I'm not opposed to taking firearms away from convicted felons. I'm not opposed to the NFA of 1934.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

What I am against is taking legally owned firearms away from law abiding citizens? I'm against banning firearms solely because they look scary to a bunch of ignorant legislators? I'm against turning the protection of my home and my family over to anyone? I'm against any legislation that violates the US Constitution? That's enough for now but please don't think this is a complete list. What do you gun control advocates think is there any room for compromise? Let's try and keep this one classy like our future President.

David

[tularetom]

1. Nope, you're either for RKBA or against it

You're obviously in favor of some sort of compromise already. By advocating a limited form of gun control, your position differs only in degree from those who advocate a complete ban on private ownership of firearms.

When we start conditioning our rights, we're on the way to losing them.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

2. Interesting.

I only stated one current law that I was okay with and I don't really know anyone who's against that one.

David

[spin]

3. Some simple equations...

Honest responsible citizens = little or no crime

Honest responsible citizens with firearms = little or no crime

criminals = crime

criminals with firearms = very violent crime

Disarm honest responsible citizens = no effect on crime

Disarm criminals = significant decrease in violent crime

True gun control = taking illegal firearms from criminals

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

4. That doesn't seem so difficult, I would bet few gun control advocates will respond

[spin]

5. True, but it's fun to poke them and see if they react (n/t)

[Rancid Crabtree]

6. One consequence, unintended or not, of the...

1934 NFA is that is inhibited development of that type of gun...great! someone says...or who could improve on John Browning's designs...but when war came Ira volunteered and forgot the white man's creed, as the song goes...but at the end of the day when those in power are looking to distract the electorate, more often than not, it's those folk they've already tried to marginalize that will find themselves in that position again...with all the hate-mongering happening, coupled with the peoples' desire for instant gratification, facing the problems we face, and with the likelihood that overcoming them will take time...are people wrong to fear the record of the past?...why doesn't a death from drunk driving evoke the kind of emotion seen on another thread in the gun forum?...are accidental deaths from drunk driving any less preventable?...I'll never understand the paradox seen in the argument supporting abortion, while arguing against an individual right to keep and bear arms...at the end of the day, when Bush is no longer around to shit on, how long before those on the margins are noticed?

[iverglas]

11. howdy, stranger!

why doesn't a death from drunk driving evoke the kind of emotion seen on another thread in the gun forum?

Why do you ask a question loaded with such a demonstrably false premise?


I'll never understand the paradox seen in the argument supporting abortion, while arguing against an individual right to keep and bear arms

Unsurprising, isn't it, that you don't understand something that doesn't exist?

Equally unsurprising to find someone mouthing the ugly meme all over again, of course.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

7. I guess they just aren't willing to discuss the issue.

[57_TomCat]

8. It is hard to argue against some well made points but...

I bet someone will in time try to switch the subject and flail away.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

9. I bet not, they don't like it when other people set the tone.

They like to be able to prejudice the discussion from the start.

David

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

10. I'm amazed at the shear lack of courage.

[iverglas]

14. I'll bet you weren't really intending

to call your interlocutors on the issue sheep.

What shouldn't amaze you is the sheer lack of interest in such a sophomoric pretense at good faith discussion as you have made.

Me, I was bored and at a loose end ...

[Billy Ruffian]

15. spelling flames are lame

see post 13

[iverglas]

18. damn, eh?

No post 13 that I can see.

[Billy Ruffian]

19. not any more, there isn't n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

21. Did you post #13?

[iverglas]

12. not willing to discuss the issue???

If I felt like wasting time, I'd try to count the number of times I have said, in response to noise like yours:

I'm not opposed to taking firearms away from convicted felons. I'm not opposed to the NFA of 1934.

-- WHO THE FUCK CARES?


Why do you persist in acting as if your personal preferences are of some relevance here?

Why do you persist in acting as if the very fact that something happens to be "law", at this moment in time in your place in space, makes it acceptable/good, and everything else unacceptable/bad? Why do you insist that what is is the benchmark for what should be?


What I am against is taking legally owned firearms away from law abiding citizens?

Why do you pretend to be inviting sincere discussion, and then start out by attempting to frame the discussion solely so as to suit your purposes?


I'm against banning firearms solely because they look scary to a bunch of ignorant legislators?

Why do you then frame that discussion by asserting an opinion about a characterization of an issue that you know to be false? (And if you truly don't know that your characterization of the issue is false, then you don't belong in a public discussion forum, you belong in a classroom getting some basic instruction on how to do research.)


I'm against any legislation that violates the US Constitution?

Then why aren't you somewhere railing against the laws that prohibit you from advertising snake oil to cure cancer if you happen to feel like it? After all, that Constitution of yours says CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, right?


I'm against turning the protection of my home and my family over to anyone?

Was someone volunteering for the job? Did someone suggest you should do this? Is there no end to your stupid straw people?


That's enough for now. Oh, except for: why do you put question marks at the end of declarative sentences?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

16. Not doing anything that you people don't do all the time.

To answer your questions though, I think this is a fine place to give my opinion. The AWB was largely about cosmetic issues that's fact sorry nothing to discuss except your ignorance of the issue. We have tried to fix that for some time though. Yes many here have suggested that the police should be responsible for the safety of my home and my family, you are well aware of that. I hope your family is doing better.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

17. I noticed you failed to castigate Redstone for his nearly identical post.

Does hypocrisy mean the same thing in Canada?

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

20. Even after the wonderful result last night, I still feel this way.