Conservatives in favor of gun control

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by LeConservateur, Dec 23, 2011.

  1. RevAnarchist

    RevAnarchist New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,848
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not at all, I do admit that I do present my doctrine (dogma), not to hide from the evidence but to educate you. My doctrine (beliefs) are the same or nearly the same as millions of other firearm proponents (for example NRA membership is 4 million).

    I have repeatedly admitted that my my good buddies (10-4 good buddies?) ie firearms advocates do not agree with your final assessment concerning firearm control. We may and that is a huge may agree with some details of your claims, but taken as a whole they fail. Even if you could live in a perfect anti firearm gun phobic, testosterone challenged Orwellian society (the UK comes close) the conclusion of your argument would fail due being too subjective. That is a given before we even consider the first shred of your so called evidence. To be considered worthy of critical review you must validate your claims that your conclusions do not rest on assumptions and subjectivity. You have not accomplished that.

    Another bait eh? "An evidence-based approach, embracing individualism(?)* at the same time, is so much more straight-forward" than what???

    One more time; What is a an ACCEPTABLE social cost in the UK is not so in the USA. We realize the risk of firearms, and accept those risks acceptable. Is that too difficult to understand? I am saying that what is good in NYC socialites is not good with a tribe of Papua New Guinea last cannibals. BTW they say Japanese people taste best!

    * individualism is not freedom nor is it in our constitution or the bill or rights! Freedom is. In fact in our country individualism may be challenged in certain cases. An small group of gun owners may not have a world popular agenda, or even a USA popular agenda. However in the USA that small group is protected by the Constitution. So statistics of deaths per guns is not relevant in the USA. We value the FREEDOM to EXERCISE OUR GOD AND CONSTITUTIONAL GIVEN RIGHTS over the UK's fear of firearms. So your argument FAILS in the USA. I have said that in every conceivable way, and you have avoid replying to that in every conceivable way.

    Rev A
     
  2. RevAnarchist

    RevAnarchist New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,848
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    0
    At least there is some movement there.


    (1) No you are not looking at the big picture. Your idea of gun control no matter how accurate the figures are is subjective. Guns are worth the risk here in the USA. Maybe in UK they are not. That is where the subjectivity lies, its that simple.


    BS, it does not matter Reiver. See (1).

    Wrong see (1)

    It's about whats good for your country is not good for mine.

    Then if that is true I and our population, via lawful agreement AND OUR CONSTITUTION (not coercive preference) is in favor of what you call deadweight loss. You have the right in this country to express yourself and your ideas. I welcome that. But that is where it stops. You would if empowered inflict your idea of gun control. Luckily, ya all have absolutely no right to interfere with a sovereign nations government and its people. I truly detest the UN and the so called world opinion that is usually anti USA anti freedom and pro global homogenization. That would be a true Orwellian nightmare and I want no part of it.

    Additionally I am in favor of my constitutional rights, you and yours have none in the UK. That's why you and your countrymen had to bend over and take it when your own KING seized and destroyed with your some of your populations ok (yeah right) personal property. By personal property I mean handguns and rifles, whats next your automobiles ? Lastly you and your ilk are in favor of draconian totalitarianism i.e. If enabled you would force the world to adopt your ideas of optimal gun (people control). I call that slavery, and I say that let each country choose its poison. If the UK wants to remain nut-less so be it. I like my freedoms and have my countries god given right to keep my nuts unlike your countries king dom. [sic]

    Rev A
     
  3. marbro

    marbro New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2011
    Messages:
    1,581
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I disagree with your statement "the original purpose was to prevent a foreign invasion of the US at a time when no national army existed"

    I argue that the ligature of the day had gun ownership as a means of survival; A tool that common people had a right to. Even the English recognized the right of the common people to bear arms under the English Declaration of Rights of 1689.

    I guess the real argument when it comes to guns from liberals seems to be concerning the wording of the second amendment.

    Liberals do not feel this is referring to individuals even though all the rest of the bill of rights does......

    I believe the founders put the second amendment in to protect us from ourselves and not just from foreign invaders.
     
  4. RevAnarchist

    RevAnarchist New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,848
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Here is the deal. In the USA we have a legal instrument called the constitution*. The most recent ruling of this living or dead document, which makes no difference in this discussion excepting perhaps theory is that we the citizens of the USA have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. That ruling alone pretty well states the intent of our countries founding fathers and today law depend on it! To tell the truth I thought Obama would be the end our lenient firearm laws and rights, however the bush administration did insert some goodies on the bench eh?

