We don't need to control guns, we need to control our government.

Not much chance of you learning the English language? So it seems.

 

Like I tell people; "I'm a gun toting socialist".

The dumbfounded expressions are astounding.

Partisanship is so pervasive. In the gun control forum, the environment forum, abortion forum, and the religion forum. The debate is dragged down at the moment the first person says "you filthy American hating liberal socialist".

Its amusing. Makes me glad that I dumped Libertarianism.

 

Oh good. We're back to the survey again. I was thinking you were talking about irrelevant gun differences still. As you recall, one question in the survey asked if the respondent favored the sale of long range .50 caliber rifles to civilians. You should also note that the survey questions are NOT considered "data", and your reference as such IS puzzling. So, to answer your baseless charge; 'yes' I AM familiar with the survey in question. Thank you.



What would you like to talk about concerning it?

 

A government problem? What is that?

 

I'd say you've made quite a voyage considering the amount of territory between those two ideologies. The important thing is the destination, however, so all's good.

 

Why would they be "dumbfounded"?

 

Too much of it outside of the Constitution, a lose of rights, an unbalanced budget.

Does that help?

 

Yes. But at no point are people saying, "Cars are dangerous (which they are), we should ban them!"

People have suggested we dismantle the 2nd Amendment. That's the common sense I refer to.

 

Agreed. There are extremists about every issue.

 

courts have the final say on "everything" and the SOB's arent even elected, they are government judges!

what a racket!

you need to control judges is what you need, or get the law in the hands of the people as in the jury system where the jury as full power to overrule any judge as it was meant to be.

every state sholld have 3 sitting judges elected by the people to sit on the supreme court.

 

That's the Constitution. We elect Representatives and they make appointments.

I personally am glad the Judicial Branch doesn't have to win elections.

They are lawyers and judges, not politicians.

 

What "People" are you referring to? It appears that you're building a straw man. Easier to argue against the extremes, I guess, but I wouldn't necessarily call that "common sense", however.

 

Isn't it a timeless Lib-Dem argument that the "right" to bear arms only applies to militia's? Isn't it a timeless Lib-Dim argument that it's antiquated? Isn't it a timeless Lib-Dim argument that we should repeal the second Amendment? Some of us feel that rights are natural, equal and inalienable.

 

False; "the energized and misguided electorate, fearfully goaded into believing even the most outrageous propaganda concerning gun control." No we the electorate know when anti gun people get an inch they take a mile, so we give nothing if possible. Really Danct, there is so much wrong with your reply! The hyperlink took me to a article that had the approval of the University of Chicago...hmmm the same city that lost the supreme court case that defined we the people (not a militia etc) have a right to keep and bear arms! We have too much gun control now. However I am not worried that we will lose anything. The no gun check at gun shows might go by the wayside. Still if some really wants to buy a untraceable gun with no gun check they will do it through friends etc. I have bought many like that.

Ok I will leave now, I just though I would drop by for a moment~

reva

 

No, that stance was settled law for over two hundred years until Heller. Hardly a liberal conspiracy.

You can always find extreme comments from ANY side, but to use this as a basis to paint all liberals with the same brush and more specifically to say that any sort of significant amount of liberals are saying this is simply absurd. You're arguing against the extremes as if there's some vast conspiracy. This is a straw man fallacy.

Once again you are using a fallacious straw man in order to argue against the extremes. I find this a very convenient and lazy way to argue an issue. Why, I could just as easily argue that most conservatives want to abolish all gun laws and allow criminals, terrorists and juveniles to purchase any type and as many guns as they wish....... Of course, this wouldn't be any more valid than YOUR argument.

Nice try.

 

It's ironic that you would claim my comments to be "False" when your reply uses two inaccuracies in the very first sentence!

First, you erroneously claimed that "the electorate" was against gun control when polls show otherwise. You have confused single-issue voting by the fearful anti-control crowd as a general consensus in the voting electorate.

