Rational discourse on gun control

For those of you who seek additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding, I challenge you to a rational discourse on the issue.

To this end, please...
1: State the gun control law you seek (You probably should limit this to just one)
2: Define the problem you seek to correct with this law
3: Demonstrate that this law will indeed correct the problem you define.
4: Explain how, under current jurisprudence, this law does not create an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms
5: Do not resort to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty (Fallacies, after all, are irrational)

Please begin

 

No one? Really?

 

You are too restrictive. If they follow the guidelines the anti-gun crowd can't reply because all they got is "emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty."

 

Huh. Had not considered that.

 

1. Treat every firearm as if it is loaded - every time, all the time.
2. Never point the muzzle of a firearm at anything you do not intend to destroy.
3. Do not put your finger on the trigger until you are absolutely certain of your target.
4. Do not squeeze the trigger until you are are absolutely certain of what is behind your target.
5. Do not burn down someone's neighborhood because someone who looks like you got shot by the police after he pointed a gun at them.

The irresponsible use of firearms, and the idiocy and mass hysteria that ensues thereafter.

Well, it ought to keep some neighborhoods from burning.

On the contrary, it strengthens it!

Did you know that most shootings occur because guns have the magical ability to load themselves, aim themselves, and pull their own triggers? Also, the AR-14 needs to be banned because it can fire 800 rounds per minute and nobody needs that for deer hunting. Now whale hunting? Maybe I would grant a special AR-14 permit for that, but I would limit magazine capacity to one round so you would have to have 800 magazines and really really fast hands to fire 800 rounds per minute.

 

1. Gun regulators should be at least nominally educated on the design, function, & use of firearms.
2. The main problem with so called "rational" gun laws are that the proposals are founded in abject ignorance of the guns to be regulated.
3. While it might not completely correct the problem, education should eliminate some of the blantant misunderstandings & fallacies inherent in the current gun debate.
4. Education of regulators doesn't prevent your right to keep and bear arms.
5. Okay.

 

So wait, do you mean to tell me the AR-14 can't fire 800 rounds per minute?

 

Only in a movie

 

Hmh. Somebody'd better tell this guy then: http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...ando-democrat-alan-grayson-700-rounds-minute/

 

No one? Really?

 

You have to remember that the left is all about causes and in their sphere having a cause elevates one's social status within that sphere.This is the perfect group to appeal to to promote a given agenda. All it takes is pop culture approval and that is easily manipulated by the media.So it doesn't really matter what the cause du jour is so long as it has some hip cool quality to it kind of like getting a piercing or a tattoo and about as meaningful. These folks don't even need to understand what it is they're against just ask one to explain and it all falls apart. Our government's mission is to seize all firearms that is a demonstrable fact, they have already set the stage incrementally and over time by promoting gun control. Here in the People's Republic of Massachusetts our lefty AG unilaterally banned "assault weapons" without consulting the state's legislature who by the way are supposed to be the ones making the laws. You will not get a rational discourse from the left because there is none.What bothers me most about this is that these useful idiots are willingly aiding and abetting the destruction of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution in it's entirety.

 

How about universal background checks so that every gun transaction has a record and proper paperwork

How about a ban on magazines over 10 rounds

A ban on assault weapons

How about holding back gun purchases from people on medication for mental illness?

How about keeping people with restraining orders from buying guns....

These are all sane measures that the majority of Americans support

 

There is nothing rational about gun ownership when not directly related to one's work (farmer, law enforcement, etc). Therefore there is no rational discourse to be had. The culture of gun fetishism is an aberration unique to America. Enculturated fetishes are not rational, they're emotional.

 

There is no rational discourse when "controllers" and "Federal supremicists" start at infringing on your rights, mine, or anyone else's.

 

Prepare to be personally attacked

 

That's not true. Hunting is and always has been a great activity. You may not like it but that's your preference.

I "get' target shooting ( I like trap a lot). I'm not a huge fan but many are

- - - Updated - - -

Oh I know...

