Honest question. If gun rights supporters are idiots...

[Kang Colby]

then why won't gun control supporters engage in any form of serious debate or discussion? Gun control support doesn't seem to exist outside of "safe spaces" and a few big cities.

[cheapdate]

1. If you honestly aren't cognizant of "any form of serious debate or discussion"

around gun control issues, then I'm not sure what to tell you. It exists. It's "hiding in plain sight" as they say.

[Kang Colby]

2. Very rarely..gun control supporters usually just result to name calling. That's my take on it. n/t

[cheapdate]

3. Then I would suggest you're looking in the wrong places for serious discussion.

[Kang Colby]

4. Any leads? Thanks...n/t

[cheapdate]

13. Sure, we can start right here.

For much of the nation's history, the Second Amendment was taken to mean that the individual states, but not the federal government, had the power to limit who could or couldn't posses guns, and who was and wasn't part of the state militia. This was the principle that was upheld in Presser v. Illinois in 1886, where the court ruled that the state of Illinois could decide who was and wasn't part of a proper militia, and who could and couldn't parade through the streets with guns.

Since then, it's become gradually, but firmly established that the federal government can exercise some authority over the manufacture, sale, and possession of weapons, explosives, and other dangerous materials. The first national gun control laws were passed in the 1920s in response to interstate violence from gangsters. This established a principle, which was upheld in the courts, that the federal government had the power to regulate some aspects of the manufacture and possession of guns.

But in a 5-4 decision in 2008 (D.C. v. Heller), the court departed from previous rulings and found that Americans do have an individual right to posses guns for defense of the home. The court's divided ruling was muddled and leaves more questions than answers. For instance, in the majority opinion, Justice Scalia wrote:

“The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government building, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those ‘in common use at the time’ finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons”

Adding to the confusion, Scalia recognized and oddly confirmed the earlier precedent in Presser v. Illinois, writing:

"None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation."

The courts have never held that the right to "keep and bear arms" is absolute or beyond reasonable limitations. Again, from Antonin Scalia's majority opinon in D.C. v. Heller:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

So basically, the courts have left the landscape completely muddled, both affirming that the federal government can impose reasonable prohibitions, and at the same time taking away some of the state's original powers to regulate them.

Personally, I don't really give a shit. Guns are everywhere. If I wanted one, I'd get in my my car and drive 3 miles to any of a half-dozen or so gun shops and get one.

[gejohnston]

18. The 19th century decisions were based on

mostly based on Barron v Baltimore

For much of the nation's history, the Second Amendment was taken to mean that the individual states, but not the federal government, had the power to limit who could or couldn't posses guns, and who was and wasn't part of the state militia. This was the principle that was upheld in Presser v. Illinois in 1886, where the court ruled that the state of Illinois could decide who was and who wasn't part of a proper militia, and who could and who couldn't parade through the streets with guns.

Partly true. Barron v Baltimore said that the BoR restricted only the federal government, but not the states. What
Cruikshank really ruled was.

The First Amendment right to assembly was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens and the Second Amendment has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.

It also prevented federal enforcement of federal civil rights laws of the time.
What Presser really said was that states can prohibit private armies and didn't have anything to do with gun ownership per se.

Since then, it's become gradually, but firmly established that the federal government can exercise some authority over the sale and possession of weapons, explosives, and other dangerous materials. The first national gun control laws were passed in the 1920s in response to interstate violence from gangsters. This established a principle, which was upheld in the courts, that the federal government had the power to regulate some aspects of the manufacture and possession of guns

Actually the first one passed in 1927, prohibited sending handguns through the mail. I think they meant the National Firearms Act. I think the St Valentine's Day Massacre had more to do with it than Dillinger.

So basically, the courts have left the landscape completely muddled, both affirming that the federal government can impose reasonable prohibitions, and at the same time taking away some of the state's original powers to regulate them.

They aren't prohibited. State machine gun bans have not been overturned. What it said was firearms that are commonly owned and not unusual.

[cheapdate]

23. Again, I barely give a crap about it.

In Tennessee, where I live, Republicans have complete control of the legislature and the governor's mansion, and have since 2010. They've passed so many "gun freedom" bills that I'm not even sure where they can go next.

I can easily understand legitimate concerns over government regulations and prohibitions for the manufacture, sale, possession, and use of guns. But the "vanguard" leading the opposition to gun control takes a rigid and absolute position that teeters on sketchy legal arguments, dubious historical understanding, and defies both reason and common sense.

Again, from Antonin Scalia's majority opinon in D.C. v. Heller:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

If we can't even agree that passing a background check in order to purchase a gun is a sensible requirement, then there really isn't much to discuss.

[gejohnston]

24. background checks have been federal law since the 1990s

when buying from any licensed dealer. Intra state private sales are up to the states per the tenth amendment and commerce clause. We do know that, based on at least one criminology study before background checks, criminals don't go to FFLs, gun shows, or anyplace they don't "trust". Meaning, they either get it from the same guy that sold them their coke.

But the "vanguard" leading the opposition to gun control takes a rigid and absolute position that teeters on sketchy legal arguments, dubious historical understanding, and defies both reason and common sense.

Actually, it is the gun prohibition supporters who have that problem. I would have to read his quote in context. Chances are, you never read the decision and copied and pasted some stuff from the prohibition lobby. Which begs the question, it seems that not only do they distrust people with guns, they also think the rest of us are too intellectually lazy or stupid to look up the cases, history, actually know the current laws, or anything else. I blew apart your earlier post just by going to Wikipedia.
Speaking of reason, why is it that the gun control fans constantly use the same logical fallacies all the time? Why the weasel words like "reasonable" without ever defining it? Why intellectual dishonesty? Why do they always resort to emotional appeals and name calling? Sorry, facts, evidence, and reason is not on their side.
As for common sense, I agree with Einstein. Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins125365.html?gclid=Cj0KEQjw7LS6BRDo2Iz23au25OQBEiQAQa6hwOEbgdKev7ND_Y9r4OSwgZmo5W1oGDwllVEnNpAY88IaAp1Z8P8HAQ

As for "sketchy legal arguments" I doubt you have ever read any of them, read the citations they used, or understand them.
OK, highlighted quote was a nice opening statement, now you have to provide the evidence. Of course, it will be "cross examined".
I don't care if you care or not. If you do start to care, it pays to be informed and know the arguments your opponent makes. Read what they say to each other, not just bullshit put out from Bloomberg, the other sexist and authoritarian billionaire, or his former Monsanto PR exec mouthpiece.

If we can't even agree that passing a background check in order to purchase a gun is a sensible requirement, then there really isn't much to discuss.

Every idea is open to question and has to stand on its own merit. Doesn't matter what it is, no exceptions. I view ideology, all ideologies, the same way I view organized religion. Created by the self serving who doesn't give rat's ass about anyone else, and is long on dogma and faith and very short on reason and evidence.

[cheapdate]

42. Hey, for what it's worth, my thin-skinned, smarmy, insulting, "friend",

Last edited Wed Jun 1, 2016, 12:06 PM - Edit history (2)

the excerpts I provided were picked by me and taken from court opinions which I've read in full and thoroughly considered from both sides. I've delved deeply into the arguments on both sides of this debate before, strictly out of curiosity and not because I have a "dog in the fight".

Your attempt at "argument by belittling" doesn't bother me. Why should it? You're a random stranger on the internet.

I've gone back and forth with certain interlocutors in informed, civil, debate over this question for days on end without either of us once ever questioning the other's intellectual honesty or ability to understand the arguments, as you've just done right here, after only one exchange.

I don't really have the time or interest in opening this debate again with you -- in parsing what 18th century writers meant by "militia", or what was in Alexander Hamilton's mind when he penned the Second Amendment, etc.

