Question For Anti-Gun Dems

[NATI BENGALS]

(04-19-2021, 08:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, that's the other extreme of this discussion.  I've actually heard people make this argument, which is just beyond the pale.  That being said, private citizens owned state of the art warships around that time, so I don't think the argument about "weapons of war" is a very good one, at all.  The founders absolutely had no issue with private citizens owning military grade hardware of any kind.  Of course there was nothing like a weapon of mass destruction, e.g. chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

Have you read the text?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


It couldn't be more clear. 


What do you propose is an effective deterrent for a nuclear armed adversary?

Why is it ok for your side to put a limit on my 2nd amendment right? 

As soon as Elon Musk makes the first Death Star I should be able to own one of those too.

[*Nately120*]

Who is doing the regulating in the 2A anyways? Pro-gun folks championing an amendment to the constitution, one that mentions regulation at that, is a hoot. We're all full of malarkey.

[Arturo Bandini]

(04-20-2021, 08:27 AM)Tiger Teeth Wrote: No, just the opposite.  We live in a nice neighborhood.  But robbers usually don't target dangerous places.  

I don't even lock my door.

[Tiger Teeth]

(04-20-2021, 09:45 AM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: I don't even lock my door.

That's a sad reflection on this country.  You're from somewhere in Europe if I'm not mistaken?

[BmorePat87]

(04-19-2021, 10:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm not as optimistic as you in this regard.  Regardless, a very large percentage of gun owners now have zero trust in the Dem endgame on firearms now.  The idea that the endgame is confiscation is pretty much a given in that community. 



Which is a good, and logical, place to start.  Sadly, our elected officials do not take this tact, as the vast majority of proposed restrictions wouldn't have had any effect on the vast majority of shootings.



Yeah, but that's got to be regional.  CA's gun laws are way too strict, and nonsensical (which is largely the norm here) to boot.  Unfortunately, "common sense" gun control has become a talking point in the same mold of "weapons of war" (which is a bullshit term). 


Except I don't think you can call Beto O'Rourke a "fringe" candidate.  Tulsi Gabbard is a fringe candidate, O'Rourke is not.  Also, you didn't hear a single person on that stage, after he stated "we're coming for your guns", push back against that statement.  That silence speaks volumes to people who care about gun ownership.  Bottom line, The Dem position is decidedly anti-gun and I don't think you can make a cogent argument against this.  Manchin aside, as it would be political suicide for him, I don't think there's a single Dem of prominence who's on the side of pro gun ownership.

Beto isn't a fringe candidate, but the idea of confiscation is fringe. He walked back his own rhetoric and proposed a mandatory buyback for a few specific weapons that would result in a fine for anyone who did not participate but not seizure.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-20-2021, 09:05 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Have you read the text?

Yeah.

Quote:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


It couldn't be more clear. 

Yeah, as all men of fighting age are the militia I agree, it's very clear.  As we live in a more egalitarian age now, we should include women as well, don't you agree?

Quote:What do you propose is an effective deterrent for a nuclear armed adversary?

What is the purpose of this question?

Quote:Why is it ok for your side to put a limit on my 2nd amendment right? 

Are you being prevented from getting nuclear weapons?  Just get some plutonium.

Quote:As soon as Elon Musk makes the first Death Star I should be able to own one of those too.

Silly rabbit, he's only going to sell them for bitcoin, do you have nay?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-20-2021, 10:04 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Beto isn't a fringe candidate, but the idea of confiscation is fringe. He walked back his own rhetoric and proposed a mandatory buyback for a few specific weapons that would result in a fine for anyone who did not participate but not seizure.  

A case of too little, too late.  Also, a mandatory buyback is essentially self enforced confiscation.  Like I said earlier, many people, including myself, think he only stated what many others think but won't say out loud.  Every gun control law the Dems push is going to be tainted by this going forward.  I understand that you disagree and why, but you're not objectively correct.

[Arturo Bandini]

(04-20-2021, 09:53 AM)Tiger Teeth Wrote: That's a sad reflection on this country.  You're from somewhere in Europe if I'm not mistaken?

Yes. I'm from France. 

[fredtoast]

(04-20-2021, 10:56 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  Like I said earlier, many people, including myself, think he only stated what many others think but won't say out loud.  

So basically just something you made up in your head because that is what you were told to believe.

I have repeatedly posted polls showing that Democrats do not favor total gun confiscation, but the NRA has its sheep so deeply indoctrinated that they refuse to acknowledge the truth.

A lot of democrats are opposed to the so called "assault rifles" but only a very small percentage off gun owners have anything that might fall under that definition.

But the funniest part of their argument is that they call themselves "law abiding" and claim thew support the Constitution, but if you ask them what they would do if their were Constitutional laws passed to limit their rights to own guns they admit that they would NOT BE 'law abiding".  In other words they don't really care about being "law abiding" instead they just want to do whatever they want.

[Belsnickel]

(04-20-2021, 12:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: A lot of democrats are opposed to the so called "assault rifles" but only a very small percentage off gun owners have anything that might fall under that definition.

What is your source for this thinking? I mean, the popularity of the AR platform, alone, would indicate to me that it is in far more hands than you would be indicating with this statement. I know that there have been some court rulings pointing to around 3% of firearms in civilian hands being these "assault weapons," but they are wildly popular and that share of the market has to be increasing every year.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-20-2021, 12:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: What is your source for this thinking? I mean, the popularity of the AR platform, alone, would indicate to me that it is in far more hands than you would be indicating with this statement. I know that there have been some court rulings pointing to around 3% of firearms in civilian hands being these "assault weapons," but they are wildly popular and that share of the market has to be increasing every year.

