The Gun Control Debate Thread

[TheGreatBuzz]

3 hours ago, No Excuses said:

 

Please talk in facts and not your feelings. You say a bunch of nonsense, don’t cite anything to back it up and then assume we should take your seriously.  

 

3 hours ago, Simmsy said:

It seems to me that for gun rights advocates, their argument or reasons for wanting a gun come down to two things: "Its my right!" and "I need to protect my family". Now how come your right to own a gun is more important than my right to go to the grocery store and not get my head blown off? Why is your right to own a gun more important than the right for someone to peacefully pray at their house of worship or children at school? This argument now sounds selfish and ignorant to me. Your wants and needs are now more important than the lives and safety of every other American in this country? Not very patriotic.

 

I'm also sick of people needing to protect their families with guns. If you want to keep a gun in your house to protect keep your family safe, I can completely understand that reasoning. However, people who buy guns in case of an apocalypse or in case they need to overthrow the government...you're insane. 

 

I would also like to add that if you feel the need to take a gun on your hip everywhere you go, you're also whackjob and shouldn't have a gun. I understand that certain people actually need more protection (politicians/celebrities/judges/cops/etc), but regular "Joe Schmo" doesn't need a gun at all times. I'm almost 35 years old and I've never once needed a gun, there was one time where I could've legally shot someone, but even that ended up with no one getting hurt. If you saw someone wearing a helmet and elbow pads everywhere just in case they fell down, you would think of them as unhinged. Just so you know, I've fallen down WAY more than I've ever needed a gun. Go buy a helmet, people.

Seeing these post so close together makes me laugh.  

 

And from what I've seen of the posts over the last few hours, you are all wrong.  

[crabbypatty]

13 hours ago, Berggy9598 said:

Purely out of curiosity, who are The Criminals? What do they look like? Do they have a striped shirt and a robber mask? Do they speak in a 1940s street slang Italian accent and say the word see after every sentence? I know, they have face tattoos and speak Spanish right? Remind me when a gang member or someone in a striped shirt and robber mask shot up a school. These "criminals" are nothing more than a boogeyman. Mass shootings are committed by guys you couldn't pick out of a lineup right up until the moment they commit mass murder. 

That's the point. People aren't criminals until they are. So who gets to decide who is or isn't "fit" to carry or own a gun? Just treat everyone as a criminal and problem solved?

The solution should be disarm everyone and create more victims? Look at the big cities with the strictest gun laws, many of them have sky high violent crime rates/murder etc.

Hell look at the DC/Baltimore area. They are routinely near the top of the list when it comes to murders per year, property crimes, violent crimes etc.

 

If the "criminals" are nothing more than a boogeyman, then why the push to ban everything?

 

Edited March 19, 2019 by crabbypatty

[Burgold]

2 minutes ago, crabbypatty said:

That's the point. People aren't criminals until they are. So who gets to decide who is or isn't "fit" to carry or own a gun?

 

So, a person who has proven to be a clear and present danger to themselves and others with severe chronic mental health problems is fit to own a gun? A two year old is fit to own a gun? How about someone with extreme mental retardation? What about foreigners visiting short term on a passport or visa? How about foreigners who sneak across the border without visa, passport or permission? The hundreds of illegal alien Trump employees working at his golf clubs, hotels, resorts and sweat shops? 

 

Are there no lines ever?

[crabbypatty]

14 minutes ago, Burgold said:

So, a person who has proven to be a clear and present danger to themselves and others with severe chronic mental health problems is fit to own a gun? A two year old is fit to own a gun? How about someone with extreme mental retardation? What about foreigners visiting short term on a passport or visa? How about foreigners who sneak across the border without visa, passport or permission? The hundreds of illegal alien Trump employees working at his golf clubs, hotels, resorts and sweat shops? 

 

Are there no lines ever?

To your first point, with all these new "red flag" laws, all it takes is an accusation in some states to get your guns taken away and be treated as guilty until proven innocent.

In this age of "swatting" over video games and other dumb ****, some hysterical housewife or soyboy can say "I saw x with a gun, and thought he was acting funny, or he looked at me oddly while carrying a gun and I feared for my life". With just that accusation, and with no due process, the cops just show up, take your property and toss you in jail. THAT's the kind of society you're advocating for?

That won't be abused, because nobody ever gets swatted, right? Slippery slope.