(P.S. -- it's your ability to understand arguments that I doubt. It started in your first reply when you ostensibly "corrected" my already correct summary of Presser v Illiniois and other things. Now you post this rambling, semi-incoherent screed (e.g. "I would have to read his quote in context." Who? WTF are you taking about?)

[gejohnston]

78. not so much thin skinned, as it is little patience

and kind of jaded. You might be the exception, but most on your side are frankly dishonest and clueless. If you are victim of guilt by association, my apologizes.
Your other posts are civil, but I wouldn't say informed. Misinformed, but not informed.
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm
I understand arguments quite well. You missed the part about incorporation doctrine. It was late and didn't edit.

[cheapdate]

83. Thank you for that.

I am well aware of incorporation under the 14th amendment. A 5-4 decision in 2010 incorporated the Second Amendment, with some important caveats.

If I'm "misinformed" as you put it, then I'm perhaps only as "misinformed" as some of the dissenting justices on the more recent split decisions, including DC v Heller, and McDonald v City of Chicago. If not for a few 5-4 rulings over the last decade by a historically conservative court, a different reading of the Second Amendment, which you seem to dismiss as "misinformed" whimsy, would be the prevailing legal opinion.

[gejohnston]

84. which begs the question,

Last edited Thu Jun 2, 2016, 12:31 AM - Edit history (1)

which one has the objectively stronger argument? Which is based on history and which is based on ideology? No, the answer isn't "what my side agrees with is the correct ruling". That applies to both sides of any issue. The dissenting view has nothing to do with prevailing legal opinion.
Also, people will support a decision for reasons having nothing to do with the issue at hand. For example, Thomas pushed the idea of using McDonald to overturn the Slaughterhouse cases. A lot of liberal legal scholars supported McDonald for the same reason. Frankly, I agree with them. McDonald should have overturned Slaugherhouse and Cruikshank. Yes, I agree with Thomas about one thing. Don't agree with him on a lot of things, but I do this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago#Reception

Here is one problem I have with Stevens

Citing Cruikshank, Stevens wrote, "The so-called incorporation question was squarely and, in my view, correctly resolved in the late 19th century." In addition, he argues against incorporation, taking issue with the methodology of the majority opinions.

Since Cruikshank was as much about the first amendment as it was the second, was he also saying that states could restrict all of the freedoms of the BoR?
I don't know if you knew about this or not
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/08/21/3693788/gun-rights-win-a-major-victory-in-federal-court-and-thats-actually-a-good-thing/
https://blogs.valpo.edu/law/7th-circuit-broadens-definition-of-people-under-the-second-amendment-to-include-unauthorized-aliens/
A threat to one freedom is a threat to all.

[cheapdate]

91. None of this much affects the actual

choices at hand. The idea that limits can be imposed is clearly recognized, so the question is what limits? The same question as with other rights.

Free speech has limits, but what limits? Freedom of assembly has limits, but what limits?

We've argued as a nation over those questions for 200 years.

[beergood]

114. "Free speech has limits, but what limits?"

here's what the aclu has to say on free speech "Over the years, the ACLU has frequently represented or defended individuals engaged in some truly offensive speech. We have defended the speech rights of communists, Nazis, Ku Klux Klan members, accused terrorists, pornographers, anti-LGBT activists, and flag burners. That’s because the defense of freedom of speech is most necessary when the message is one most people find repulsive. Constitutional rights must apply to even the most unpopular groups if they’re going to be preserved for everyone." https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech

the only limits to free speech are false accusations and inciting violence. all other laws limiting free speech are unconstitutional.

[cheapdate]

118. What? Those are not the "only limits" on free speech.

Public speech that is loud, crude, or offensive can get you arrested. You are subject to arrest if protesting near a public official under secret service protection. Protesting near abortion clinics can get you arrested. Students at secondary and post-secondary public schools are subject to a host of free speech issues -- as are their teachers and professors. Whistle-blower protections exist on paper but not always in practice. "National security" and "counter terrorism" activities have created a multitude of free speech issues. You think you have complete freedom of artistic expression? Try painting a mural of a nude woman on the side of your house.

Even inside the realm of those issues you raised -- false accusations and inciting violence -- questions over the proper limits arise all the time.

The ACLU is continually defending free speech on multiple fronts for a reason, because free speech is continually under threat on multiple fronts.

[beergood]

122. "The ACLU is continually defending free speech

on multiple fronts for a reason, because free speech is continually under threat on multiple fronts."

agreed, politicians are contently passing laws to restrict free speech. my point/opinion was that making false accusations and inciting violence should be the only limits on speech.

this is another opinion of mine, the aclu is to the 1st amendment what the nra is to the 2nd amendment

[cheapdate]

125. You said:

the aclu is to the 1st amendment what the nra is to the 2nd amendment

I would say, close, but not quite.

When the NRA goes as far, for instance, as lobbying to prohibit the national public health agencies from even collecting information to consider and examine gun violence as a public health issue, they go farther than the ACLU.

[beergood]

138. you think the aclu

goes to far?

i don't agree with everything the nra says or does, but it takes extremists to battle extremists. which came first, extreme gun control or extreme gun rights activists? i honestly don't know. this battle started long before i was born. i was born in the early 80's

[Kang Colby]

25. The problem with the militia interpretation...

is that at no point in U.S. history was firearm ownership limited to the militia. If you believe the militia argument, you are also forced to believe that near the beginning of the Bill of Rights, Amendments clearly designed to limit governmental power and to protect citizens, is a statement designed to enable the government to raise militias and to keep individuals from owning firearms. You must believe this despite the fact that in Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution the Congress is given the power "To raise and support armies."

As if it couldn't get any worse, you have the state constitutions.

Kentucky: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. (1792)

Vermont: The people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power (1777)

Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power (1776).

Etc., so on, and so forth.

[scscholar]

127. Your group is responsible for so much violence...

so why are you confused when people are angry about your group's violence?

[Kang Colby]

128. My group isn't responsible for a single murder or accident.

99.9% of gun owners are in that group...we are called "law abiding gun owners." Or as Wayne likes to say, "good guys (and gals) with guns."

[pablo_marmol]

141. *Criminals* are responsible for the VAST amount of gun violence.......

.........and criminals make up a very small percentage of the total of gun owners.

The fact that your team attacks the many who are innocent for the crimes of the very few demonstrates your inability to think clearly on this issue --- and explains why you are failing so completely to accomplish your misguided objectives.

[Duckhunter935]

11. What do you think

of the insults, name calling and sexual references put forward by the pro controllers? Why is one group so afraid of discussion they block all posters that they disagree with even if there is not an SOP violation?

[cheapdate]

14. I don't think much of it. Life's tough. Get a helmet.

[Kang Colby]

26. No one can answer that question.

Gun controllers like to operate almost exclusively in "safe spaces", unburdened by differing opinions or facts. In my opinion, I think it's because their arguments are so thin that they can't hold up to any reasonable degree of scrutiny. You see this at public events and all over the Internet. Meanwhile, pro gun folks almost never ban, block, or shout down the opposition.

I am appreciative that you took the time to respond in a civil and engaging manner. We need more of these discussions.

[pablo_marmol]

60. ^^Let the record underline this "courageous" dodge.

[cheapdate]

64. It's not a dodge.

It's my actual attitude expressed in very concise terms.

The internets are filled with trash-talk, puffery, bluster, sweeping generalizations, red herrings, straw men, old canards, etc., etc.

Gun grabbers and gun humpers, etc.

Go ahead and get offended that someone somewhere used an unkind word to describe your hobby/religion/social club/cause, whatever. Start a crusade to clean up the internet and restore standards of civil discussion.

Good luck.

[pablo_marmol]

65. You dodged the second part of the question.

"Why is one group so afraid of discussion they block all posters that they disagree with even if there is not an SOP violation?"

I know........difficult one to answer.

[cheapdate]

67. ???