Guaranteed he'll cite that one insanely flawed study that claimed something like 10% of gun owners own 80% of the guns.  You know the "study" they did by phone?  Because you know you'll get accurate information from gunowners about what they own when a stranger calls you and asks.

https://www.npr.org/2016/09/20/494765559/nearly-half-of-guns-in-u-s-owned-by-3-percent-of-population-study-finds

[Belsnickel]

(04-20-2021, 12:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Guaranteed he'll cite that one insanely flawed study that claimed something like 10% of gun owners own 80% of the guns.  You know the "study" they did by phone?  Because you know you'll get accurate information from gunowners about what they own when a stranger calls you and asks.

https://www.npr.org/2016/09/20/494765559/nearly-half-of-guns-in-u-s-owned-by-3-percent-of-population-study-finds

This isn't even accounting for the kits that are out there. I mean, those would definitely make those numbers change.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-20-2021, 12:56 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This isn't even accounting for the kits that are out there. I mean, those would definitely make those numbers change.

Oh to be sure.  You'll see that study cited ad nauseum by people like Shannon Watts and all the other anti gun prevaricators.  I don't know a single gun owner who would give an honest answer about what they own to a cold call phone survey.  But it fits their narrative, so they happily run with it.

[Mickeypoo]

(04-20-2021, 12:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So basically just something you made up in your head because that is what you were told to believe.

I have repeatedly posted polls showing that Democrats do not favor total gun confiscation, but the NRA has its sheep so deeply indoctrinated that they refuse to acknowledge the truth.

A lot of democrats are opposed to the so called "assault rifles" but only a very small percentage off gun owners have anything that might fall under that definition.

But the funniest part of their argument is that they call themselves "law abiding" and claim thew support the Constitution, but if you ask them what they would do if their were Constitutional laws passed to limit their rights to own guns they admit that they would NOT BE 'law abiding".  In other words they don't really care about being "law abiding" instead they just want to do whatever they want.

At least in NY I cannot even make my Ruger 10/22 LOOK like an "assault weapon".  That is idiotic.  Your statement is simply not true, at least in NY.  Practically everything in NY is an "assault weapon".  NY is a perfect example of illogical, idiotic gun restrictions, pushed by Dems, that do nothing to solve any gun problems.

https://www.recordonline.com/news/20190808/clashing-gun-laws-rules-on-assault-weapons-differ-in-ny-pa#:~:text=Under%20the%20NY%20SAFE%20Act,assault%20weapon%20and%20is%20prohibited.&text=The%20distinguishing%20features%20in%20the,suppressor%20and%20a%20bayonet%20mount.

I think what they are saying is that if the SCOTUS limits their 2A constitutional right to own guns then they are fighting back against a gov't that is becoming tyrannical.  Isn't that the whole point of the 2A?  Just my opinion.

[Benton]

(04-20-2021, 09:45 AM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: I don't even lock my door.

(04-20-2021, 09:53 AM)Tiger Teeth Wrote: That's a sad reflection on this country.  You're from somewhere in Europe if I'm not mistaken?

(04-20-2021, 11:28 AM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: Yes. I'm from France. 

We don't either. I think most of the issue here is in the cities, not out in the sticks.

I've got family out in southern illinois. Sort of between chicago and st louis. Most of them don't lock their doors, and their cars never are locked. But it's farming community. I don't think they'd act the same a few hours west or north.

[fredtoast]

(04-20-2021, 01:50 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: I think what they are saying is that if the SCOTUS limits their 2A constitutional right to own guns then they are fighting back against a gov't that is becoming tyrannical.  Isn't that the whole point of the 2A?  Just my opinion.

The Second Amendment was designed to have a well armed militia in place of a standing army to protect against outside forces. 

The Constitution makes it clear that the punishment for taking up arms against the United States government is death.

[BmorePat87]

(04-20-2021, 10:56 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A case of too little, too late.  Also, a mandatory buyback is essentially self enforced confiscation.  Like I said earlier, many people, including myself, think he only stated what many others think but won't say out loud.  Every gun control law the Dems push is going to be tainted by this going forward.  I understand that you disagree and why, but you're not objectively correct.

I cannot deny that it is hard to change the minds of anyone refusing to look critically and instead focusing on the comments of a few as if they guide the many, but I'm not concerned with trying to convince those irrational people. It is only tainted to some if they're refusing to be honest. 

[fredtoast]

(04-20-2021, 12:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Guaranteed he'll cite that one insanely flawed study that claimed something like 10% of gun owners own 80% of the guns.  You know the "study" they did by phone?  Because you know you'll get accurate information from gunowners about what they own when a stranger calls you and asks.

https://www.npr.org/2016/09/20/494765559/nearly-half-of-guns-in-u-s-owned-by-3-percent-of-population-study-finds

This is hilarious. A compulsive liar attacking people for listening to his lies.

"How dare you use the lies I tell aganst me."

[Mickeypoo]

(04-20-2021, 03:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The Second Amendment was designed to have a well armed militia in place of a standing army to protect against outside forces. 

The Constitution makes it clear that the punishment for taking up arms against the United States government is death.

Foreign or domestic.

[fredtoast]

(04-20-2021, 12:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: What is your source for this thinking? I mean, the popularity of the AR platform, alone, would indicate to me that it is in far more hands than you would be indicating with this statement. I know that there have been some court rulings pointing to around 3% of firearms in civilian hands being these "assault weapons," but they are wildly popular and that share of the market has to be increasing every year.

The number I saw was 11 million AR-15s. But there are other guns that fall in the loose definition of "assault weapons".

From my own personal experience I have known a lot of gun owners and very few of them own anything that would be considered an "assault weapon".