 

to the 2nd bolded part, the 2a does not apply to those people, they are the rights of the AMERICAN citizens. You ever buy a gun? fill out a 4473 and do a background check? If you had you'd see the questions dealing with that. If people lie, by all means throw the book at them.

 

Wtf does trump have to do with this?

your orange man bad is showing.

Edited March 19, 2019 by crabbypatty

[Burgold]

14 minutes ago, crabbypatty said:

 

to the 2nd bolded part, the 2a does not apply to those people, they are the rights of the AMERICAN citizens.

 

 

I think you are incorrect. The courts have asserted that our Constitutional rights extend to foreigners, but regardless, in your answer you are conceding that the 2nd is not absolute nor do you want it to be though you think some of the limitations are already abusive. However, more hopefully, if we can at least agree that our gun rights should be limited we can start having an honest argument about how they should be limited.

 

Let's start with no individual right to own nukes because if your belief in our right to bare arms includes nukes... this conversation can't go anywhere.

 

Maybe we could even agree to allow better communication between health agencies and those conducting background checks and to allow confidentiality workarounds so that people with a history of severe mental illness are more likely to be flagged and have their access to firearms restricted?

[crabbypatty]

31 minutes ago, Burgold said:

I think you are incorrect. The courts have asserted that our Constitutional rights extend to foreigners, but regardless, in your answer you are conceding that the 2nd is not absolute nor do you want it to be though you think some of the limitations are already abusive. However, more hopefully, if we can at least agree that our gun rights should be limited we can start having an honest argument about how they should be limited.

 

Let's start with no individual right to own nukes because if your belief in our right to bare arms includes nukes... this conversation can't go anywhere.

 

Maybe we could even agree to allow better communication between health agencies and those conducting background checks and to allow confidentiality workarounds so that people with a history of severe mental illness are more likely to be flagged and have their access to firearms restricted?

I think the ATF would say otherwise when it comes to firearms and foreigners. They allow some to purchase, but for the majority it's against the law.

 

As for limiting weapons, they already are. Lets look at DC v Heller (Which has been famously ignored by DC, but that's for another time)

In that the court opined that the 2a protected weapons "in common use by law abiding citizens". I think we can all agree that AR15's fit that qualification.

It did uphold the prohibition on "dangerous and unusual weapons" like short barreled shotguns, short barreled rifles, etc. (however those can be had with a tax stamp and a fairly short wait these days.. eforms rock)

So yes, I agree that nukes are a nonstarter, as they are not common use. Same with rpg's, mortars, etc.

As for better communication, great. I'm all for it. However it should be within the existing framework of the laws already on the books, not adding more laws that get more and more oppressive with each iteration.

 

When it comes to arbitrary banning of features that look or sound scary, that's where I draw the line. It's like the guy I got into it with earlier about at least knowing what he's talking about. It was painfully obvious he didn't, and many of the politicians like feinstein are simply pandering to their base or have a personal decades long crusade to fulfill.

They know nothing about what they're proposing, and that is what makes it so infuriating to gun owners. The hysteria, misinformation, disinformation, and flat out lies about guns and gun owners really drive us nuts, because if people weren't so lazy on the subject they could do a little research and at least have an idea of what they're talking about.

Edited March 19, 2019 by crabbypatty

[TheGreatBuzz]

37 minutes ago, crabbypatty said:

When it comes to arbitrary banning of features that look or sound scary, that's where I draw the line.

Good luck with that.  I've tried to make this point before.  I recently posted a picture of an AR and an M1A Scout with walnut stock.  People are going to want to ban the AR without even knowing a lot more damage could be done with the M1A in even moderatly capable hands.  People are always going to push the "scary looking weapon" ban.  

[Burgold]

26 minutes ago, crabbypatty said:

As for limiting weapons, they already are. Lets look at DC v Heller (Which has been famously ignored by DC, but that's for another time)

In that the court opined that the 2a protected weapons "in common use by law abiding citizens". I think we can all agree that AR15's fit that qualification.

It did uphold the prohibition on "dangerous and unusual weapons" like short barreled shotguns, short barreled rifles, etc. (however those can be had with a tax stamp and a fairly short wait these days.. eforms rock)

But doesn't that run contrary to the right to bare arms to form a militia to protect the nation from an invading military or a corrupt government? If we are only allowed to have weapons that are deemed "in common use" and not "dangerous or unusual" how is the militia supposed to have any chance at all.