Sounds like a very specific personal grievance between yourself and persons unknown to me. Purely as a guess, I could perhaps deduce from your question that you believe that unspecified persons have abused the alert system to unfairly silence debate.

Welcome to the club. I'm blocked in at least 4 groups.

I didn't realize this was a pity party when I chimed in originally.

Good luck.

[tortoise1956]

99. I second Kang Colby's remark

Thank you for a reasoned debate. I don't necessarily agree with your conclusions, but I enjoyed reading them and following your research. I would be happy to see you visit our little gungeon again some time.

As for background checks, as one poster said, they are already the law for any guns bought from dealers (as I'm sure you know). It is the idea of forcing background checks on private sellers that tends to founder on the rocks of illogic. For example, Nevada has a universal background check initiative coming up for a vote that would effectively make it a crime to give your gun to a friend who does gunsmithing on the side for, say, a trigger job, or maybe some bluing, unless (a) he is a licensed gunsmith or (b) you are there at all times he has possession of the weapon. Another section basically prohibits loaning a weapon to a friend who is going target shooting, unless they are actually at an "established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located", or unless you are there as well. ( I guess no more target shooting out in the desert - NUTS!) Finally, there is a section on temporarily loaning a weapon to someone (not a family member) if it

"a) is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm; and
b) lasts only as long as immediately necessary to prevent such imminent death or great bodily harm."

Now, I'm not a lawyer, but reading this passage seems to indicate that unless you are actually there to hand them the weapon when the threat materializes, and to take it back as soon as the threat is neutralized, you have broken the law.

And this is considered to be an interim measure by many of those on the gun-control side of the argument.

Edited to add a link to the background initiative:

http://nvsos.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=3440

[beergood]

115. "( I guess no more target shooting out in the desert - NUTS!)"

was that a reference to a person who uploads vids like that on youtube?

[tortoise1956]

196. No

It was a reference to the section of the initiative I discussed that dealt with only being able to loan weapons for use at approved shooting ranges. In other words, no taking someone else's guns out into the middle of the desert, safely away from all civilization, and plinking away.

[sarisataka]

62. Do you consider

Katie Couric's deceptive editing http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172194501 to be an example of serious debate or discussion?

Or rather is it a manipulative attempt to create a false narrative leading the audience to a pre-determined conclusion?

[Press Virginia]

5. You won't get it here

It usually ends with a penis reference and something about fear, right after they make a post about seeing a gun in public.

Gun controllers can't even be honest about their agenda.

[Kang Colby]

6. "Gun humpers"

has become extremely fashionable as of late.

[Press Virginia]

7. One of my favorites!

[ileus]

29. Let's Go Mountaineers!

[Press Virginia]

38. Yes! Finally someone recognizes the reference!

[ileus]

44. My first 36 years were in WV.

Sitting in WV now typing, though I live in Va my career and heart will always be Blue and Gold.

[Kang Colby]

124. Go Hokies!

I always loved watching the VT vs WVU series....what a great rivalry back in the Big East.

[ileus]

152. I miss the Big East...if only the ACC hadn't destroyed it.

I wish both my kids would go to VPI...that way they could commute to college.

[Duckhunter935]

12. And of course ammosexual

They seem to think it is so clever.

[theatre goon]

35. So many of their insults are sexually-based...

From "ammosexual" to the constant penis references to the more specific questioning of sexual inadequacy of some sort.

I'm often stuck wondering whether it's because they are still just in that middle-school level of rhetoric where sex is "icky," or if they think we are stuck there...

Either way, it's still nothing more than an admission that they can't craft any reasonable support for their stance -- if they could, one would assume that, at some point, they would.

[Eko]

8. I'll be your Huckleberry.

Ha ha, love that quote. The simple fact is you are a gun control supporter also, unless you think people should have the right to have tank guns or other such armaments.

[gejohnston]

9. you can have one,

Paul Allen has a tank collection. It isn't so much law as it is cost and market. In a sense you are right. No gun control means a ten year old can order a machine gun from Amazon and have it delivered to his or her tree fort. I have yet to find anyone at that extreme. The other extreme on the other hand, I know a few. One of them wants bring back the Volstead Act and a ban on all abortion too.

[Eko]

10. Well, you cant just have one.

You need at the min a ffl. A license. That's gun control.

[gejohnston]

15. not an FFL,

a tax stamp and registration. Plus a shit load of money. I don't know if it is really "gun control" per se. I would put it in the same realm as mortars and grenades. An FFL has to do with manufacturing and interstate sales.

[Eko]

17. From what I can tell

You need to be a dealer to have a gun like that as well as machine guns- re the gun control act of 68, specifically a type 9 FFL which requires among other things a 3,000 fee every three years.
some links for info
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/05/21/machine-guns-legal-practical-guide-full-auto/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Firearms_License

[gejohnston]

19. yes and no.

the ones that were registered before May 1986 is the same as any other NFA item. What that is referring to is a SOT. Basically, demo models for your business to sell to police departments etc. If you want a gun made since then, you would need a SOT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Ban_on_machine_guns

[Eko]

20. Either way

and its gun control. My original point stands. Most people aren't arguing about gun control, since practically all of us believe in it, but at what level it kicks in.

[gejohnston]

21. I didn't disagree with your original point

I simply used my favorite example.

[Eko]

22. I agree, no you didnt.

This was us having a serious discussion without reverting to any crazy name calling. I think we provided the op with what they were looking for. Thanks.

[ManiacJoe]

16. The most common problem is the lack of knowledge on their part.

Most controllers have little knowledge of firearms and the laws that govern them.

This is not necessarily a problem if they want to have a non-technical discussion. Unfortunately, a technical discussion is almost always where they want to start.

Then the controllers get frustrated when the gunnies try to educate them so that they can actually have the technical discussion the intially desired.

[theatre goon]

36. An excellent point.

On the extreme, there are those who are ignorant of the subject -- and proud of that ignorance -- yet somehow believe that this very ignorance is what gives them the expertise to insist on changes to their preferences.

[My Good Babushka]

27. And if gun rights supporters are such geniuses

why would gun control supporters feel compelled to talk about gun violence at all? Why haven't the gun geniuses fixed this 30k annual gun death problem? Lack of responsibility in the industry and owners and their supporting legislators is what compels other people to feel the need to get involved at all. I don't think they want to.

[Duckhunter935]

28. Interesting, when we call for better health care

To help with the suicide problem which is 2/3 of those 30K firearms deaths, we get insulted by saying those are just NRA talking points.

[My Good Babushka]

32. And what if doctors recommended

a ban on gun ownership for people being treated for certain psychiatric conditions? Or for persons taking certain medications which can cause mood disruptions or suicidal thoughts? If gun advocates agreed with that, then we have some common ground to begin action.

The gun lobbyists prefer doctors not even be "allowed" to talk about guns. So it's hard to see how we can marry improvements in healthcare to reducing gun deaths.

[Duckhunter935]

33. As long as there is a process and there is a

An appeal process and it is not permanent.

[My Good Babushka]

34. Gun lobbyists work against improvements in healthcare

The gun lobbyists prefer doctors not even be "allowed" to talk about guns. So it's hard to see how we can marry improvements in healthcare to reducing gun deaths.
These laws are not the work of gun-control advocates, I don't think. So you are not being honest that gun lobbyists care about improving healthcare and reducing death.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-laws-that-muzzle-doctors-on-gun-safety-are-dangerous/

[Kang Colby]

37. It would be bad public health policy...

laws like that would likely discourage people from seeking treatment. I think we would see a net negative benefit. Gun ownership rights can not and should not be removed without due process.

Mental health professionals and advocates do not support sanctions for those seeking treatment.

[My Good Babushka]

39. What public health policy?

We can only speculate on what doctors would think the best course of action would be to reduce gun deaths because of the ban on research. You need to have scientific research on which to base public health policy.

