The left doesn't want to take your guns!

[THE Bigzoman]

(03-30-2018, 09:26 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: He has a sound argument in his opinion piece. While I don't agree the Second should be repealed (amended, maybe), I don't see a big problem with his opinion piece.


While I have been one defending the ability for these kids to speak out and allowing them to do so, I've not been one putting a ton of stock into what they have been saying. The argument from the NRA and its allies has been that these are young people that do not have a full understanding of policy and the law, they are emotional because of events, and that because of this their opinions on gun control should not be taken seriously. Are you now suggesting that we should take them seriously and attribute their opinions to that of the entire liberal half of the country?


Is it a lie? Why should I care what Larry King's opinion on this is more than anyone else? Is he an expert on policy? Is he a policy maker? Running for office? In party leadership?


You and I have discussed the ignorance of many people, including adults when it comes to their attempts to look at things like these. But I wouldn't consider what you quoted there as what people discuss when they say "common sense gun laws." By the article's own title, this is a manifesto from the Parkland students, so see my Parkland commentary above.


As has been pointed out, you are ascribing what has been said by a minority to the whole liberal base. I can guarantee you that what is being presented here would not get support by most of the liberal base. When people talk about the "coastal elite" bubble of liberalism, this is the group they are talking about (though Stevens is a difficult read politically, since he refuses to talk politics). But that's not even the majority, that is just who tends to talk the most.

You say this as if supporters for gun-control haven't placed these kids in front of their movement for new policy. 

We can attribute their thoughts to their movement, because they put them in the spotlight.

[Belsnickel]

(04-02-2018, 08:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Haha, touché.  I don't think Trump is either, he's an opportunist who cares about what's important to him and that's it.  I still think there's a very broad consensus on what constitutes a liberal or conservative position on an issue.

(04-02-2018, 08:54 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Do you watch Big Bang Theory and someone asks Sheldon a question and everyone else is like “No no no. Ah dammit”. That’s kind of like talking liberal/ conservative with Matt.

This is only because I spend way too much time thinking about these things. Also because the United States has a very weird definition of the terms.

[fredtoast]

(04-02-2018, 10:15 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: You say this as if supporters for gun-control haven't placed these kids in front of their movement for new policy. 

We can attribute their thoughts to their movement, because they put them in the spotlight.

Which gun control supporters specifically put these kids in the spotlight?

Everything I have seen shows that the kids did it themselves.  The only one who seemed like a puppet for an adult was the one whose dad OPPOSED gun control and got in a mess with CNN over his actions.  Remember the dada who posted the faked emails from CNN?

[fredtoast]

(04-02-2018, 04:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I always know when you find yourself struggling because you stop actually arguing the current point and attempt to change the current argument.

I am not changing anything.  I am simply asking you to clearly define your position.  How hard is that?  you keep claiming that I am making false claims about your argument, well here is your chance to fix that problem.  just clearly state what your argument is then you canpont back to it when I say something that is not true or accurate.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-03-2018, 09:11 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I am not changing anything.  I am simply asking you to clearly define your position.  How hard is that?

It's not hard at all, hence it being done throughout this thread.

 

Quote:you keep claiming that I am making false claims about your argument,

Sure, why should I be different than every other poster on this board?

Quote:well here is your chance to fix that problem.  just clearly state what your argument is then you canpont back to it when I say something that is not true or accurate.

It's very clearly stated throughout this thread, so please feel free to peruse it at your leisure and then let me know if you still "canpont" back to it.

[THE Bigzoman]

(04-03-2018, 09:07 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Which gun control supporters specifically put these kids in the spotlight?

Everything I have seen shows that the kids did it themselves.  The only one who seemed like a puppet for an adult was the one whose dad OPPOSED gun control and got in a mess with CNN over his actions.  Remember the dada who posted the faked emails from CNN?

You can't make yourself the face of a large group or organization without the approval of the group itself. You're being silly.

[BmorePat87]

(04-02-2018, 07:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: First, I appreciate you, somewhat actually answering.  I disagree with your answer to #2, but that's fair.  When you hit three you went a bit off the rails as I'll explain.

First, the thread is not about fear of a repeal of the 2nd Amendment, it never was and I never made the argument that this will actually happen.  The argument of the thread is that confiscation and repeal is a goal of people who claim that it is not.  While appealing the 2A is a herculean task, confiscation is not.  As I've stated numerous times, to which no one has an answer for, they are already confiscating firearms in CA from law abiding citizens.  So, your answer to #3 is pointless as no one is saying that gun control and repeal of the 2A are synonymous. 