 

If the firearm is only intended for self defense then that invites an entirely lesser class of weapons than weapons necessary for a militia. An automatic rifle is entirely unnecessary for self defense in most regions of the country, especially urban areas. This type of weapon is much better suited for offense than defense unless you are in a John Wayne movie and a storm of Injuns is coming over the hill or you're in a Red Dawn scenario.

 

Buzz's argument that the AR-15 is not the best offensive weapon for mass killings is interesting, however, even if he's correct then that definition of "dangerous" or "unusual" applies. More to the point, if this is the weapon of choice because of ease, adaptability to make it an even greater killing machine, than maybe it's more dangerous than a short barreled shot gun.

 

Though still less dangerous than a nuke.

 

Non the less, you agree that certain people In the United States should not be allowed to own guns. You further believe that certain classes of guns should not be available to the public. If that's the case, then the argument against limiting these weapons should be easier. The argument against bump stocks should be easier. The argument about whether someone needs hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammo or the ability to own more guns than their local police department ought to be one that can be had.

[Simmsy]

13 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

Seeing these post so close together makes me laugh.  

 

And from what I've seen of the posts over the last few hours, you are all wrong.  

I think you're missing the point, objective, subjective...it doesn't matter. The gun advocates don't respond to fact or emotion, I don't see the point in "debating" anymore. At some point someone is going to have to end the "conversation" and pass some effective gun control with or with the input of gun advocates.

[TheGreatBuzz]

3 minutes ago, Simmsy said:

The gun advocates don't respond to fact or emotion, I don't see the point in "debating" anymore.

You need to go back and read through this thread more.  There have been many worthwhile debates.  But making blanket statements like "The gun advocates don't respond to fact or emotion" doesn't exactly make anyone want to have a conversation with you.  I am very much a gun advocate.  I try to be open-minded and do a little give and take.  But from what I have seen, that is an anamoly.  Both sides are stuck on what they want and there is no reasonable comprimise.  

 

6 minutes ago, Simmsy said:

pass some effective gun control with or with the input of gun advocates.

If you are expecting our elected leaders to do anything, don't hold your breath.  For them, there can be no compromise.  I've also said before I question how much any politician really wants gun control "fixed".  Then they lose something major that they campaign on.  

[mcsluggo]

2 hours ago, crabbypatty said:

That's the point. People aren't criminals until they are. So who gets to decide who is or isn't "fit" to carry or own a gun? Just treat everyone as a criminal and problem solved?

The solution should be disarm everyone and create more victims? Look at the big cities with the strictest gun laws, many of them have sky high violent crime rates/murder etc.

Hell look at the DC/Baltimore area. They are routinely near the top of the list when it comes to murders per year, property crimes, violent crimes etc.

 

If the "criminals" are nothing more than a boogeyman, then why the push to ban everything?

 

 

 

is it compelling to point at DC, and strict gun purchase laws, as an example.... when Virginia is 100 yards away.  Virginia, home of the NRA.... where it is easier to buy a gun than it is to find whole-fat milk?   

 

 

that is an argument for why we need federal rules on guns, rather than local rules... because we have free movement across the non-borders between states and interstate commerce clauses that render local restrictions useless.   

[TheGreatBuzz]

5 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

that is an argument for why we need federal rules on guns,

I've made this argument several times.  Require some training and whatever (details to be hashed out) and get a federal carry permit.  Then states like MD and CA that are super restrictive need to be told to STFU and honor this new imaginary federal permit.

Edited March 19, 2019 by TheGreatBuzz

[twa]

36 minutes ago, Burgold said:

 

if this is the weapon of choice because of ease, adaptability to make it an even greater killing machine, than maybe it's more dangerous than a short barreled shot gun.

 

 

 

A short barrel shotgun is no more dangerous than a long one, it just allows concealment easier and gives a wider pattern (at lower force)

[crabbypatty]

5 minutes ago, Burgold said:

But doesn't that run contrary to the right to bare arms to form a militia to protect the nation from an invading military or a corrupt government? If we are only allowed to have weapons that are deemed "in common use" and not "dangerous or unusual" how is the militia supposed to have any chance at all.

