract the most support...
Click to expand...

That and the rest of your post makes plenty of sense to me and also seems to be the real meat of gvf's posts. It's quite possible that in the tooth'n'nail battle waged by the extremes of both sides, the middle ground and larger segment of the population is often forgotten in the smoke.

I'm not innocent. I've been a part of this on one side of the debate though not on all issues and that's OK. Fighting to obtain lawful concealed carry in Wisconsin has made this a more passionate subject in my life. That probably taints my perspective but I try to keep it in check.

I will say, though, that I will not sign on to a 'gun control law' based on a supposed merit attributed to it's 'middle ground' stance. It sill has to make sense, have a good probability of success, and not fall into that catagory of useless Band-aid.
 
I will say, though, that I will not sign on to a 'gun control law' based on a supposed merit attributed to it's 'middle ground' stance. It sill has to make sense, have a good probability of success, and not fall into that catagory of useless Band-aid.
Click to expand...


Holy crow, what's all this agreeing-with-Trip20 that I'm feeling like doing lately?!


-azurefly
 
Perhaps people just need to see the 'middle ground' in perspective.

For example, waiting periods, an extreme, definitely not middle ground.
Limitations on number of firearms able to be purchased in a given time period, an extreme, not middle ground.
The few places with limitations on how many rounds may be in a magazine, an extreme.
The states that do not allow concealed carry, an extreme.

Background checks, not an extreme, that is middle ground.
Limitations on where you may carry a gun, not an extreme.(subjective to a degree, some places make sense, others don't)
Age limits on possession of a firearm, not an extreme.

As opposed to what some would call for, such as:
No age limits, no limitations on where you can carry, and no background checks.
 
Spiffster-
Let's start with a simpler one and work from there:
- Enforce the gun laws already on the books.

Definite middle ground.
Requires no new laws.
Hobbles no law abiding citizen.
Teaches personal responsibility.
Works in the direction of all your other middle ground proposals.

Rich

ps: OTOH, how about:
- Revoke the ban on ownership by those who are under Restraining Order or prior Domestic Misdemeanor Charge.
- Reinstate ALL rights of non-violent felons who have served their prison and probation sentences.

Thoase are middle ground also.
 
(???) Limitations on where you may carry a gun, not an extreme.(subjective to a degree, some places make sense, others don't)

What places don't make sense? Schools? Banks? Courthouses? Day cares? Restaurants? Bars? Cities? Why should the location make a difference? Isn't the person doing the possessing still the same law-abiding citizen? And if he isn't, then any law prohibiting him from carrying will be ignored anway. This is the same problem we see with most attempts at "reasonable controls" - they only control the reasonable people - those without the evil intent the laws were supposed to curtail.
 
Don't get me wrong, I don't think any new laws should be written. The law already makes unlawful all the bad things that still occur.
Rich, perhaps you could help the rest of the class (or just me) and list a few laws that are not enforced currently. Just so I can be more prepared the next time I debate the logistics of gun control.

Am with you on the reinstatement of all non-violent felons gun rights. As far as TRO, well that whole system is flawed to begin with, had good intentions I am sure, but now its more abused that used properly.

What places don't make sense?
Click to expand...
Bars, for one. I work at one, and even though we pat down every male that walks in I still dont feel safe. Yes, i did say only the male patrons, apparently the bar doesnt wish to risk getting slapped with a harrassment suit by us frisking the females, and we have no female doorstaff (other than the cute hostesses), but so far, none of the females has figured out they can get their own weapons in). And I think all bars should wand, patdown, or use metal detectors on all their patrons.
Courthouses, that makes sense in my mind. There are metal detectors to go through.
Just about the resto f the list, should be up to the property owner to decide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top