Has the last 6 months changed your opinion of the NRA?

The very best you can do is repeat a reference to an argument I already refuted?
Why do you embarrass yourself like this?

To wit:
The fact firearms are one of the easiest and most efficient ways for a person to kill another person is -exactly- why our right to own and use them is protected by the 2nd; as such, this fact does not in any way support a repeal of same.

Sometime I wonder why I even bring the thunder.

 

And sometimes I wonder why I have to help people with reading comprehension.
#49 The issue was gun violence...." in order to stop gun violence you need a violent person but you also need a gun. Everyone has a potential for violence, so it seems nothing can be done about human nature"..."So guns are what can be controlled to solve the problem."
In other words, the problem will not be solved because of people like you and 2A.

 

You should have stuck with the part of your post I interpreted as your sound, reasoned and rational argument for the repeal of the 2nd - it was far stronger than the nonsense above.

Gun control does not prevent criminals from getting guns, and thus, does not prevent criminals from committing crimes with a gun - It never has, and it never will, as proven by the fact gun-related crime runs rampant in the cities and states with the strongest gun control laws. This of course, completely ignore the fact the insanely huge majority of firearms are never used in a crime, and only a tiny minority of those that are used in a crime result in a death.

Meanwhile, as previously cited, firearms are use in self defense at least 10.5x more often than to commit murder and at least 4.5x more often than to commit suicide -- a ratio which will only worsen once you implement whatever unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the law abiding you must first repeal the 2nd to enact.

But, it IS good of you to admit those unnecessary and ineffective restrictions violate the 2nd Amendment and infringe on the rights of the law abiding -- whether your recognize it or not, the 2nd was put in place because the people who put it there knew there'd be people like you.

 

Ineffective gun control does not control the gun violence problem. Nothing you wrote contradicted my statement.

 

And thus, there's no sound, rational reason to implement the gun control laws you seek -- much less repeal the 2nd.

You refuted your own argument.

 

Your logic is no laws are effective? We should cancel all laws? Brilliant logic. How about some effective gun laws?

 

And sometimes I wonder why I have to help people with reading comprehension.
I said:
And thus, there's no sound, rational reason to implement the gun control laws you seek
Clearly, plainly, and obviously I referred to the laws YOU seek, not all laws.

It is impossible for an honest, sentient being to reach that conclusion from what I said.

You offer none; as such, there's no sound, rational reason to implement the gun control laws you seek -- much less repeal the 2nd.

 

Uh, if you were paying attention instead of attacking, you had already stated gun laws were ineffective and there is the illogical statement; "there's no sound, rational reason to implement the gun control laws you seek" when you don't know what they are and your assumption is no laws can be effective. So my statement was correct.

 

I assure you:
Whatever laws you have in mind are both unnecessary and ineffective.
Ineffective gun control does not control the gun violence problem.
As such, there's no sound, rational reason to implement the gun control laws you seek -- much less repeal the 2nd.

Disagree?
Tell us what gun laws you want and demonstrate their necessity and efficacy.

 

Being close minded and prejudged by you I would be wasting my time, wouldn't I?

 

Translation:
While you can tell us what gun laws you want, you know you have no capacity whatsoever to demonstrate their necessity and efficacy.

Ineffective gun control does not control the gun violence problem.
As such, there's no sound, rational reason to implement the gun control laws you seek -- much less repeal the 2nd.

 

See what I mean.....

 

Yes - your inability to meet the challenge put to you is -quite- clear.

 

I've always believed in the training aspect of the NRA. If you own a firearm and ever intend to use it then you owe it to anyone within range to learn HOW to use it in a proper manner. If it is for defense then train enough to be reasonably certain that you will hit what you are aiming for and not an innocent bystander instead. Train enough that you are not going to fire off a round by accident.

What have these Dem Party leadership sponsored and sanctioned violent riots for month after month taught me, however, is that the nation itself needs the NRA to function as an ideological and legal force counter to creeping Cultural Marxism as practiced by radical Politically Correct Social Justice Warrior types. It's very hard to destroy a nation until you have first successfully disarmed its citizens.

 

Ever been to the Everytown for Gun Safety website?
Ever look for their gun safety and training programs?
Hint: They don't exist.

How can am organization with "Gun Safety" in their title not have gun safety and training programs?