 

It's been battled out in courts for quite awhile, the SC typically refuses to hear 2a cases, I think mostly because of the lasting impact it would have, either good or bad. Much of the law banning "dangerous and unusual" weapons date back to the NFA act of 1934. Because of the SC's reluctance to hear 2a cases, it has stood for 70+ years.

and by dangerous and unusual, that mostly deals with short barreled "easily concealed" weapons. It did also impose restrictions on suppressors.

 

Many like to focus on the word "militia" exclusively, but "the right of the people" often goes ignored. Many tend to define militia using a modern day understanding of what a militia would or should be. To me, it means the militia is necessary to the security of a free state, as well as the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Many assume it means the people have to be in a militia to exercise that right, but to me and many others it clearly reads the people have the right to keep and bear arms.

Personally I think the NFA is bull****, as well as the 86 mg ban. for reasons I'll detail below.

5 minutes ago, Burgold said:

If the firearm is only intended for self defense then that invites an entirely lesser class of weapons than weapons necessary for a militia. An automatic rifle is entirely unnecessary for self defense in most regions of the country, especially urban areas. This type of weapon is much better suited for offense than defense unless you are in a John Wayne movie and a storm of Injuns is coming over the hill or you're in a Red Dawn scenario.

Unfortunately it's a moot point due to the 86 mg ban. However, having fired plenty of fully automatic weapons (class 3 buddies) and 3 round burst m4's (Army) , I do agree it's not very practical, but not for the reasons you think. Ammo goes REAL fast in FA, and barrels get hot VERY quickly after a few mag dumps. Even with a light recoiling weapon like an AR, it's really hard to keep rounds on target after the first 5-7 shots. Just like the Army found out in Vietnam, it's a waste of ammo for the most part. Controlled, aimed shots are better imo. But FA is a bunch of fun to shoot.

5 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Buzz's argument that the AR-15 is not the best offensive weapon for mass killings is interesting, however, even if he's correct then that definition of "dangerous" or "unusual" applies. More to the point, if this is the weapon of choice because of ease, adaptability to make it an even greater killing machine, than maybe it's more dangerous than a short barreled shot gun.

He's right. It's not the best offensive weapon, but it's a convenient one. An ar15 with a 30 round magazine in a mass killing scenario is no more or less deadly than a glock pistol with a 33 round mag, or a mini-14 with 20-30rd mags, or a scorpion pistol, or any number of other guns with the same mag capacity. That seems to be the main sticking point of banners, the AR is scary looking and can hold 30 rounds.. Plenty of other guns can hold just as much if not more, and are more concealable and more "powerful" than a tiny .22 caliber bullet. Those other guns are just not used because AR mags are plentiful, and cheap, just like parts for AR rifles, they're available everywhere and you can frankenstein whatever you want really easily.

5 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Though still less dangerous than a nuke.

 

Non the less, you agree that certain people In the United States should not be allowed to own guns. You further believe that certain classes of guns should not be available to the public. If that's the case, then the argument against limiting these weapons should be easier. The argument against bump stocks should be easier. The argument about whether someone needs hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammo or the ability to own more guns than their local police department ought to be one that can be had.

If people have been judged mentally deficient then no, they should not be allowed. I think that certain classes SHOULD be available, the NFA and associated $200 tax stamp is bull****. especially with regard to suppressors.

as for needing hundreds or thousands of rounds, or tons of guns, it's not about NEED. If I want to have that much, and am a law abiding citizen, why should it be restricted? the 2a is not about NEED. Just like 1a is not about the NEED to speak more than a few paragraphs. it's a RIGHT. Why should you be allowed to speak more than a few sentences? Who needs that? "Need" needs to be taken out of the conversation entirely. RIGHTS are not about who needs how much of what, they're called inalienable rights for a reason. It really bugs me that people have been able to steer the conversation to need.

[mcsluggo]

18 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I've made this argument several times.  Require some training and whatever (details to be hashed out) and get a federal carry permit.  Then states like MD and CA that are super restrictive need to be told to STFU and honor this new imaginary federal permit.

 

or ...it need to be more restrictive than YOU like... leading to you being told to STFU... right? 

[crabbypatty]

23 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

 

 

is it compelling to point at DC, and strict gun purchase laws, as an example.... when Virginia is 100 yards away.  Virginia, home of the NRA.... where it is easier to buy a gun than it is to find whole-fat milk?   

that is an argument for why we need federal rules on guns, rather than local rules... because we have free movement across the non-borders between states and interstate commerce clauses that render local restrictions useless.   

