Hey Liberals? Guns work!!

[Flaming Pie]

I love how a ban on gun sales with no background checks at gun shows instantly turns into Hitler banning all guns... period.... forever....kind of hard to have a conversation on the topic when folks are tangenting off in left field. (Sorry...RIGHT field)

Sure..some folks might want to take away your gun ownership rights. That's not what this is. Even if you want to argue this is a stepping stone to taking away guns altogether you should probably start by arguing the actual current events...as opposed to simply snarling that "they will pry my gun out of my cold, dead hands!"

Showing people you're a rational, reasonable gun owner should probably start with with the ability to hold discourse on the actual topic at hand.....or I guess people could try to instill confidence by overreacting, taking the argument out of context and making wild Hitler comparison's.... Ya know.....whatever...

All I can say is I enjoy guns. But I have never here in the U.S. ever needed to fire 1 at anyone....I seriously doubt anyone on here has. The fact that you guys are joking about hiding bodies on an online forum shows that its pretty far from your reality.

Owning guns is fine (IMO). As long as the owners are reasonable, responsable and intelligent. Reasonable people being the folk that see no harm in being minorly inconvenienced when dealing with the bureaucracy of purchasing a gun if it limits the ability of nutjobs getting them.

In Australia you can still own a gun as long as you own a farm out in the bush (to protect yourself/livestock) or if you are a marksmen (sport shooter) but you must be liscenced and attend a yearly safety certification and be active in sports shooting competitions. I'm not saying we should follow suit, just that a system can be implemented that still allows for comprimise even in the most extreme case (being a ban on guns).

And as for the revolutionary gotta fight the tyrannical government argument...well clearly you never served in the military....you would be bringing a gun to a drone fight. In the middle east those folks are refered to as "decoys".

They want to get rid of all semi auto weapons.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4269/text?q={"search":["\"hr4269\""]}&resultIndex=1

 

[Padawanbater2]

Guns have one use, cars have multiple uses, the primary being essential to average everyday life for most Americans

It's a false equivalency

 

[budlover13]

Guns have one use, cars have multiple uses, the primary being essential to average everyday life for most Americans

It's a false equivalency

Guns have multiple uses as well. Hunting, self protection, hobby shooting, murder, display, etc. (Which a car can also be used for some of the same uses).



Primary use of a car is moving from point A to point B.

Primary use for a gun is getting a projectile from point A to point B.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Guns have multiple uses as well. Hunting, self protection, hobby shooting, murder, display, etc. (Which a car can also be used for some of the same uses).



Primary use of a car is moving from point A to point B.

Primary use for a gun is getting a projectile from point A to point B.

"A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result. False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

 

[budlover13]

"A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result. False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

Good wiki quote. Have you never driven a nail with anything other than a hammer? Have you ever thrown a knife at something instead of cutting with it? Have you ever driven a car with no destination? Have you ever used a lighter for light instead of starting or lighting something on fire?

EVERY object I can think of can have multiple uses, depending on the user.

Objects are objects. If you want to control gun violence (or car violence or hammer violence or rock violence ), address the user not the object.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Good wiki quote. Have you never driven a nail with anything other than a hammer? Have you ever thrown a knife at something instead of cutting with it? Have you ever driven a car with no destination? Have you ever used a lighter for light instead of starting or lighting something on fire?

EVERY object I can think of can have multiple uses, depending on the user.

Objects are objects. If you want to control gun violence (or car violence or hammer violence or rock violence ), address the user not the object.

I'm not arguing objects have multiple uses, I'm arguing objects have a primary use. The primary use of both objects is what renders the equivalence false and the argument moot

 

[budlover13]

I'm not arguing objects have multiple uses, I'm arguing objects have a primary use. The primary use of both objects is what renders the equivalence false and the argument moot

And the primary use of every gun I own is putting a projectile where I want it. Life and situations (along with practice practice practice ) determine where I want it and put it.

 

[budlover13]

Pada,

I have a lot of respect for you and your opinions but it seems that you believe that the primary use for a firearm is killing. I have shot many more targets in my life than I have prey. That's the primary use of my guns. Putting a projectile where I want it.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Pada,

I have a lot of respect for you and your opinions but it seems that you believe that the primary use for a firearm is killing. I have shot many more targets in my life than I have prey. That's the primary use of my guns. Putting a projectile where I want it.

I'd say the primary use of a gun is shooting it, the target isn't really relevant to the argument necessarily. A vehicle on the other hand is used primarily for transportation. Also, the overwhelming majority of deaths caused by car accidents aren't intentional whereas the overwhelming majority of homicides caused by guns are on purpose.

What did you think of Obama's executive decision on gun-control?

 

[budlover13]

I'd say the primary use of a gun is shooting it, the target isn't really relevant to the argument necessarily. A vehicle on the other hand is used primarily for transportation. Also, the overwhelming majority of deaths caused by car accidents aren't intentional whereas the overwhelming majority of homicides caused by guns are on purpose.

What did you think of Obama's executive decision on gun-control?

Yes, the primary use of my guns is shooting them, aka, putting a projectile where I want it. My secondary use is a hard time cashout, they don't lose value unless you stupidly modify them (and they gain more value if they are intelligently modified). My third is hunting/the ability to feed my family when, not if, the dollar crashes, and my 4th is self protection. And the secondary use can further the third without ever firing it.