Your answer to #4 is predicated on #3, so we'll leave that one alone.  You didn't even attempt to answer #5, which makes me wonder why.  There were calls for very extreme measures at that rally.  If you're a politician at that rally you are showing support for the positions expressed during it.  If you do not disavow any statement you find personally disagreeable then you are agreeing with it.

Your answer to #6 is nonsensical and appears to be predicated on the utterly erroneous idea that this thread is predicting a 2A repeal.  It honestly makes me wonder if people actually read these thread or just see the topic and decide to respond with a pre conceived post.  If you were being honest and actually answering my questions as asked then your answer would have been Democrats.

The answer to #7 is also predicated on your mistaken assumption.  The answer would be an obvious yes.  Why couldn't you just say yes?

You didn't even attempt to answer #8.  I'm wondering if it's because you know that an honest answer would actually bolster the point of the thread.


I'll summarize for all the mistaken assumptions being made here.

Some left anti-gun types would like to repeal the 2A.  Said repeal will not happen today, tomorrow or any time in the foreseeable future.  This does not change the fact that a not insignificant number of these people would like to see it happen and will actively work towards that goal.

Even among those not advocating for repeal desire far stricter laws than are currently in place, to the point of banning all semi-automatic rifles.  This is a even more sizable percentage of anti-gun types.  The extent of desired bans seems to increase as the anti-gun crowd feels the wind at their back.

Based on what has happened in blue states why would any pro gun owner trust the Democratic party on this issue?  A lot of noise was made over Lamb winning in PA.  Lost in that was the fact that Lamb put about as much distance between himself and the party as a whole in regards to gun ownership as you could conceivably do.


So, for those of you countering by shouting "fear monger", take two seconds and actually consider the point being made, not the point you want to argue against

This whole argument is based off of us accepting that limiting the use of assault weapons is driven by a desire to repeal the 2nd Amendment. I don't accept that argument and I don't think you've shown that there is a genuine threat to the 2nd Amendment.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-03-2018, 09:37 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: This whole argument is based off of us accepting that limiting the use of assault weapons is driven by a desire to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

For some, absolutely.

Quote:I don't accept that argument and I don't think you've shown that there is a genuine threat to the 2nd Amendment.

And here you go off the rails again.  I literally just stated above that I don't see a 2A repeal happening any time in the foreseeable future.  What I am also saying is that recent events and statements show just how disingenuous the anti-gun side is.  They don't just want an "assault weapons" ban and they never did.  No one on the pro-gun owner side ever believed this as actual laws in many states have shown this is not the end game.  Also such a ban is inane as it has zero effect on gun related crime.  Even if it did,  the number of homicides by rifles, all types of rifles, accounts for a miniscule number of total firearms related homicides.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

From 2010 to 2014 rifles of all types accounted for 1,530 of 63,061 homicides, or a whopping 2.4%.
 
What I am pointing out is that you are seeing exactly why pro-gun ownership people are not willing to compromise with the anti-gun side, because the current demand will only be replaced by a more stringent one the minute it is met.  Why would anyone compromise with people who will simply ask for more tomorrow?

[Dill]

(04-02-2018, 08:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't know, is there a "majority opinion" on this?  As I've said before the term appears to be sued to make something sound scary and therefore we should ban the scary thing.  I have supplied the origin of the term, that being a select fire, magazine fed, non pistol.

What is a conservative/rightist?  Are you really confused on this?

Have any of these actors given you the impression that they are right leaning or conservative?

Wait, are you asking me to actually define what makes a person be considered liberal or conservative?  Is there not a rather broad consensus on what constitutes a liberal or conservative opinion or topic?

It's only a "weasel term" to someone trying to be a weasel.  As stated above there is broad consensus in this country on what constitutes a liberal vs. a conservative issue or opinion.

Then you've clearly not been paying attention.  Enough of your high jacking this thread though, please return to the thread topic or stop wasting my time with your twaddle.

Also, if you think you actually proved something with that second post I'm highly amused.

Of course I am actually asking you to define the terms you are using. That is why I asked twice, in bolded type.  And now you have dodged twice. 

I don't see a "broad consensus" on what constitutes a liberal or conservative opinion. I do see lots of people--right wingers like Sean Hannity--calling positions they don't like "leftist."  People who cannot themselves define what "right" and "left' mean take up what they hear uncritically, deferring responsibility for their own political understanding to the "many."

LOL your thread title is "The Left Doesn't Want to Take Your Guns," is it not?" but defining "the left" would take the thread off topic?  Your opponents cannot deploy their terms unquestioned, but you can?