"This ban, supported by the National Rifle Association (NRA), has effectively silenced researchers at both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) for conducting any comprehensive studies on what causes violence — and what can be done to prevent it — since 1996. As expected, it’s left public health experts and policymakers with little to lean on as they attempt to craft new legislation to help quell the fatal trend."

Does the gun lobby support ending the Dickey Amendment, then, as many doctors do?
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/12/02/3727406/doctors-gun-violence-research/

[beevul]

41. There is no ban.

On 1 a.m. on Wednesday, congressional leaders unveiled the text of a year-end spending bill that will fund the government through 2017. And on page 936 of the document is the very language that Dickey helped craft in 1996 that has remained law ever since: “None of the funds made available in this title may be used, in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control

The folks in question are taking a "my way or the highway" approach, and blaming this restriction on their choice of "the highway".

That's what the word 'effectively' refers to in the piece you quoted, yet isn't spelled out clearly.

[My Good Babushka]

43. So no gun lobby is standing in the way of CDC research?

Then I don't know why the funding hasn't passed. Congress just must block funding for no particular reason.
"But today the CDC still avoids gun-violence research, demonstrating what many see as the depth of its fear about returning to one of the country’s most divisive debates. The agency recently was asked by The Washington Post why it was still sitting on the sidelines of firearms studies. It declined to make an official available for an interview but responded with a statement noting it had commissioned an agenda of possible research goals but still lacked the dedicated funding to pursue it."

"Congress has continued to block dedicated funding. Obama requested $10 million for the CDC’s gun violence research in his last two budgets. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) have introduced bills supporting the funding. Both times the Republican-controlled House of Representatives said no. Maloney recently said she planned to reintroduce her bill this year, but she wasn’t hopeful."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/14/why-the-cdc-still-isnt-researching-gun-violence-despite-the-ban-being-lifted-two-years-ago/

[Duckhunter935]

48. The CDC did a study ordered

By President Obama. It did not prove the controllers narrative, so they are silent on this.

[My Good Babushka]

52. One study of one city

which was not "allowed" to consider guns as a risk factor, led to a predictable, contorted paper. It didn't make news because it was just a retread of the things we're "allowed" to talk about.
"While the new study analyzed Wilmington’s 127 recorded shootings in 2013, it does not address how the perpetrators acquired their weapons, or if attempts to limit access to firearms might lead to a dip in crime."
It's hardly a thorough epidemiological study, and it's offensive to anyone who believes in free scientific inquiry.
https://www.thetrace.org/2015/12/cdc-gun-violence-research-wilmington-suicides/

[gejohnston]

69. I'm all for free scientific inquiry

as long as it follows the scientific method, is peer reviewed by experts in the relevant field(in this case, not epidemiologists or public health types) , and not "advocacy scholarship" and junk science. That was the problem with the CDC back then. Tax dollars going to junk science that told the prohibition lobby what they wanted to hear. Meanwhile, the DoJ funded studies, which continues, didn't have that problem. They were simply science.

[Kang Colby]

77. Wrong study.

The one beezul is probably talking about was contracted out by CDC to IMNRC. Obama ordered that the study be completed following Sandy Hook. http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1#ix

Gun control advocates hate it, because well, it's unbiased peer reviewed research.

[Duckhunter935]

47. There is no ban on research

There is a ban on advocacy for gun control.

[ileus]

30. The Katies of the ban side base their arguments on lies and misinformation

once that's shot down by 2A progressives, gun humper and right wing insults are all they have.

They ridicule what they don't/refuse to understand.



For most of them it's a binary argument.... Guns = Bad ....period it's their safe place.

[Tortmaster]

31. Gun owners are selfish.

Would you make your family walk through a lightning storm? But keeping a gun in your house is either (1) more dangerous than that, or (2) useless. If the gun is locked up in a safe and unloaded it's useless. If it's not locked up, then it's dangerous, whether a family member uses it inappropriately, or whether it becomes one of the hundreds of thousand firearms stolen every year.

Now the burglar has a gun!

Gun owners are selfish because, whether they like it or not, the NRA will crow about every gun and ammunition purchase you make. That makes the NRA stronger, and they can force state legislatures to allow open carry in Walmart or in bars (but not at the NRA National Convention).

Since the NRA first scared away federal legislators from voting on the Brady Bill in 1990, as well as other reasonable gun safety laws since then, over 15,000,000 Americans have been killed or wounded by guns. That's a lot of fucking carnage for useless toys.

Guns are useless. There is no reason--except selfish pride--to own one in modern America.

And that gun you have that will be passed on from generation to generation, will, if you are lucky, not be involved, eventually, in a murder, robbery, suicide, accidental discharge that kills or wounds, or negligent discharge that just misses.

The only gun that gets thrown away is a murder weapon.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

45. re: "...keeping a gun in your house is either..."

"...(1) more dangerous than that, or (2) useless."

Or (3) carried in a proper holster. Fixed that for you.

The only acceptable place for any firearm is in the controlled custudy of the owner. That's in hand, properly carried or secured in a locked container. Many folks, like myself, keep a firearm solely for use at a range. Those guns are safely stored or transported when not in use a range. Those types of guns are not particularly or commonly used for self-defense.

Thanks for your prejudicially inferring that guns are used only for self-defense.

[Tortmaster]

71. If your gun is only used ...

... at a range, then it is useless. It is no better than an arcade toy, but deadly.

If you think "it might come in handy" for any other reason, then your gun is dangerous. Studies show those guns do much more harm than good. And, purchase of the gun supports the NRA, the gun culture, and, at least indirectly, the carnage that has become a Public Health crisis.

I plead with you to destroy your gun for your family's and your descendants' sakes.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

72. ~~~

you're new at this aren't you?

[Tortmaster]

85. No. I've been on this soapbox forever ...

... at daily kos. I might re-publish some of those diaries over here. You will find them to be interesting reading, I'm sure. Cheers!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

104. That's comforting to know.

Swayed many folks to 'destroy' their guns have you?

[Tortmaster]

154. Brother, I'm the Elmer Gantry of gun control.

I walk into gun shows and gun conventions and start preaching the good old-timey gun control, lay a few hands here or there, and before you can say, "Wayne LaPierre's the Devil," my new friends are speaking in tongues and destroying their firearms.

Blessed be The Word!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

155. I'm sure you are

I feel sorry for you though. You're in a canoe trying to paddle up the waterfall.
From my experience the Yuri Orlovs out number the Elmers about 10,000 to 1.

Have a good day.

[Marengo]

156. It must be the argument that small arms have been obsolete since WWI...

That is moment of epiphany.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

157. Well, now that assailants never leave...

...their fortified buildings, armored vehicles or attack aircraft, guns are just passe.

[Kang Colby]

192. LOL....I gotta give that post some points for being funny and creative.

If more gun controllers were like you, I would really be worried...they'd probably get some laws passed.

[friendly_iconoclast]

111. You're far from the first self-appointed "new DU champion of gun control" we've seen

Most of them burn out after not playing well with others and/or not playing well with DU admins,
or merely go away when they aren't treated as the Messiah Of Gun Control.

Maybe you're different; time will tell.

You will also have to deal with the sharp elbows of the other self-appointed
'DU leaders of gun control activism', at least one of which got muscled out of running
the Gun Control Reform Activism group.

Y'all are nothing but a nest of vipers, more dangerous to your allies than your enemies

[pablo_marmol]

119. "You will find them to be interesting reading, I'm sure."

Doubt that very much. Extremely few pro-restriction supporters have read a single book by liberal criminologists James Wright, Peter Rossi or Gary Kleck. So I doubt very much you have any foundation upon which to build an interesting case of any kind.

[beergood]

82. ill bite

if guns are so dangerous then why do we allow these people to own them?

don't you care about their families?

[Tortmaster]

87. I'm sure they keep them safely locked and unloaded.

Too bad in this political climate politicians feel they have to do something like that. Do we want to support the gun culture in any respect whatsoever? I don't think so.

