And I dutifully already supplied it, friend. The other member claimed that "Gun control has NEVER impeded the ability of criminals to get guns" I showed him proof that his statement was incorrect. I don't know what else I can do for you on this one. This is a totally different argument than the one I was addressing. Not ALL criminals have guns AND since you don't know how many criminals would have guns without this restriction, your argument is a moot one. As well it SHOULD, friend. We don't have a right to "convenience". The 'Instant Background Check System' is the furthest you can get to a "gun registry", as purchase records are mandated to be destroyed by law. Your fears are unfounded. Well, I've logically shown you that your "reasons" are flawed, and you cannot show that "gun control laws have failed". The burden of proof would be all yours then. I'm claiming that the fact that a particular legal prohibition does not prevent the act from happening some times, does NOT mean that the prohibition is not effective or proper. A conclusion such as that would not be a valid one. I have seen nothing to make me believe this to be true so I would have to respectfully disagree. I'm sorry, but your conclusion is not a valid one. You have assumed that because government atrocities have taken place that they are thus unqualified to govern (hopefully you're being consistent and not simply singling out only gun laws as to this). This is a ridiculous argument to make because it ignores all the positive and beneficial things government has done for us all. Your argument also totally ignores the simple fact that our citizen government is "by the people and for the people". They are allowed to do only what we allow them to do. Your cynicism is no replacement for logic. Again, while I disagree with your views as to this, I will defend your right to peaceably state them here or anywhere else.
We'll see how this plays out when the anti-control side overplays their hand. It's bound to happen because it never seems to be enough.
Danct, 1) During Katrina the gun registry was used as a source of information in order to confiscate guns from people who had disobeyed no law. There's no "fear" it actually happened. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4"]NRA: The Untold Story of Gun Confiscation After Katrina - YouTube[/ame] There are dozens of reports available on the internet if you are interested in learning more. This is the government and laws you are defending. This behavior is unacceptable in a free society. The types of laws you are advocating here enable the excesses of power documented in the above video. You are free to disagree with me and I won't judge you personally, but you have to be willing to accept the consequences of the laws you support. Saying these things don't happen is a disservice to those Americans' whose rights were violated in New Orleans. 2) I think it's silly to say prohibitionist laws work as I can literally go down the street and buy whatever I want from the gangsters in the ghetto. Do I need to send pics to prove it? 3) I absolutely make the argument that people are not capable of governing others, especially those given fancy hats in government. I do not believe that a country who passes bills/policy such as Dodd-Frank, TARP, QE1/2 and endless wars in the ME to be a government by the people for the people. Most Americans are peace loving and if you were right...then we could take opinion polls as evidence for public policy...mainly the ended of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya and Yemen. I strongly contest your statement that government has done anything "good" for the simple fact that government creates no wealth, and the wealth it has it had to confiscate by gunpoint from peace loving people. I do not accept the "ends justify the means" argument so you will find I am quite consistent on my opposition to government force, in all forms. You said- "Again, while I disagree with your views as to this, I will defend your right to peaceably state them here or anywhere else" Then why not support my right to own any weapon I so choose as long as I do not commit aggression against anyone else? And yes, I share your sentiments, I would defend your right to do whatever you want, as long as you don't initiate force against another.
Very true. The only issue is whether libertines, who pursue a result inconsistent with freedom, are able to enforce irrational gun control levels. That may well be the case, given the irrationality inspired by pressure groups such as the NRA (and how easily people are led by the propaganda)
Your NRA video doesn't claim anywhere that I could see that there was a gun registry in New Orleans, friend. Again, your argument is not valid. Remember that your argument was that you equated the 'Instant Background System' to a "gun registry". I have explained that federal law mandates that these records be destroyed after a very short amount of time. Now you claimed that it HAS happened and offer as proof an NRA video that does NOT support your claim. Not a very good way to make an argument, I think, and calls into question the validity of your position. Once again, you are confusing disparate issues. You have moved the goalposts now to bring in your displeasure with the crime control policies after Katrina. Of course, we weren't previously discussing this event, nor were we discussing gun bans as I recall. So, for you to bring this topic into the discussion when you were previously trying to prove that gun laws don't work and should thus be abolished is somewhat disingenuous. We will do much better here if we stick to the issues at hand AND, if you don't mind, using the "quote" features available here as I have previously described for you. It really makes the discussion easier to follow. The fact that one can buy a gun illegally does NOT mean that laws that prohibit this act do not work in that they have an effect. This is called the 'statistics of small numbers fallacy'. You seem to be making a common error by anti-controllers that you expect a gun law to have total compliance in order to be effective while you do not hold the same bar to laws that prohibit rape, murder, incest and theft. We have laws that prohibit these acts and yet they all happen daily in this country. To use your flawed logic, one would have to assume that these laws are ineffective and thus should be abolished. Most reasoned thinkers would not agree with this conclusion. Then the likely alternative would be a deserted island I guess. What our Founding Fathers came up with has been widely hailed as an effective system that balances personal rights with functions of government. I believe its worked fairly well thus far. I'm glad that you presented this as an opinion and not as a fact because many here do the later which is not as conducive to a reasoned discussion, in my opinion. I would say that the fact that you take umbrage to those pieces of Legislation is one sign that our system works. All of us will not always be happy with every piece of Legislation, nor should we. There are many views