Times when you hate to be right...

Quit stalling.....the chronology of the posts shows YOU making a statement, and I challenged you to provide valid, documented proof to that statement. The burden of proof is on you.....no proof coupled with your repetition makes you a liar. So unitl you put up proof or concede to error, the conversation does not jump to some subtext of your liking. I'll wait.

 

And yet gun bans work in other countries.

Funny.

 

TYPICAL SLANDER & EVASION

What part of: "Totalitarian regimes prohibit private gun ownership." are you incapable of grasping?

Are you really so ignorant of history that I need to list the dictators that have incrementally banned private gun ownership precisely with schemes like yours?

I guess so.

 

Post #225 contains the link that proves you wrong. Dead wrong. If you don’t like that link, it has links within it for you to follow up on. Yell all you want. You are wrong and repeatedly calling me a liar isn’t helping your cause. But that’s a good thing. Carry on.

 

TYPICAL SLANDER & EVASION describes Grau's tactics to a T. All the reader has to do is look at the previous exchange to see that I'm right on this:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...te-to-be-right.561198/page-13#post-1071034086

And since gun control laws in the USA have NEVER lead to the situations alluded to by all right wing gun wonks, Grau's tactic is patently false. Also, here's a list of industrial nations that have gun control laws (but no fascist or theocratic or oligarch or communist governments) and function quite well: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/15/so-america-this-is-how-you-do-gun-control

So get off the smoke train Grau....either provide proof of your statement or concede the point. I'll wait.

 

Post #227 lays that smokescreen to rest. And to date you have STILL not answered the following:
So tell me, exactly what federal law in the last 70 years regarding gun regulation and control has resulted in a generalized confiscation of legally bought weapons? Since when has this country devolved into Nazi Germany (well, one could argue that the Trump presidency is a start, but that's for another discussion)? Should be an easy thing to document, if all you assert is true. I'll wait.

I'm still waiting.

 

Post #227 is completely irrelevant to our discussion. The colt ar-15 being on any list has no bearing on any of this.

I’ve never discussed confiscation, nazis, Trump, etc. with you so nice try.

If weapons in existence before the 1994 fed AWB had not been grandfathered and allowed to be transferred you would have a case. But they were. Give it up.

 

APPLES TO ORANGES

What more proof do you need that totalitarian states begin their road to dictatorships by incremental gun bans?

Now, our acerbic gun banner wants to compare the US to nations that are entirely different to the US while none of these distant, smaller & less populated nations have anything like America's 2nd Amendment.
Its a common yet disingenuous ploy by gun banners & other enemies of our Constitution to cherry pick homicide rates in so called "industrialized" or "developed" countries to the US while none of these countries are anything like the US.

"The Mistake of Only Comparing US Murder Rates to "Developed" Countries"
https://mises.org/wire/mistake-only-...oped-countries

EXCERPT " Note, however, that these comparisons always employ a carefully selected list of countries, most of which are very unlike the United States.
They are countries that were settled long ago by the dominant ethnic group, they are ethnically non-diverse today, they are frequently very small countries (such as Norway, with a population of 5 million) with very locally based democracies (again, unlike the US with an immense population and far fewer representatives in government per voter).
Politically, historically, and demographically, the US has little in common with Europe or Japan.

The US has the highest murder rate in the "developed world" — presumably because of its lax guns laws —we are told again and again.

Few people who repeat this mantra have any standard in their heads of what exactly is the "developed" world. They just repeat the phrase because they have learned to do so." CONTINUED


If draconian gun laws and absolute gun bans worked in reducing homicides, they should work everywhere but they don't as over 80 countries around the globe have higher homicide rates than the US (1) and they all have draconian gun laws or absolute gun bans.

Why are you unable to grasp the simple concept that human behavior cannot be controlled by attempting to regulate inanimate objects?


(1) "Intentional homicides (per 100,000 people) - Country Ranking"
https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5/rankings

 

You and your compadres all swore that the AR-15 was NEVER on the 1994 AWB list. I provided documented, valid proof to the contrary (your moot recitation non-withstanding) and you STILL don't have the intellectual honesty to concede the point. Sad.

And you are correct, it was Grau that started blathering about confiscation. My bad.

 

I never swore the AR-15 wasn’t on the ban list. All I did was counter your claim pre ban weapons wouldn’t have been available post ban or after the ban was lifted or even if the ban had remained in place. What was on the list was never any concern of mine. I can’t concede something you make up out of whole cloth.