President Obama's "bitter clingers" statement, I believe, states his position on guns the best. His recent call to blackball any politician who doesn't support reasonable gun control is a step in the right direction. I would like universal disarmament, including the police, except for a SWAT team, but I'm realist enough to take whatever reasonable gun control measures that are possible.

[beergood]

117. "I'm sure they keep them safely locked and unloaded."

as do i and many other gun owners. i follow every CA law concerning firearms. our politicians break more laws than private citizens.

sen. yee plead guilty to gun running http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article25986487.html

Mayor Gordon Jenkins charged with bribery http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/18/ny-mayor-part-mayors-against-illegal-guns-charged-/

Racine, WI Mayor Gary Becker charged with child-sex felonies http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28660061/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/wisconsin-mayor-charged-child-sex-crimes/#.V1CmoOArLnA

Jackson, Mississippi mayor Frank Melton In September 2006, Mayor Melton, with his detective bodyguards and a group of youths, called the "lawn crew" because they traveled with Melton, ostensibly to help with neighborhood clean-up, raided half a duplex on Ridgeway Street without a warrant. Witnesses say that Melton attacked much of the rental duplex with a large stick. He cut his hand during the incident and had to go to the hospital for stitches. He reportedly returned with the young men, with sledgehammers to finish destroying that side of the duplex.[7] Police arrested the tenant, Evans Welch, on drug possession, but he was discharged within days for lack of evidence. No warrant was issued for the raid, nor was the owner of the duplex—Jennifer Sutton—notified of any intention to conduct the raid or damage her property. After news of the demolition broke on Sept. 1, both the attorney general and the district attorney investigated the incident.[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Melton

[Straw Man]

50. Tortured logic.

Gun owners are selfish because, whether they like it or not, the NRA will crow about every gun and ammunition purchase you make. That makes the NRA stronger, and they can force state legislatures to allow open carry in Walmart or in bars (but not at the NRA National Convention).

So ... people should not buy guns because that empowers the NRA, the organization that fights to protect their right to ... buy guns. Brilliant. Why hasn't anyone thought of that argument before?

As for the "banned at the NRA Convention" canard, please do your homework before propagating such misinformation:

Firearms Carry Policy

During the 2016 NRA Annual Meetings & Exhibits, lawfully carried firearms will be permitted at Annual Meeting venues including the Kentucky Exposition Center (KEC), KFC Yum! Center Arena, and Kentucky International Convention Center (KICC) in accordance with Kentucky law. Firearms and knives will be prohibited in any areas temporarily under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Secret Service. When carrying your firearm, please remember to follow all federal, state and local laws.

-- https://www.nraam.org/

Guns are useless. There is no reason--except selfish pride--to own one in modern America.

Feel free to not own one. Don't presume to make the choice for others.

[Tortmaster]

73. Please feel free to ignore my advice.

Last edited Thu Jun 2, 2016, 12:34 AM - Edit history (1)

But don't think that your opinion deserves any more weight than mine. At least I'm looking out for your family's safety.

I came back to edit my post because you were not quite up front with me and any readers out there. Your quote about the carry policy at the NRA Convention was missing some important information, including the italicized portion here:

" ... Firearms and knives will be prohibited in any areas temporarily under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Secret Service. When carrying your firearm, please remember to follow all federal, state and local laws.

Please note that under Kentucky law, concealed firearms are prohibited in areas primarily devoted to dispensing alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption, and loaded firearms are prohibited in any room where alcoholic beverages are being sold by the drink. Alcoholic beverages will be served at some events at the Kentucky International Convention Center (KICC), in certain areas of the KFC Yum! Center Arena, and in some smaller venues."

I'm sorry, my friend, but that's like saying you can have a gun on an airplane except on any day ending in "day."

[friendly_iconoclast]

80. "At least I'm looking out for your family's safety..." You merely *claim* that you are looking...

...out for his family's safety, in a manner not a whit different from those claiming to be
looking out for the safety of restroom patrons and women seeking abortions.

[Tortmaster]

86. So, exercising my First Amendment Right is ...

... akin to anti-choice and bigoted speech. Okay.

[friendly_iconoclast]

95. Your moral-panic mongering differs from theirs only in subject

[Tortmaster]

100. Awesome. So Jesus couldn't condemn the money-changers, and ...

... Moses couldn't disapprove of the false idolators, and Washington and Franklin couldn't berate the tax-without-representation guys, and on and on. If they do those things, they are just like the anti-abortion lobby. Laugh.

[Straw Man]

98. Oh, I will. And ...

... you are completely mischaracterizing the issue of carry at the NRA convention. Why am I surprised?

" ... Firearms and knives will be prohibited in any areas temporarily under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Secret Service. When carrying your firearm, please remember to follow all federal, state and local laws.

Please note that under Kentucky law, concealed firearms are prohibited in areas primarily devoted to dispensing alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption, and loaded firearms are prohibited in any room where alcoholic beverages are being sold by the drink. Alcoholic beverages will be served at some events at the Kentucky International Convention Center (KICC), in certain areas of the KFC Yum! Center Arena, and in some smaller venues."

I'm sorry, my friend, but that's like saying you can have a gun on an airplane except on any day ending in "day."

No, actually it isn't. It's nothing like that at all. It simply means that you could carry anywhere except where it is specifically banned by state law. That left many of the convention areas open to legal carry.

Security at the Trump event was under the aegis of the US Secret Service since he is a candidate for President. This meant a high level of security, and it was completely beyond the control of the NRA. If they had not complied, the event would have been cancelled.

The NRA was asking their members to comply with state and federal law. And you say that that makes them guilty of hypocrisy? What would you have said if they had urged the members to defy the law?

But don't think that your opinion deserves any more weight than mine.

I don't think it is; I know it is, because you are so chock-full of misinformation that you are incapable of making an informed judgement.

At least I'm looking out for your family's safety.

No. You're not. You're really not. Spare me the bullshit condescension.

[Marengo]

53. LOL! Unless you're a vegan Luddite, so are you.

[Tortmaster]

89. I agree. I am. We need to move away from meat as soon as ...

... we learn to grow it in a lab. Two wrongs don't make a right, though, and we are talking about dead animals versus dead people.

[Marengo]

96. Oh no, not far enough. Laboratory produced meat is still meat...

And consuming it only perpetuates the desire for its taste. As long as there is the desire, animals are threatened. To be consistent, you should be advocating the absolute abolishment of meat in any form from the human diet. Unless your selfish, of course. Then, there is the question of your use of petroleum products. What of your carbon footprint?

[Tortmaster]

106. Carbon footprint is super ...

... minimal. You have taken the meat question to an extreme. No selfishness involved in lab meat.

What about Harleys? Do you have a motorcycle? Super selfish. Do you fart in elevators? Pretty selfish. But guns are the worst, except for Libertarians and Republicans, who love the whole gun thing on top of their other selfishnesses.

[Marengo]

107. No more extreme than your position on firearms...

And if you refuse to acknowledge it's logic, you must only be doing so out of selfishness. Super minimal, eh? By what standard, first world?

[beevul]

108. No, whats selfish is blaming the instrument...

No, whats selfish is blaming the instrument rather than the individual who misuses it, and demanding the entire nation change to suit your biases.

Make no mistake, that is what you want.

[jmg257]

56. I am selfish, a bit. I found there are numerous uses for various guns.

Shooting guns is a blast.
Target, skeet, hunting, plinking, practice.
Range time is always good time with friends/family.

Self-defense if/when they need arises. (Not a big deal if they are locked up most times.)

Necessary tools for several employment opportunities.

Definitely there is pride in collecting & shooting certain makes/models.
And passing them on if wanted.


So actually there is plenty of enjoyment (and practicality) in owning guns, and being able to buy/use them without much hassle.

Of course there are also plenty of responsibilities associated with them.