and perspectives to take into account when formulating an opinion about sometimes very complicated issues. While I'm not a fan of our military involvement in so many arenas, I DO see a benefit in better regulating an industry that put us all into the Great Recession in the first place and I support any rational tact that might help to pull us out of the same event. We can respectfully agree to disagree on this issue, but to conclude that the passage of these Bills is an indicator that our system of Government is not working strains the reins of rationality. Disagreement of policy is NOT grounds for anything untoward as to our government. But you have obviously erred in your assessment of our system of Government here. What you outlined above would be a typical Democracy, but what WE have here and what our FF were so clever in setting up for us is actually a Republic Government. The difference is that we elect our Legislators to vote and act on our behalf. There were reasons for doing this. I find this a cynical stance. I do not subscribe to this approach, personally. If you want to look for GOOD that our government has done, we can start with our liberation from an oppressive England, then consider that it has protected us from Japan, Germany, Soviet Union and Cuba. We enjoy roads and rails, clean water and safe food, police that protect us and prosecute evil-doers, A national guard that both protects us from foreign invaders AND civil calamities, A Coast Guard that patrols our water borders, and a court system that offers us redress against both an oppressive government AND personal and financial harm by others. For you to say that the Government does no "good" simply because they "creates no wealth" (an arguable point) succumbs to a very narrow view of the "good" a proper Government can do. It would seem that you are arguing against ANY government and this inevitably would put the conversation into an area of conversation that I would not prefer to delve into, if you don't mind. I notice that you seem to confuse issues which tends to lead you into false conclusions. If one is for Constitutional rights as they were written, as I do, then that does NOT mean that one is for a an imagined right that YOU might subscribe to. You are certainly free to interpret the Constitution as you see fit, but please don't foist YOUR opinions upon ME.
Utter nonsense. A healthy number of Brady denials are ultimately overturned on appeal, generally proven to be cases of mistaken identity or people denied because they had failed to pay a parking ticket and thus had a bench warrant out for their arrest. Pay the fine, clear up the warrant, and promptly be approved to buy a gun. That doesn't stop the gun controllers from trumpeting that every single denial prevented a mass shooting. Criminals know that they can't buy a gun from a licensed dealer, so they get them from other sources (generally the same illegal sources that supply them their drugs). Few are so stupid as to actually fill out the 4473 NICS background check form when they have a violent felony record. I won't expect you to follow up on your pledge to eat your hat, so don't worry about it.
We have been on a winning roll since 1994. That's 17 years of victory after victory. The people are with us because they keep electing pro-gun legislators. After the last election over 50% of the House and almost 50% of the Senate have an NRA rating of "A". Don't hold your breath waiting for the backlash. Do you want to know why we win? Because your side always makes hysterical predictions that don't come true when the gun laws are relaxed. We haven't had an upsurge in gun violence like you guy keep saying that we will have. Your side has no credibility.
How many of those rejected were actually prosecuted? You do know that trying to buy those guns was a crime, don't you.
...And if you are right then the day they succeed will be the day the Great Experiment is officially dead. I can only hope we prove to be stronger than that.
The pursuit of optimal gun control goes beyond party politics. Even right wingers can support freedom over libertine folly
The "do what thou wilt" brigade who, by ignoring external costs from personal preferences, demand a coercive result inconsistent with a freedom based perspective
I see that you still haven't altered your habit of posting before comprehending what the other poster has written. If you had taken the time, you would have noticed that I posted AND noted in my post that the number of denials were "felony" denials, and not the total number of denials as YOU alluded to. The number I used were those who had a felony conviction as a reason for denial so you have no argument to offer. Talk about "utter nonsense", you obviously didn't refer to my posted link on this. The fact IS that criminals DO try to buy guns at legal gun dealers. Referring to my link, we see that from 1999 through 2008 there were 38,722 felony denials, so your assertion is woefully incorrect. I appears that you're giving criminals way too much credit.
Which ONLY shows that the only ones who vote solely on gun laws are the anti-control side AND that the Republicans happened to have a good election. Reading anything else into it would be foolish. Oh, I sincerely believe it WILL happen, given that these things tend to go in cycles AND that your side will never be satisfied until you push the envelope too far. Just look at all the misinformed zealots that frequent here, Silverhair. " Look out!!! They're comin' after your gunz!!!" Even though, as you ably stated, gun rights have seen green pastures since the Nineties.
The short answer is too few. If you looked at the link, then you would know the answer to that. I assume that you don't view the success or failure of this Act solely in the light of prosecutions. Do you favor some sort of enhanced prosecution method as to this perhaps?
All too often men are betrayed by the word freedom. And as freedom is counted among the most sublime feelings, so the corresponding disillusionment can be also sublime." - Franz Kafka "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." -Thomas Jefferson "Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty." -Thomas Jefferson "Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." -George Washington Patriot: the person who can holler the loudest without knowing what he is hollering about. -Mark Twain "I conceive that the great part of the miseries of mankind are brought upon them by false estimates they have made of the value of things." -Benjamin Franklin
'Externalities' in a free society are solved through a strict enforcement of property rights and a thorough and independent judiciary/arbitrator. The below page and video explains my viewpoint very succinctly. Enjoy! http://www.learnliberty.org/content/externalities and just the video: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcPRmh5AIrI"]Negative Externalities and the Coase Theorem - YouTube[/ame]
The Coase Theorem is about demonstrating how the market can solve externalities only if transaction costs are low. In most cases that isn't the case.