Secondly, you have made the error of believing in a debunked fallacy called the slippery slope (as applied to gun control). Refer here.

Seriously?!? Are you REALLY arguing that the proximity of the survey origin to an imagined court case (actually the case you are referring to, that dealt with "militias" etc was Heller, and that case was about Washington DC, not Chicago anyways). So in sum, you are attempting to use a guilt by association fallacy to describe something that actually was about ANOTHER city!...... WoW!

 

No one said it was a "conspiracy" I said it was an argument I've heard from the Left.

Again no. I never said that. YOU are contracting a strawman.

The same could be said about you.

I simply said I've heard that argument from the Left. Nice try.

 

Do you ever make an argument, or simply attempt to paint your opponent as a person unworthy of debating?

 

No, actually you said it's; "a timeless Lib-Dem argument that the "right" to bear arms only applies to militia's". I can understand why you'd now try to run from this hyperbole, but it's not terribly honest nonetheless.

If Americans and Democrats were citing settled law prior to Heller, why would this seem odd or unusual to anyone? You have attempted to make what you refer to as "Lib-Dem"'s who you claimed are "People [who] have suggested we dismantle the 2nd Amendment" as radical and unpatriotic when they were simply citing settled law at the time.

Your argument on this point is disingenuous and deceptive. This much is clear.

Nonsense. I have quoted you own words, friend. Denial is not an option.

Remember that we are talking about "Lib-Dems" who YOU claim are "People [who] have suggested we dismantle the 2nd Amendment". I think that it's high time you end this charade and admit that you are attempting to paint a significant amount of Americans as wanting something that they do not want. Namely to "dismantle the 2nd Amendment", as you have said here. There is a name for this and it's called a straw man. OK?

Oh. Then you weren't trying to substantiate your claim that "people" were trying to "dismantle the 2nd Amendment"? That's odd because the post where you made these claims about "repeal [of the] the second Amendment" had nothing to do with simply "hearing" this. It was about identifying those "people" for me that you had previously said we attempting to do this very thing.

I'm afraid that you have laid out a very weak argument.

 

If I were to respond to this by pointing out that you have asked an unanswerable loaded question, then would I be guilty of questioning your "worthiness" or would I be accurately addressing your post? I think the later.

Nice try though.

 

I said it was an argument I have heard. What you read into it was stupid.

Need some hay with that strawman argument?

Yes and I NEVER said it was a conspiracy, I said it was an argument.

 

All you do is attempt to belittle people because you don't have the debate skills to engage in the subject.

Thanks for proving my case.

 

Our Founding Fathers warned of us against this kind of government. People need to wake up.

 

Your avoidance of, and deleting of my counterargument is very telling. I quoted for you your own words in relation to this which you have chosen to run from and dishonestly deny. Pity.

You DIDN'T say that you had "heard it", you actually said that there is "a timeless Lib-Dem argument that the "right" to bear arms only applies to militia's". Once again, this is disingenuous because that particular stance prior to Heller was universal and NOT unique to Liberals.

You have once again conveniently avoided this reality.

I didn't claim that you DID say that, friend. Nice red herring though. Now then, do you want to address the weaknesses in your argument that I have outlined for you, or do you wish to ignore them again?


I would think that you would be more willing to defend you OP if it had validity. Your avoidance of your original claim that "People have suggested we dismantle the 2nd Amendment", which ironically, you used as the premise for your plea for "common sense" yet you could not, and still cannot support this premise.

You have offered us a very weak argument.

 

Ha! I have directly and specifically addressed YOUR OP and the subject therein. You on the other hand have only avoided this discussion, choosing instead to level personal attacks against me. Why is this?

If you can prove your baseless accusations, then do so. If not, then perhaps you should be more careful about lodging false accusations, as it does not reflect well upon you.



Oh, and by the way,......... "it was stupid" and "want some hay" aren't exactly "debate skills". School yard taunts: 'maybe',...debate skills: 'no'. When you wish to discuss your OP, please let me know. I am willing and able.