    Rev A


    Notes... * I am somewhat of an originalist surprise surprise ! What is constitutional originalism? As per wiki;

    In the context of United States constitutional interpretation, originalism is a principle of interpretation that tries to discover the original meaning or intent of the constitution.[citation needed] It is based on the principle that the judiciary is not supposed to create, amend or repeal laws (which is the realm of the legislative branch) but only to uphold them.[citation needed] The term is a neologism,[citation needed] and the concept is a formalist theory of law and a corollary of textualism.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism

    Good pro con site; http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/interp.html
     
  5. RevAnarchist

    RevAnarchist New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,848
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Good post Marbro. I feel that our founding fathers were firearm friendly for several reasons. Back in the 1700's etc going for a walk in the woods outside of NYC was very dangerous depending on how far you walked. Dem injuins' bars' and such dangerous critters made some of those areas their home, and they did not tolerate those funny looking white trespassers. We had just or were in the process of Kicking the Kings arse and his soldiers off OUR nations soil and back to a defeated England. A heavily armed militia was a requirement that near everyone welcomed. I live where the over the mountain men gathered to slaughter the English general Cornwallie' (mine, rev triva). The founding fathers did fear that the government would get too powerful and attempt to resort back to the slavery of King led monarchy etc. or attempt other designs of government overthrow. So heavily armed citizens were a buffer against such designs of would be coup dreamers. So back then as now Guns equaled freedom and were a tool.

    Many of those concerns are valid today. However as per the ruling of the supreme court and the mild pro firearm atmosphere that exists today in the USA Reivers and possibly Dancts quaint ideas of gun control are valid only as theory and discussion fodder. It has no place in the real world. Our idea here in the USA of gun control is as the NRA tells us is hitting what we are aiming at!

    Rev A
     
  6. drj90210

    drj90210 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Grow up. It was merely a simple analogy explaining your specious reasoning.

    Wrong. You supplied random data with ZERO controls. You cannot just cite the "gun-related death" rate of a few counties and jump to a conclusion no more than John can look at his friends getting mauled by a bear and jump to the conclusion that his lucky rabbit's foot protected him from the bear.

    You are indeed trying and failing, but it has been MY pleasure to show you the error of your ways. You are welcome.

    *Sigh* :roll: Not only are you using the SAME specious reasoning, but you cite stats from a MAJOR ANTIGUN WEBSITE (VPC.com), and it only looks at gun-related deaths (as if death via any other cause is a better outcome).

    Since you are clearly out of your league here, let me assist you: Check out http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html. It comes from the 2006 US Census Bureau (rather than a biased anti-gun website). In it you will find that the District of Columbia has, by far, the highest violent crime rating, with a rate doubling that of the next more violent state, South Carolina. At this time, Washington D.C. had a handgun ban amongst many other gun controls. If you go down the list, you will see no correlation between gun availability and violent crime. For instance, Utah is one of the least restrictive in terms of gun laws, and it is ranks #45 on the list. California, on the other hand, has one of the strictest gun control policies in the nation, and it ranks #14.

    I'll take it a step further and look at only murder rates (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state). Clearly, again, there is no correlation between lax gun control states and higher murder rates.

    Are you finally understanding?
     
  7. RevAnarchist

    RevAnarchist New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,848
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ohhh' noooo'.... more statistic land stuff! Forget it, the last bastion of gun control in the USA. We have already been empowered to satisfy and manifest OUR, anti gun control pro firearm idea of gun control. By that I mean the USA is gun friendly due to our highest court and the NRA,,,ha ha eh?

    Rev A
     
  8. drj90210

    drj90210 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Are you saying that Switzerland's gun control laws are the same as the United Kingdom's? As France's? Spain's? This would be absurd: They have their own laws regarding gun control, and they mimic those of the United States much more closely than they do other European nations.

    Can a regular citizen do THIS in any other European country other than Switzerland?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Caroline-Migros-p1000507.jpg

    You know that you're wrong here, and it seems that this is just another example of you arguing for the sake of arguing.
     
  9. drj90210

    drj90210 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Pure jargon without substance. The fact remains that we did indeed have a national army in 1791.

    We do not know if it could or could not have stood up to a foreign army, since it was not tested until 1812. Hence, this is pure irrelevant speculation on your part.

    No. I'm saying you SHOULDN'T disregard Federalist Paper#28, which explained the need for the right to bear arms for self defense.
     
  10. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm simply able to maintain objectivity and you cannot understand it

    Nope. Its a correction of market failure and no subjectivity is applied. Again, to have any relevant critique (given the Coase Theorem is irrelevant) you're totally reliant on denying the importance of supply and demand.

    You're arguing that your constitution favours irrationality. Its not an argument that I find convincing, but it does seem to be a popular one amongst the NRA types
     
  11. Danct

    Danct New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0


    News flash..........I just referred to that very thing.





    The Opinion that you are referring to is the determinate of our current law, but it does NOT necessarily mean that they properly used the Framers 'intent' as to this.




    A distinction without a distinction, I'm afraid. Your position requires that you believe that the positions of others do not account for the original intent of the framers. This is a somewhat naive and misinformed premise. If you read "Heller", you'll see that the dissenters Opinions are far closer to Historical accuracy than the converse.
     
  12. Danct

    Danct New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0


    If you are so certain of your premise, then please show us the Swiss gun laws compared to France's. Then we can compare both to ours. You might be disappointed with the results, but get busy now. Bluster is no replacement for facts.
     
  13. Danct

    Danct New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0


    This conversation was about "intent", not about hypotheticals. If you refer to our history, you will see that our citizens had a deep distrust of standing national armies. We had just won our independence from England who had welded this very oppressive thing against us to our detriment. The preference for most at that time was a citizen army of citizen militias. Since that time we have seen the folly of that position, but it does not change the facts of their intent.
     

Share This Page