 

Thank you for the response but I don't believe your post at #49 presents the information being requested. You seem to advocate repeal of the Second Amendment and the taking of firearms. I would be interested in your response to the following:

What do you see as the ultimate goal with regard to firearms?

How do you feel repealing the Second Amendment will change things?

Here is post #49

While you do make some valid points in this post I don't see anything there which directly addresses the two questions posed.

As you say, gun violence requires both a violent person and a gun. But violence only requires a violent person. Fists or feet or a rock (see the story of Cain and Abel) will do if a violent person does not have access to a gun. According to the FBI more people are killed with blunt objects then are killed with assault rifles. Violent people will find ways to be violent.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....17/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11.xls

And how do we control guns?
How is the Second Amendment a problem?

What would be effective gun control and how would it change the gun violence problem?

What type of laws do you see being effective?

I hope I am not being closed minded or prejudging you.

I would be interested in:
1) Your opinion on how to solve the problem of violence.
2) What you see being accomplished with repeal of the Second Amendment.
3) What would be your ultimate goal with regard to firearms.

 

Okay since you aren't being a dick about it......

The NRA liked to sight Switzerland as a country with high gun ownership and low gun crime. It is low compared to us but they have the highest gun violence and suicide rate in the EU, also something the NRA fails to mention are their gun laws. It is difficult to get a concealed carry permit for example. You have to show cause, working security for example, and you have to pass a test. Rules the NRA would take to court in the name of 2 A. So any gun restrictions would be fought in the name of 2 A and that is what would be accomplished with the (unlikely) repeal.

I was standing in line at my local barbecue carry out this summer and this 20 something black kid in front of me who looked normal otherwise had a handgun in the front pocket of his jeans with an extended magazine. He probably had a permit to carry (I didn't ask) but it did change the mood of those in line and it may, unnecessarily, change the outcome of any confrontation he encounters.

So I am all for restrictive carry permits and a ban on large capacity magazines but they may not do much for violent crime. Violent crime with legal guns usually occurs in the home along with suicides, which are double the gun deaths for other reasons. But what right-wingers are most interested in is how to stop violent gun crime with illegal firearms without affecting the rights of legal gun owners. It ain't possible.

To fire a gun you need a bullet. Anyone can buy as many rounds as they can afford on ammotogo.com.
How many rounds do you need per year in the name of "self defense"? 20-25, but you want to practice. Like Switzerland, they have registered gun ranges that sell you as many rounds as you need for practice, but you leave with an empty gun.

I would propose all legally purchased guns be registered and you can only buy restricted quantities of ammo for those guns and the ammo is tagged and the buyer is legally responsible for the ammo. You cannot buy ammo for an unregistered gun. Also legal gun buying would be restricted "to a reasonable level" and tracked to prevent strawman purchases.

Perfect? No, but what is?

 

Expecting you, in a debate setting, to tell us what you want and demonstrate its necessity and efficacy is being a dick?
My aren't YOU a delicate little lower?

So, again: you admit the unnecessary and ineffective restrictions violate the 2nd Amendment and infringe on the rights of the law abiding
That the 2nd Amercement stops you from doing exactly what the 2nd was put in place to stop you from doing in not a rational, reasoned argument for its repeal -- in fact, it only proves the necessity of the 2nd.

How does your irrational fear, and that of others, demonstrate the necessity for and efficacy of the repeal of the 2nd?

Ah. You seek restrictions on the rights of the law abiding not because they will have any effect on violent crime, but because they will make you feel better.
How do your delicate sensibilities trump my rights?

423,000,000 guns in the US, and about 20k are used each year to commit suicide. What's the math on that?
Beyond that, for every gun-related suicide, at least 4.5 guns are used in self-defense - what happens to that ratio if you get your way?

If so, then the rights of the law abiding take precedence -- for there is no sound, rational, reasoned argument for unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the right o keep and bear arms.

Limits on the number of guns and the amount of ammunition you can have violates the constitution in the same manner as a limit in the number of times you can go to church, post on your blog and have an abortion --- such restrictions arbitrary, capricious, unnecessary, and ineffective.

You cannot demonstrate the necessity and efficacy of the state having on record the owner of each of the 423,000,000 guns in the US; registration is an unnatural impediment to the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms and thus infringes upon same.

And so, we're back to you and your inability to demonstrate the necessity for and efficacy of the restrictions you seek -- all you have done is demonstrate is your understanding that the 2nd Amendment prevents you from laying these infringements upon the RKBA.