How many double standards are running here?  You are all ready to define assault rifles and long guns when it suits you, i.e., when THE MAJORITY appears mislead on that score; but a call to define a primary term in your thread title is just "twaddle"; You frequently claim others dodge your questions, and look what you are doing now.   Shed the nervous amusement and quippery and chatter about your feelings, and do what you claim others don't--answer the question. 

[fredtoast]

(04-03-2018, 09:20 AM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: You can't make yourself the face of a large group or organization without the approval of the group itself. You're being silly.

Okay then. Give me the specific name of the people who "gave them permission".

[fredtoast]

(04-03-2018, 11:19 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What I am also saying is that recent events and statements show just how disingenuous the anti-gun side is.  They don't just want an "assault weapons" ban and they never did.

I see the problem now.  You don't even realize that there is a group of gun owners who support gun regulation.
You are so deep in the NRA echo chamber that you use the terms "gun control advocates" and "anti gun side" interchangeably. 
The truth is that there are many gun owners who support gun regulation.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-04-2018, 11:42 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I see the problem now.  You don't even realize that there is a group of gun owners who support gun regulation.
You are so deep in the NRA echo chamber that you use the terms "gun control advocates" and "anti gun side" interchangeably. 
The truth is that there are many gun owners who support gun regulation.

Typical Fred post.  You don't agree, therefore your opponent is brainwashed and dwells in an echo chamber.  Sure there are gun owners who support some form of regulation (a rather broad statement btw) just as there are non-gun owners who do not.  That being the case, I'm not sure what point you think you're making.  I also enjoy your use of the word "many".  I'd ask you to please define what percentage equals "many" to you.

[GMDino]

(04-04-2018, 11:42 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I see the problem now.  You don't even realize that there is a group of gun owners who support gun regulation.
You are so deep in the NRA echo chamber that you use the terms "gun control advocates" and "anti gun side" interchangeably. 
The truth is that there are many gun owners who support gun regulation.

Exactly.  But it's easier to attack "the left".  Gotta have an enemy in order to bolster your fears and paranoia.

[fredtoast]

(04-03-2018, 11:19 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  Why would anyone compromise with people who will simply ask for more tomorrow?

Here we have the poster boy for why politics in our country is currently broken.


"Wow, that sound s like a good idea that might save lives, but I am going to oppose it just because you are on the "other side" and you might want me to agree with another idea in the future that I don't like."


Requiring a license for every gun owner would not limit the rights of law abiding citizens to own guns.  Requiring all guns to be registered to a specific owner would make it harder for criminals to buy and posses guns and also make it easier to hold gun owners responsible for securing their weapons.  these are both good idea that do not limit anyones ability to own guns.  Yet the NRA followers will not support them for no other reason than "I disagree with something else you might ask for in the future."

This is the exact same reason that our congress can not pass even the most reasonable laws.  It is no longer about the substance of the laws.  It is about what the tribal leaders tell their followers to support.

[fredtoast]

(04-04-2018, 11:54 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  Sure there are gun owners who support some form of regulation (a rather broad statement btw) just as there are non-gun owners who do not.  That being the case, I'm not sure what point you think you're making. 

The point I am making is that you use two terms to describe the public, i.e. "Pro gun" and "Anti gun".  Then you put every person who favors more regulation in the "anti gun" group.  So I wonder how you can label "gun owners" as "anti gun".

(04-04-2018, 11:54 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  I also enjoy your use of the word "many".  I'd ask you to please define what percentage equals "many" to you.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/most-gun-owners-support-background-checks-and-other-limits-so-why-arent-their-voices-heard/2015/10/07/af9c96b0-6c41-11e5-aa5b-f78a98956699_story.html?utm_term=.d7820c801b9f


Surveys by Johns Hopkins and the Pew Research Center show that about 85 percent of gun owners favor universal background checks, an idea fiercely opposed by the gun lobby. Gun owners also strongly support a federal database of gun sales, prohibiting ownership for those convicted of domestic violence and barring people with mental illness from buying guns.



http://time.com/5197807/stricter-gun-laws-nra/


a national firearms registry, a policy proposal often raised after mass shootings. Among those who don’t own guns, 79 percent support a firearms-purchase database, but only half of gun owners back such a proposal. The level of support drops to 31 percent among NRA members.


http://time.com/5167216/americans-gun-control-support-poll-2018/


Those in favor of stricter gun legislation outnumber those opposed by a measure of more than two-to-one, according to the poll. Sixty-six percent of respondents said they would support more stringent laws, while just 31% said they would not. 