 

You are either knowingly misrepresenting what I wrote or are confused. I stated time and again that had the 1994 AWB ban been in effect, the recent mass shootings would NOT have been able to purchase those weapons....and the AR-15 has periodically been the weapon of choice for a number of mass shootings in the last 20 years, legally purchased anew by the shooters. A matter of fact, a matter of history.

 

Let’s try another angle. Do you think an AR-15 type weapon would be rejected by a mass shooter because it had a crowned muzzle instead of a threaded muzzle? Do you think a mass shooter would adopt a kitten at the local pound instead of committing murder if he couldn’t use a weapon with an adjustable stock? Do you think a mass shooter would not buy an AR-15 unless it was brand new, in box, and unfired? Nothing about your argument is logical.

 

No, let's not try to replace FACTS with a bunch of silly "what if's" and "suppose that". Let's stay focused on the matter of history and facts that you don't like because they don't fit your political/social beliefs and agendas.

Let's just cut through the insipid stubbornness and intellectual dishonesty that rabid gun advocates just love to use in conjunction with NRA talking points. If you still don't get it, I'll dumb it down for you: To date you cannot prove that all the newly purchased AR-15's in the last 20 years (legally after the sunset of the 1994 AWB) of mass shootings were modified as you say. Why would they be, as the sellers no longer had to use loopholes for sales?

The chronology of the posts clearly shows valid, documented support of what I state, making my proposal and statements all the more valid. And as the reader can see, your myopic viewpoints coupled with supposition and conjecture just don't cut it. But you insipid stubbornness will no doubt influence your next response. So unless you have a new angle or accusation, I'd say we're done here.

 

The facts are as I originally stated.

There is no debate. Please find someone you know and trust to explain your error. And I will never be done with this. It’s too important to my life and the life of our country.

 

All you've done is just display insipid stubbornness by parroting previous posts that were already addressed and dismantled logically and factually. Then your final salvo is a flag waving fog? Like the man said, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. You're right about one thing, YOU have no debate to give.

You're done, son. Adios.

 

Cool. You’ve been a great help.

 

So let me get this straight...countries that American's have considered the "third world", countries that have been embroiled in tribal and civil war/unrest or border wars for decades (sometimes generations) can be put on a comparison basis with the USA because they have homicides (under the most broad use of the term)? And we STILL beat out the people on the list I provided! Also we beat out Libya, Cuba and a couple of other pips. If this latest ploy of yours was an attempt to disprove me earlier deconstruction of your dodge, it ain't help'in ya!

But seriously, Grau, why can't you answer a simple question? Here it is again from Post #301: … exactly what federal law in the last 70 years regarding gun regulation and control has resulted in a generalized confiscation of legally bought weapons? Since when has this country devolved into Nazi Germany (well, one could argue that the Trump presidency is a start, but that's for another discussion)? Should be an easy thing to document, if all you assert is true. I'll wait.

 

What purpose does saying "I'll wait." serve when you won't answer my one simple question?

Why are you unable to grasp the simple concept that human behavior cannot be controlled by attempting to regulate inanimate objects?

Your logically flawed assertion is essentially that just because there have been no generalized confiscations of legally bought weapons in America for the last 70 years that generalized confiscations can't happen here.

There were no generalized firearms confiscations in Germany for longer than that until there suddenly were generalized confiscations under Germany's National Socialists.

Using your same flawed logic, drivers who have not had an accident in 70 years can stop wearing seat belts because if an accident hasn't happened in 70 years, it can't/won't happen.

 

Grau, do you realize that your convoluted logic, supposition and conjecture just doesn't cut? The chronology of the posts clearly shows you making a statement, to which I simply requested proof to back up your claim. The burden of proof was and is on you. Yet to date, you've provided NO valid, documentation to support your claim. Instead of just conceding that you were wrong, you instead answer a question with some postulated, revisionist nonsense in an attempt to cover your folly. That a makes you, Grau, intellectually dishonest in a debate.

NRA clods and their parrots have been pushing the mantra that ANY gun control laws are a slippery slope to general gun confiscation....many have claimed small actions of this have occured in our history. I asked for the federal law that did so....you can't produce such. All you can do is just spew version of NRA induced paranoia. Pathetic.

Clearly, you got nothing but insipid stubbornness to offer, which is a waste of my time and the readers. You're done.

 

Your arrogance & reliance on slander is rivaled only by your ignorance of history.

Do you really think that anyone pays attention to your twisted Post-after-Post linguistic machinations?

No, they don't

The slippery slope so often derided by ignorant gun banners has occurred over and over throughout history and around the globe.
Your attempts to obfuscate that reality only reveals a gross intellectual dishonesty or a pathetic ignorance of history's lessons and I'm not interested enough in you to find out which.

Indeed, I'm done with you.