[Tortmaster]

88. A little introspection goes a long way.

I am for complete universal disarmament, even for police--except for their SWAT team--but am realist to take whatever reasonable gun control measure available. As for the police, I like the British Model of crowd control and policing. They manage to go decades without killing the number of citizens we do in a week.

As for target practice, I get that that can be fun. Why wouldn't it be a good idea to have guns kept inside a locked and inspected Armory at the gun range? If I were king of the world....

[jonno99]

61. Thanks for sharing your opinion - you don't like guns - we get it. I hope however,

that this past Memorial day you paused for a moment to remember and give thanks for those who sacrificed their lives in the service of their country - many using guns to repel aggressors - who were using guns against them (us).

But don't forget, not all aggressors are foreign, and these domestic aggressors also need to be repelled...

[Tortmaster]

74. Guns became useless in war ...

... once the tank and aircraft were invented, not to mention the guided missile and drone. Now, infantry are human shield, human wave and occupation devices only.

I was in the Army and am a History buff, so I appreciate the sacrifices made by my comrades.

[braddy]

76. Infantry has been outdated since 1916?

[Tortmaster]

92. Yes. The only reason we have infantry now is because ...

... humans are cheaper than drones.

[braddy]

93. You really need to study up more on warfare and military history.

[friendly_iconoclast]

81. How many tanks, aircraft, guided missiles, and drones do the Taliban and ISIS/Daesh have?

[Tortmaster]

90. They aren't in America.

ISIS is not in America.

[friendly_iconoclast]

94. Guerilla warfare is guerilla warfare

[Marengo]

97. Your position is that small arms are useless in all conflicts, globally?

Reality check, you served in a first world army.

[friendly_iconoclast]

109. A first-world army that hasn't yet defeated the Taliban, after +/- 15 years of trying...

...a group which should be noted as not having tanks, aircraft, missiles, or drones.

[Eleanors38]

176. Yes. Castro fought his revolution with T-34s & MiGs. Couple of cruisers, too.

[ileus]

70. What if you have 35+ guns that have made it through 3 generations

without getting stolen, used for crime, or NDs?

What if you have firearms that are designed to save lives and used properly?

What if I told you guns haven't killed or wounded any Americans?

[Tortmaster]

75. You've been lucky so far.

Last edited Thu Jun 2, 2016, 12:26 AM - Edit history (1)

Congratulations.

[pablo_marmol]

120. "If the gun is locked up in a safe and unloaded it's useless." Strawman.

Very few RKBA supporters would advocate for keeping a firearm both locked and unloaded. I would imagine that the vast majority, like me, keep them loaded and locked in a safe that is set up for rapid access - or on their person.

I have a traditional 'dial' safe. I could get at a loaded gun very quickly because I have the first number of the combo dialed in, and have moved the dial fairly close to the second of the three numbers required to open it.

We've come to expect false arguments from you and your pals.

[Kang Colby]

126. I disagree with your post in its entirety.

But I think your argument would have been stronger if you dropped the "gun owners are selfish" bit. In general, you immediately put many of your readers on the defensive when you state something like that.

[flamin lib]

46. Actually we do. Gun rights supporters that hang out in forums and groups like this one

tend to be on the fringe and operate from a whole different outlook from those in favor of gun control for safety. Not saying that's a bad thing just recognizing the reality of it.

Coming from a whole different universe with different rules of logic neither side can recognize the validity or the other's point of view.

Then there's the tactics. Gunners tend to belittle and besmirch; "you called it a clip! You're too stupid for me to talk to!" and to attack the source instead of addressing the content "Bloomberg had something to do with it so I can call names and ignore the actual commentary". And don't forget the flash mobs, one gun safety post gets 5 antagonists piling on. All for one and one for all.

[Duckhunter935]

49. Who uses the terms ammosexual

And delicate flower. Interesting you forget to mention that. Too bad you think a firearms owner correcting misinformation like the confusion of semi automatic and fully automatic is ccallin a person stupid

[pablo_marmol]

58. "Too bad you think a firearms owner correcting misinformation........."

Correcting misinformation with facts is good when it comes to issues such as global warming, the economy, etc. -- but when we correct lies and grossly misleading information relating to gun rights/gun violence, we're sending out swarms of gnats to cloud whatever issue is being discussed. LOL --- there's no level of hypocrisy that The Controllers won't stoop to!

And yes ---- the derogatory descriptors of gun owners pretty much destroys FL's cred right out of the gate.

[beevul]

102. Would calling others "glib sociopaths" be "belittling an besmirching"?N/T

[Duckhunter935]

105. Lol

[Marengo]

51. As a gun owner yourself, you are ok with arguing for restrictive legislation...

From a position of technical ignorance? Care to apply the same standard to a discussion of reproductive rights, freedom of expression, etc?

[flamin lib]

54. Bring something constructive to the conversation or just go away

and don't try to hijack the OP.

I refuse to chase your little red fishy.

[Marengo]

55. I'll take that as a yes then. Anything goes so long as the goal is achieved...

Whatever yours may be I cannot be certain.

[flamin lib]

63. Stop trying to hijack this thread. The OP asked why we don't have productive discussions.

I replied on topic to the OP. If you have something constructive to add to that conversation please do.

By the way, your attempt to switch the topic is indicative of why we can't have these conversations

[Marengo]

66. I'm commenting on something YOU wrote. Why won't you answer the question?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

[flamin lib]

68. Because IT IS OFF TOPIC. Typical attempt to launch a red herring and ignore the topic at hand.

Like I said earlier, one of the reasons we can't have productive discussions. Some people would rather pick a personal fight.

[Marengo]

79. Unless your commentary was off topic, it's spot on and you know it. Why are you so evasive?

I will ask you again, is it acceptable to argue for legislation restricting firearms from a position of technical ignorance? A simple yes or no is fine, requiring almost no effort on your part.

[flamin lib]

110. I will answer one more time that the OP asked 'why isn't there productive discussion

between the two sides?'.

How does your red herring apply to that question? It doesn't.

Should you start a thread with your question perhaps I will address it. Until then all you're doping is trying to hijack the thread by picking a personal fight with me and I'll not facilitate that attempt.

[Marengo]

112. In other words, you cannot answer honestly as that would fatally weaken...

Your argument. Well, I for one am pleased we finally have this settled.

[flamin lib]

113. No, I refuse to engage you in a personal argument over a red herring. We can keep this going or you

can start a thread of your own posing the hypothetical 'should a lack of knowledge prohibit taking part in shaping legislation' and I may respond to that thread.

That question has no place in this thread and your continued attempt to make this personal with me is unseemly at best.

[Marengo]

116. Right, just as I said earlier, it's obvious you refuse because you can't without damaging...

the premise of your argument in post 46. Look, you know as well as I this is organic to the topic of this thread, so it's not going to go away. Why would I waste the effort to start a new thread when you seem to lack the integrity to respond directly in this one?

Oh, and what's with the quotation marks? Is that verbatim excerpt from a post here at DU?

[flamin lib]

137. Oh, too much work to start a thread? Exhausted from typing so much trying to

flog a red herring I won't chase? Now you fall into ad hominem as if one logical fallacy isn't enough?

[Marengo]

142. You wouldn't be pushing back so hard unless you have realized your integrity is threatened...

Yeah, you fucked up and I called you out on it. Perhaps it would have been best to simply bail as you did in the other thread and let it sink. Oh well, let's try this again...

Gunners tend to belittle and besmirch; "you called it a clip! You're too stupid for me to talk to!"


Why the quotation marks? Is this a verbatim excerpt from a post here at DU, and why didn't you answer this before? I digress, in other words, anyone who challenges an argument based on technical ignorance is belittling and besmirching? Is it belittling and besmirching to challenge arguments discussing the limiting of reproductive rights from a position of scientific ignorance? Or does that standard you've established only apply to firearms. Oh, and what is a "gunner" anyway?