The split, however, was more even among gun owners, with 50% in favor and 44% not, according to the poll.


https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/25/politics/cnn-poll-gun-control-support-climbs/index.html


Overall support for stricter laws includes a majority of those who live in gun-owning households (57%) 




So it seems like that based on your argument that anyone who is in favor of any gun regulation is actually in favor of gun confiscation close to a majority of gun owners are in favor of gun confiscation.

But, hey, if the NRA says it is true then it must be true, right?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/illinois-town-votes-to-ban-assault-rifles-fine-violators-1000-per-day/

We don't want to take your guns... we just want you to pay a $1,000/day (per gun?) fine unless you give us them.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-05-2018, 04:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Here we have the poster boy for why politics in our country is currently broken.

I thought that was Trump?

Quote:"Wow, that sound s like a good idea that might save lives, but I am going to oppose it just because you are on the "other side" and you might want me to agree with another idea in the future that I don't like."

A lot of things sound like good ideas but are ripe for abuse by those in power.  The LA gang injunctions were a great idea, but they overused them and misapplied them and brought the whole concept to a screeching halt.

Quote:Requiring a license for every gun owner would not limit the rights of law abiding citizens to own guns. 

It absolutely could, by applying future laws that limit who can purchase them.  Requiring an ID to verify your identity doesn't prevent anyone from voting, yet it's constantly decried as an attempt to stop poor and minority voters from exercising their right to vote. 

Quote:Requiring all guns to be registered to a specific owner would make it harder for criminals to buy and posses guns and also make it easier to hold gun owners responsible for securing their weapons.  these are both good idea that do not limit anyones ability to own guns.  Yet the NRA followers will not support them for no other reason than "I disagree with something else you might ask for in the future."

And it would also make it infinitely easier to confiscate legally purchased property if a government should overreach and impose laws requiring confiscation, such as has happened in CA.  We're not exactly covering new ground here, Fred.  It's not like such abuses haven't already occurred for those concerned about them to point to and say, "see what can happen".

Quote:This is the exact same reason that our congress can not pass even the most reasonable laws.  It is no longer about the substance of the laws.  It is about what the tribal leaders tell their followers to support.

I'm forced to disagree.  It's because of extreme laws passed in stated such as CA that no progress is made.  An example; the anti-gun side constantly complains that smart gun technology hasn't been advanced.  The reason for this is that New Jersey passed a law that states that once smart gun technology is commercially available then no firearms without said technology can be sold.  They killed the concept before it was even created.

(04-05-2018, 05:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The point I am making is that you use two terms to describe the public, i.e. "Pro gun" and "Anti gun".  Then you put every person who favors more regulation in the "anti gun" group.  So I wonder how you can label "gun owners" as "anti gun".


https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/most-gun-owners-support-background-checks-and-other-limits-so-why-arent-their-voices-heard/2015/10/07/af9c96b0-6c41-11e5-aa5b-f78a98956699_story.html?utm_term=.d7820c801b9f


Surveys by Johns Hopkins and the Pew Research Center show that about 85 percent of gun owners favor universal background checks, an idea fiercely opposed by the gun lobby. Gun owners also strongly support a federal database of gun sales, prohibiting ownership for those convicted of domestic violence and barring people with mental illness from buying guns.

I very much appreciate you actually responding to the question posed.  My answer to this is twofold; one, what was the methodology of the poll, and two, what was the phrasing used?  The way your quote is worded it seems that they're agreeing to NICS including DV and mental health checks.  It does not read that they support a federal database of who owns what and how many.

Quote:http://time.com/5197807/stricter-gun-laws-nra/


a national firearms registry, a policy proposal often raised after mass shootings. Among those who don’t own guns, 79 percent support a firearms-purchase database, but only half of gun owners back such a proposal. The level of support drops to 31 percent among NRA members.

Same questions as above.

Quote:http://time.com/5167216/americans-gun-control-support-poll-2018/


Those in favor of stricter gun legislation outnumber those opposed by a measure of more than two-to-one, according to the poll. Sixty-six percent of respondents said they would support more stringent laws, while just 31% said they would not. 

The split, however, was more even among gun owners, with 50% in favor and 44% not, according to the poll.

What does "more stringent" mean?  This is a vague and ill-defined term that could include something as innocuous as strengthening the existing NICS check to full scale banning of certain types of firearms.  This, I believe intentional, vagueness doesn't exactly make any real point for you.