 

No you Statist. Why don't you control your own life instead of using the government to control the lives of others?

(1) You don't need background checks to exercise your rights.

(2) All you need is one round to kill someone. Heck all you need is an inch of water to kill someone.

(3) Assault weapons? What weapon is not used to assault others? I can assault you and your family with rocks, arrows, fire, my bare hands and feet, et cetera. Assault weapon, please. That's just an even wider door for you infringers to deny people their rights.

(4) The mentally I'll should not have their rights revoked. Who's to decide who's mental? I might think you're mental from the stuff you're proposing but I would not deny.you your rights.

(5) How about retrain them from getting work so they can't get any weapons?

(6) The majority of Americans are idiots on this.

 

I would classify hunting for food as 'work', though. Like farming and law enforcement. Our indigenous people (and I'm sure the same applies in other countries) have special privileges in this regard because they are traditionally hunters.

And target shooting should be legal, obviously. Within the confines of the range .... where the only people at risk are those electing to be there.

 

What range can we put you on to keep you from putting us at risk from your civil liberty infringement crusade?

 

The 'liberty' to keep firearms in the family home is the furthest thing from civil that I can imagine. A civil society does not live in such overwhelming fear that only the easy ability to kill allows sleep at night. We aren't in the cave anymore.

 

Why does overwhelming fear have to be the criteria for bearing arms? I don't think it should be. It's a natural right. Some people are literally and figuratively still in caves. Yet since this overwhelming fear does not have a place in civil society when are you going to seek to put an end to law enforcement, security, bodyguards, and other some such? One thing that has not changed with people, we are not angels.

 

If I can get a gatling gun with a suppressor from the local shop.it's all good.
I don't even want any frag grenades.
Yet I should be able to get them if I wanted.

 

The OP established a framework for responding. Yet, I don't see that you have provided a response within that framework. What's the matter? You don't like playing by the rules? If you can't bring yourself to follow such simple guidelines, how do you expect criminals to follow your proposed laws? If your goal is not limiting criminal activity with guns, then it can only be to restrict which law abiding citizens can exercise their 2nd Amendment Rights.

 

You failed to follow directions.
Please do try again

- - - Updated - - -

Fallacious hyperbole will get you nowhere.

- - - Updated - - -

Still no takers.
Amazing.

 

Correction: Every legal gun transaction by law-abiding citizens. No background check required to buy a hot roscoe in the alley behind the strip club...

So law-abiding citizens will turn in their high-capacity magazines. Do you think the criminals will turn in theirs?

What purpose would that serve?

Just go down to the alley behind the local strip club in that case...

See above.

You just made that statistic up.

What I find interesting about your suggestions is not a single one address behavior of bad people and what we should do about that. You think placing further restrictions on inanimate objects will lessen the potential of bad actors to inflict harm. You are wrong. Bad actors are by definition bad. You want to reduce violence? Get rid of the bad actors. But this is a society that does not like to hold people accountable for their actions, so instead you suggest punitive measures that will only effect people who are the least likely to commit acts of violence.

My version of gun control? You can legally purchase any gun you want if you are not a felon nor mentally adjudicated. But if you ever commit a crime with a gun, you are gone. Out of my society forever. Life in prison with no parole. Here is a short list of what I would consider committing a crime with a gun...

• Murdering someone.
• Sticking up a liquor store, 7-11, or a bank... whether you pull the trigger or not.
• Possessing a firearm when you are not eligible based on the above criteria.
• Threatening someone with a gun.
• Breaking into someone's home with a gun on your person - loaded or not.
• Brandishing a firearm to inflict fear or terror.
• Shooting up a school.
• Shooting up a dance club.
• Shooting up a community center.
• Participating in a drive-by shooting.
• Pointing a gun at a police officer - loaded or not.

You do any of those things and you have demonstrated to my satisfaction that you can not be trusted with the awesome responsibility that comes with living in a nation of free people.

That is gun control my friend.