Now if you aren't too exhausted by you transparent efforts to evade, a simple yes or no will suffice.

[flamin lib]

146. Sigh. This is a red herring. If you'd like to add something to the question posed in the OP

or start a thread posing your own question perhaps something germaine could come from your voluminous typing skills.

I can stay here all week. I'm retired. Ya' wanna' keep this up and find new fallacies I'm up for it. You've already got two, wanna try for another?

As I said before, this is why we can't have discussions about the topic of guns. Someone always wants to take control of the discussion and make it a personal issue.

[Marengo]

149. i think we've already well enough established your disingenuous nature...

Your own behavior in this thread has confirmed that your criticism is clearly invalid if it cannot survive any examination. The evidence of that being your unwillingness to even defend the point. You can't, therefore you won't. You've made yourself look the fool proficiently enough.

I wonder, if you have so much time on your hands, why have you failed to respond to queries in other threads?

[Marengo]

150. Oh, and since you have so much time on your hands...

What is the definition of "gunner" as you use it? Hey, while we are at it, l've asked you repeatedly how many guns you own with nary a response. Well, at least now we know it's not because you haven't the time. Why don't you respond?

[pablo_marmol]

121. No. You refuse to answer because it would fatally weaken your argument.

You fool nobody.

[flamin lib]

135. You have no part in this conversation. nt

[pablo_marmol]

136. Says you. And I dismiss your viewpoint. NT

[Marengo]

143. Are you the arbiter of who may and may not post a reply in this thread, and to what?

Haha! Looks like someone else has noticed your game.

[flamin lib]

145. And what game is that? Pointing out logical fallacies? Not taking bait? Or is it poor form to ask

for a separate thread to discuss a separate topic?

Now we'er into phase two of gungeon tactics, one can't hold up his end so another joins in with non seqiuitor kibitzing.

[Marengo]

147. Attributing logical fallacies where they don't exist in order to camouflage...

The weakness of your own argument.

[flamin lib]

158. Where none exist?

Inserting a question unrelated to the OP is a red herring.

Questioning my integrity is ad hominem.

Like I said, I can keep this up as long as you want to look bad.

[Marengo]

159. Oh, there is no question, you simply don't have any...

Hiding behind false accusations of logical fallacies to protect the weakness of your argument. Unless your commentary was unrelated to the subject of the OP, my response to it most certainly is. No red herring exists, despite your insistence. Only in cloud cuckoo land does anyone but you look bad in this exchange. Apparently you fail to realize I'm not going away as you impotently commanded me to earlier in this exchange.

[flamin lib]

160. Yes, attempting to take a conversation in an entirely different direction is, by definition,

a red herring.

My response to the OP was directly to the question posed there. Your question to me was totally unrelated to my response to the OP, it was simply an attempt to start a personal argument with me. I didn't bite and now it's just eating at your ego.

There is still the personal attack on my integrity.

[Marengo]

162. You must not be capable of fully comprehending what you wrote...

If you claim my response is not related. To suggest so is truly embarrassing on you part.

[flamin lib]

164. It isn't my comprehension that's a problem here. nt

[Marengo]

161. Why are you so apparently fearful in answering a simple question?

Even if it were a red herring as you fallaciously insist, the strength of your argument should be able to easily counter it.

[flamin lib]

163. I'm not fearful, just insistent that you stop attempting to hijack a thread so

you can pick a personal fight with me.

As I explained up-thread, attempting to take a thread off topic is the definition of red herring.

Further, you have made no argument for me to refute, you have simply posted flame bait aimed at me personally. This verges on a call out which violates TOS.

[Marengo]

166. The argument is clear. You either cannot comprehend it, or cannot respond without...

Damaging your premise. Which is it?

[flamin lib]

169. I have made no premise, only steadfastly refused to engage your red herring. nt

[Marengo]

172. The strength of you argument should easily be able to banish that red herring...

Should it exist. If it's a fallacy, lay it out, answer the question with a devastating blow. Evasion simply makes you appear dishonest or obtuse.

[Marengo]

168. Would you be so generous to explain with your ample time...

How it is flame bait when compared to your post #46 with deliberately selected pejorative terminology?

[flamin lib]

170. 46 was a reply to the OP and contained quotes from gungeoneers to explain

why we can't have productive conversations.

[Marengo]

171. Those are quotes from posts here on DU? Why haven't you provided links or cites...

As I've already asked of you?

[flamin lib]

174. Because it would be like providing links to explain why the sky is blue. Everybody else in the

gungeon recognizes that, just as they recognize the the penis references without requiring links.

[Marengo]

175. So, they are NOT actual quotes as you have claimed?

[flamin lib]

177. Yes, they are very close paraphrases.

Look, you've said that I refuse to defend a premise when I have made no premise. You have asked me to address an argument you haven't made.

Since you seem to know more about what I think than I do why not just take my side of this sub thread as well as yours? Post what you imagine about my thoughts and then destroy them with your skills at debate. That's more or less what you've been doing for the last 100 or so posts.

Or you could start a thread with something you want to discuss.

[Marengo]

178. Bullshit, a paraphrase is NOT a quote...

Both of those words have specific definitions. Either produce the quotes you claim exist or admit you have misspoken.

[Marengo]

179. You most certainly did, with your fake quotes...

That challenging technical ignorance in discussions of firearms and related legislation is somehow disreputable behavior. As if challenging ignorance in a discussion of reproductive rights and related legislation would be considered belittling and besmirching. You are making very clear you will tolerate it in the former, so how about the latter?

[flamin lib]

180. Good start to posting for Imaginary Me.

Now pivot back to Real You and eviscerate what Imaginary Me said.

Please, be brilliant!

[Marengo]

182. Where are the links to those quotes, real disingenuous you...

Is it you don't understand the difference between quoting and paraphrasing?

[flamin lib]

184. Oh, good move! Demand links from Imaginary Me!

Now you can skewer Imaginary Me for not providing them. And dig in on the minutia of of English language construction, leave no nit unpicked, it makes you look so cerebral.

[Marengo]

186. Did someone else hack your account, write post #170, and apparently lie?

[flamin lib]

188. Not up to your other posts but still not bad, finding a way call me a liar without

invoking Imaginary Me.

Keep to the holy trinity of the gungeon; demand links, exaggerate the importance of minutia and ad hominem.

[Marengo]

189. As it wasn't imaginary fingers that typed that post, it would appear that you are either...

A liar or profoundly ignorant of the difference between quoting and paraphrasing.

Ha! Ah, yes...how dare I demand proof of an accusation.

[flamin lib]

190. Well, two out of three isn't too bad. nt

[Marengo]

193. Still no links to those "quotes" which form the basis of your argument?

I should think a few hours should be sufficient to produce them, if they exist. But, I'm feeling generous, so take the weekend and I'll check back at the end of it. Perhaps that should be enough time to consider just how thoroughly your blunder has injured your integrity. Come on, man, fake quotes? That's comically inept.

[flamin lib]

195. WTF, your red herring was a take off on the theme. nt

[Marengo]

173. Waiting for the links or cites for those quotes...

They should be right at your fingertips if the foundation of your argument. I'm very curious to see who made these ridiculous statements in all seriousness.

[beevul]

181. Your interlocutor is just playing games.

If there were damning statements there, he/she would have quoted them verbatim, rather than paraphrasing.

Its an old tactic.

[Marengo]

183. True, I assumed as much, but am somewhat surprised he made the blunder...

Of claiming they were actual quotes. I guess we'll see if he has the integrity to admit it.

[beevul]

185. Just sayin...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=194892

[Marengo]

187. Absolutely true, as is clear in this thread.

[beevul]

194. Also, keep in mind what that poster is defending.

Then there's the tactics. Gunners tend to belittle and besmirch; "you called it a clip! You're too stupid for me to talk to!"...