Quote:https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/25/politics/cnn-poll-gun-control-support-climbs/index.html


Overall support for stricter laws includes a majority of those who live in gun-owning households (57%) 

As above, except you've replaced the word stringent with strict.

Quote:So it seems like that based on your argument that anyone who is in favor of any gun regulation is actually in favor of gun confiscation close to a majority of gun owners are in favor of gun confiscation.

Except that's not the argument I've been making at all.  I can't believe I have to restate it, but the point is that the extreme wants of many on the anti-gun side have led gun owners not to trust the intentions of any law they put forth.  As has already been seen, anti-gun types don't get what they want today and then stop.  There are numerous real world examples of this.  It doesn't help when flag bearers for the movement are publicly claiming, at a rally attended by several Dem senators, that "they'll give us an inch and we'll take a mile".  Or that there have been calls for a repeal of the 2ndA.  Whether such a repeal is going to happen is immaterial, the fact that a not insubstantial number of anti-gun types would like for it to happen is.  You disagree, which is fine, but you'll never grasp the reluctance of people to those types of laws until you do.  You come as very myopic on this subject.

Quote:But, hey, if the NRA says it is true then it must be true, right?

Damn, Fred.  You were doing so well throughout these two posts too.  I suppose old habits are hard to break.

[fredtoast]

(04-05-2018, 06:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A lot of things sound like good ideas but are ripe for abuse by those in power.  The LA gang injunctions were a great idea, but they overused them and misapplied them and brought the whole concept to a screeching halt.

And a lot of things that sund like good ideas are actually good ideas and are never sytematically abused by those in power.  Regulation has improved safety and saved lives in almost every area of our lives.  You can't just argue against a law because there was once a bad law that was abused.

Right now the government has immense power and control over our personal information and it is not being abused.  No one is being arrested or having their property taken without due process. 

There are currently other countries where they require gun registartion and have not outlawed gun ownership.

and finally, even when we di attempt to out law assault rifles we grandfathered in all of the current owners.  That was one of the main reasons it was hard to see if the law had any impact.  There were still thousands of "assault rifles" on the streets because the people that aready owned one got to keep it.

[fredtoast]

(04-05-2018, 06:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It absolutely could, by applying future laws that limit who can purchase them. 

No it could not.  A law regarding who can purchase weapons does not require a license or registration law.  It can be passed even if there was never a law requiring registration.

And a persons decision to break gun ownership laws in the future has nothing to do with any registration law today.  

Gun registration would make it harder for criminals to buy and posses weapons.  So basically you are arguing that we should help criminals today because a registration law woukld hurt criminals in the future.  Amazing how sympathetic some "law abiding citizens" are to criminals when it comes to their shared love of guns.

(04-05-2018, 06:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  Requiring an ID to verify your identity doesn't prevent anyone from voting, yet it's constantly decried as an attempt to stop poor and minority voters from exercising their right to vote.  

Actually voter ID laws were admitted as a means to suppress by Pennsylvania House Republican Leader Mike Turzai, but that is beside the point.

Voter ID laws are not needed becaus there is practically zero evidence of voter fraud through fake ID at the polls.  Instead most voter fraud occurs at the registration level.  And even "the left" acknowledge that ID should be required in order to register.

Requiring ID to vote does not address any existing problem and it does suppress the vote of the disadvantaged.  People who rant about voter ID act like they do not know how voter registration works.

[fredtoast]

(04-05-2018, 06:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Except that's not the argument I've been making at all.  I can't believe I have to restate it, but the point is that the extreme wants of many on the anti-gun side have led gun owners not to trust the intentions of any law they put forth. 

(04-04-2018, 11:54 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   I also enjoy your use of the word "many".  I'd ask you to please define what percentage equals "many" to you.

Of course I would also like to get your definition of the "anti-gun side".  It seems to me that based on your obsession with a slippery slope you include every person who wants any gun regulations in the "anti gun side" because anyone who supports any type of gun regulation is just just lying and "hiding behind a mask" when they claim to not support confiscation.

And if that is true then you are including a lot of gunowners in the "anti gun side".  No matter how much you try to deny it there are a lot of gun owners who would support owner licensing and gun registration.  I am one of them.  There are a few more here who will say the exact same thing.  I have shown you polls that support what I say. If all the reults are based on polling bias then you should be abel to produce some right leaning polls to challenge the ones I cited.

None of us are denying that there are some extreme areas where a majority might support gun confiscation, but there is no indication that it will become a majority opinion.  But even if it does become the majority opinion in the future that does not depend on licensing or registration laws today.  

Your argument is like saying we should oppose DUI laws because they will lead to all alcohol being outlawed.