As for Obama's executive orders, I believe that they will require more of our money and time to be spent but won't affect the criminal element of society in the least, except make those willing to break the law richer, on my dollar.

Will they make us as a society safer? I don't believe so. Why not issue an order making the inappropriate use more costly? Rob someone strong arm, get X years. Rob someone with a weapon other than a firearm X+2 years. If you believe in the inherent evil of firearms, make committing the same crime X+2 years×10.

Wait, hasn't this been tried before?

 

[budlover13]

Btw Pada, my respect for your opinions is directly correlated to your respect for mine and civil conversation. While I don't always agree with your opinions, we have had several good conversations because we discuss the topic at hand rather than insult and attack each other.

Our forum and nation would be better if more people followed our example.

 

[Rob Roy]

I love how a ban on gun sales with no background checks at gun shows instantly turns into Hitler banning all guns... period.... forever....kind of hard to have a conversation on the topic when folks are tangenting off in left field. (Sorry...RIGHT field)

Sure..some folks might want to take away your gun ownership rights. That's not what this is. Even if you want to argue this is a stepping stone to taking away guns altogether you should probably start by arguing the actual current events...as opposed to simply snarling that "they will pry my gun out of my cold, dead hands!"

Showing people you're a rational, reasonable gun owner should probably start with with the ability to hold discourse on the actual topic at hand.....or I guess people could try to instill confidence by overreacting, taking the argument out of context and making wild Hitler comparison's.... Ya know.....whatever...

All I can say is I enjoy guns. But I have never here in the U.S. ever needed to fire 1 at anyone....I seriously doubt anyone on here has. The fact that you guys are joking about hiding bodies on an online forum shows that its pretty far from your reality.

Owning guns is fine (IMO). As long as the owners are reasonable, responsable and intelligent. Reasonable people being the folk that see no harm in being minorly inconvenienced when dealing with the bureaucracy of purchasing a gun if it limits the ability of nutjobs getting them.

In Australia you can still own a gun as long as you own a farm out in the bush (to protect yourself/livestock) or if you are a marksmen (sport shooter) but you must be liscenced and attend a yearly safety certification and be active in sports shooting competitions. I'm not saying we should follow suit, just that a system can be implemented that still allows for comprimise even in the most extreme case (being a ban on guns).

And as for the revolutionary gotta fight the tyrannical government argument...well clearly you never served in the military....you would be bringing a gun to a drone fight. In the middle east those folks are refered to as "decoys".

Isn't the erm "adjustments" to the 2nd amendment that Obama wants to make a threat with a gun? Why yes it is.

WHAT exactly will Obama have the courts and police do if an otherwise law abiding person disobeys his new edicts?

Will you use guns against those people....why, yes, he will.

 

[Rob Roy]

Guns have one use, cars have multiple uses, the primary being essential to average everyday life for most Americans

It's a false equivalency

Guns can be used in directly opposite means.

They can be used offensively and they can be used defensively. The means used is something many people ought to consider more often when advocating for a given outcome.

 

[UncleBuck]

I don't favor government forcing people to segregate or forcing people to integrate. In both cases government used threats of the use of guns though didn't they?


Luke 6:42
How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.



Note - I am a Pastafarian, but thought the quote was apropos given your question to me.

in other words, you cannot even cite your own line of bullshit. thought so.

 

[Rob Roy]

in other words, you cannot even cite your own line of bullshit. thought so.

I'm curious how you're coming on that question I asked you?



Can a person(s) delegate a right he/she does not possess?

 

[red w. blue]

I'd say the primary use of a gun is shooting it, the target isn't really relevant to the argument necessarily. A vehicle on the other hand is used primarily for transportation.

I say the primary use of a vehicle is to drive and the destination isn't relevant to the argument. I fail to see the relevance of your post in this as both have a primary use, be it for good or bad and it could be eather for both. So you only show yourself to be wrong in your own post?

Also, the overwhelming majority of deaths caused by car accidents aren't intentional whereas the overwhelming majority of homicides caused by guns are on purpose.

What did you think of Obama's executive decision on gun-control?

Here you get funny when you state that most "accidents aren't intentional". I wonder if you had help or you thought it up all by yourself? If you replace gun with car, then it would be most deaths caused by gun accidents aren't intentational, and most homicides caused by cars are on purpose. Your spin as to a gun being the cause of a homicide is as silly as a car being the cause of one. The cause would be the driver or the shooter. Both are tools that may be used for good or bad. I have used my post to try to show the truth and you used your post for spin to the hide truth. So posts can be used for good or bad its all in whos behind the trigger, wheel or screen.

 

[UncleBuck]

Didn;t someone just say that 3 out of 4 guns deaths are suicides?

So 75% dont count.

so 75% of gun deaths don't count because they are gun deaths?

that makes about as much sense as your white power belief that "multiculturalism works best when there is an ocean separating the cultures".

 

[UncleBuck]

I just want to have a weapon to be able to protect myself. I dont care what some stupid redneck did with a gun.

you are that stupid redneck though.

 

[UncleBuck]

it seems that you believe that the primary use for a firearm is killing.

are you fucking retarded? that is why guns were fucking invented and that is their only real use.

 

[UncleBuck]

Isn't the erm "adjustments" to the 2nd amendment that Obama wants to make a threat with a gun?

obama isn't making any adjustments to the second, he isn't even making any new law. he is enforcing current ones you racist pedo tard.