What this poster is trying to do here, is defend certain misinformational tactics, and insulate certain talking points from scrutiny:

assault weapon vs assault rifle

"If you want to shoot an assault weapon join the army"

"Weapons that belong on the battlefield"

"Military grade" (I guess we better ban the f-150)

"Gunshow loophole"

and to attack the source instead of addressing the content "Bloomberg had something to do with it so I can call names and ignore the actual commentary".

Translation: "We're cozying up to mayor 1percentstopandfrisk and we'd really appreciate it if you wouldn't bring it up".

And don't forget the flash mobs, one gun safety post gets 5 antagonists piling on. All for one and one for all.

Ahh gun safety. Nevermind that anti-gun types almost never talk about actual gun safety. We aren't supposed to bring that up either.

Beyond that, it translates into "gee, I wish we anti-gun people weren't outnumbered 100 to one, I wonder if I can shut some of the pro-gun folks up by trying to shame them and make it seem otherwise". And lastly, notice the label "antagonists", in spite of the fact that he/she is the one that leaves the protected sanctity of bansalot to post daily anti-gun screeds and google dumps in this group where he knows they are allowed but highly unpopular among regular residents.

Just who is trying to antagonize who here?

THIS is why we can't have any discussion, and why they can not be trusted (though not the only reason).

[Marengo]

197. It's been a few days now, still no links to the alleged quotes?

Seems to me that should have been more than enough to time to locate those specific examples. Alternatively, you could admit you were in error to claim those statement were quotes.

[flamin lib]

198. Another way of calling me a liar is to to demand I provide links to established gungeon

dogma, which I refuse to do because it's a red herring and off topic from the OP.

Whine all you want, I'm not chasing your red herring.

When you're tired of demanding I follow a logical fallacy and post an OP posing your query I MIGHT respond.

[friendly_iconoclast]

199. I won't call you a liar. However, your claims as to what's been said remain faith-promoting rumor

unless and until you provide links to same.

[Marengo]

200. I'm still waiting for links to those quotes, or your acknowledgement...

That you don't fully comprehend the difference between quoting and paraphrasing.

[Marengo]

151. What sort of authority do you have to control who may respond to what...

In this thread and who granted it to you?

[Straw Man]

148. This isn't private messaging.

It's a discussion forum. If you post something, it's fair game for anyone who reads it.

That's how this works. But you knew that.

[beevul]

103. There can be no "productive discussions", when you refuse to answer questions asked of you.

Your refusal to answer uncomfortable questions is on you, not on everyone else, and speaks to your actual desire (or lack there of) to have a discussion - as opposed to just spewing anti-gun talking points.

[Duckhunter935]

57. Wow

Aren't you nice

[sarisataka]

59. Excellent example

Of the point of the OP...

[beevul]

101. "Fringe"?

Gun rights supporters that hang out in forums and groups like this one tend to be on the fringe..."

You say that like its true, but it isn't. None of the pro-rkba regulars here on DU are fringe types, as you well know.

And even those who oppose background checks on private sales aren't 'fringe'.

"Fringe" describes ban happy anti-gunners who are so far away from the mainstream that they couldn't find it with GPS, and 'fringe' certainly applies to those who want to interpret 'arms' in the second amendment as 'single shot rifles and shotguns'.

In short, the word 'fringe' applies far more to the anti-gun side here on DU than it does the pro-gun side here on DU.


You know its true.

[Kang Colby]

123. Thank you, flamin lib.

I probably disagree with every post you've ever made on the topic of gun rights, especially on the idea of prohibiting gun ownership sans due process. But I appreciate that you took the time to respond on this post and elsewhere. You seem to be one of the few genuine gun control supporters around here. I respect that.

Hope all is well.

[jmg257]

167. There is the whole "gun culture" aspect.

People grow up in the culture with no issues, well accustomed to guns for hunting, shooting, defense, etc. They, and even non-gun owners around the culture, don't usually see themselves (or guns) as 'the problem'.


Plenty of insulting to go around, no doubt there.
And people LOVE jumping in when someone (especially that they don't agree with) is wrong. It is silly at times.

[pablo_marmol]

129. I think you've missed the point, KC. Gun rights supporters are scum!

That's why we're not worth the effort to dialog with.

[Kang Colby]

130. haha..thanks for pointing that out, Pablo.

[pablo_marmol]

131. Anytime, brother.

I really am a brilliant individual.

[Matrosov]

132. I'm willing

The problem is, many RKBA supporters can't argue beyond:

1) Why do you hate freedom?
2) Why do you hate the Constitution?
3) Why do you want women to be victims (as long as dem bitches ain't gittin an abortion, huh, huh)?

[Kang Colby]

133. That's false.

Look at this thread as an example.

[Matrosov]

134. Not really

I live in an area where everybody and their dog is armed to the teeth. If you don't understand them, well, you're just a dirty communist. I'm not kidding, I've been called a 'communist' on more than one occasion, simply for asking why somebody feels the need to keep several thousand rounds of 5.56mm in their garage.

As for DU, there are a few gun owners here whose opinion I can respect. Even if I don't agree with them, they make an effort to engage us 'controllers' on a logical level. I can appreciate that.

The ones for whom I have no time are the RKBA supporters who ignore any and all arguments and try to retort on an emotional level. Why do hate freedom? Why do you hate the Constitution? Granted, there's no shortage of controllers making emotional arguments, but as I've said since the first day, controllers tend to be their own worst enemy.

[beergood]

140. sorry

i find it funny that you seem offended when people call you a communist, when your avatar is che guevara.

i know nothing about you and im not trying to make any presumptions about you.

for example i don't get offended when people call me gay, because there's some truth to that statement.

[Marengo]

144. I wouldn't call you a communist, it's not a pejorative in my mind having thought myself one in my...

youth. However, I would say it's none of your fucking business.

[Kang Colby]

153. For someone who shoots often...

A few thousand rounds of 5.56 isn't really a lot. My wife and I could easily shoot through a few thousand rounds of 9mm...we have in fact. Going to the range 2x per week and shooting 300-400 rounds via 5 shot strings.

When you shoot that often you either reload, buy in bulk to get the lowest cost per round, or have money to burn.

I agree with much of what you said, btw. Great post. You don't often see pro rights DU members resorting to emotional pleas or goading unless it is in response to controller shenanigans.

[pablo_marmol]

139. "The problem is, many RKBA supporters can't argue beyond:"

Of course this statement is technically correct, since even a small percentage of the huge number can be described as 'many'. IMO you have it backward, however.

Which side of the debate is capable of correctly defining what a semi-automatic firearm is?

Which side knows what's been going on with the U.S. crime rate over the last few decades?

Which side argues with emotion-baiting questions such as "What are guns designed for".......and which side argues with FBI data?

In short, you appear to be arguing that it's the RKBA-supporting side of the debate that relies on appeals to emotion - when the reverse is true.

[flamin lib]

165. Hey Kang, want to see why we can't have cogent discussion?

Check out the subthread that tried to hijack your OP.

[Kang Colby]

191. I'm OK flamin.

I enjoyed reading the posts between you and Marengo. I see this for what it is, a discussion forum.

When you said this:

Then there's the tactics. Gunners tend to belittle and besmirch; "you called it a clip! You're too stupid for me to talk to!"

Marengo then proceeded to raise a valid point. If someone wants to argue in favor of AWBs, they should at least understand the terminology. Individuals in congress have proposed banning guns with barrel shrouds without understanding what a barrel shroud is....that's poor public policy. If a pro-gun representative argued recategorizing certain NFA "destructive devices" and then proceeded to describe "destructive devices" as garbage disposals I would be equally ashamed.

Long story short, just be yourself. I enjoy reading your posts, and I can tell that unlike a lot of gun control advocates...this is an issue you truly and deeply care about. You are willing to have discussions, so just do it and stay cool.

Peace brother.