I just chose DC because it's the nearest big city with oppressive firearm restrictions, and also the home of this team.

 

Statements like that make it sound like you have no idea the hoops you actually have to jump through to legally buy a gun. I can't tell if it's just hyperbole or if you honestly think that's the case.

If a person is a law abiding LEGAL citizen, and the 2a affords all the right to keep and bear arms, why should it be any harder to LEGALLY buy a gun than a gallon of whole fat milk? That's kind of the point of the 2a.

Yes we have free movement, but don't think for a second that places like DC, or states like maryland won't hesitate to make an example out of you quick fast and in a hurry if you come into their state with "illegal" firearms or magazines.

I live in the WV panhandle, 10 minutes north and I'm in MD. MD doesn't recognize my ccw, and doesn't give a **** where I live, if I carry a STANDARD capacity magazine in MD and get caught with it, I'm a felon. So I just avoid Maryland.

 

I'll tell you what though. You try taking a pistol with a standard cap magazine into MD and let the police catch you with it.. then get back to me about local restrictions being useless. They don't give a **** who you are or where you're from or what your excuse is, they can and WILL prosecute you.

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

What bothers me most is instead of both sides working together and starting small on implementing gun control laws/regulations, is that we have been to the point of extreme (from both sides) for a long while now.  To the point it's ridiculous, imo, and one where neither side is going to cave.  And it's sickening that it's all for political gain and votes.  

 

I think the place to start is implement gun laws at a national level (instead of state level) where the rules/laws are the same for all states.  Same concealed carry laws, requirements, etc.  Up the age to buy all firearms to age 21.  Require a permit to buy all firearms and not just handguns.  Require a gun safety class for new gun buyers, which would be in addition to a concealed carry class for those wanting to CC.  Extend background checks and waiting periods.  

 

Put a requirement on concealed carry where one has to have taken a gun safety class first and a minimum of say 2 years after said class before they are eligible to take the CC class and apply for that permit (maybe grandfather in current handgun owners that have applied for a permit or purchased the firearm within the last 5 years - in NC the handgun permit is good for 5 years); this would be for new handgun owners that may decide to conceal carry.  

 

Lots of other ideas/recommendations, but I don't feel like listing them out again right now.  Point being, start with something besides "ban all of these", "ban all guns", etc.  And the right just stop refusing to work with the left and recommend small changes and work with them.  Any responsible gun owner most likely won't have major issues with a lot of common sense changes.  

 

I will say this though, I believe that anyone that owns any firearm that would be on a ban list should be grandfathered in should that pass (just like they were during the federal assault rifle ban during the Clinton Admin.).  People should not be punished for legally purchasing a firearm, regardless if new laws/bans are implemented, imo.  And by punished, I mean forced to hand over their once legally owned firearm to law enforcement without proper compensation, which honestly, could get into the thousands of dollars easily for those that may only even own just one. 

 

And yes, I'm sure those in favor of bans could care less about gun owners getting compensated, that's your opinion.  But it's also that opinion that causes the far right response in a lot of gun owners, which is basically a zero compromise stance.  Me personally, I'm a law abiding citizen and responsible gun owner, implementing a new ban on this or that or clip size, etc. really wouldn't impact me that much as long as I would be grandfathered in if any firearm I owned legally suddenly became banned. Magazine capacity, 10 rounds, not a biggie, just means I have to load more clips and reload at the range more often.

 

 

 

 

 

[Springfield]

I wonder how many times we’ve had this same line of discourse in this thread before.

[Simmsy]

58 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

You need to go back and read through this thread more.  There have been many worthwhile debates.  But making blanket statements like "The gun advocates don't respond to fact or emotion" doesn't exactly make anyone want to have a conversation with you.  I am very much a gun advocate.  I try to be open-minded and do a little give and take.  But from what I have seen, that is an anamoly.  Both sides are stuck on what they want and there is no reasonable comprimise.  

 

If you are expecting our elected leaders to do anything, don't hold your breath.  For them, there can be no compromise.  I've also said before I question how much any politician really wants gun control "fixed".  Then they lose something major that they campaign on.  

 

I've had this debate hundreds of times, with the republican base around Virginia. The debate here is much more civil, but I'm going to chalk that up to people not wanting to get banned more than anything else. As I've said, I've had this conversation hundreds of times. I've used facts, logic, sympathy, empathy, etc, nothing works. The reason the people for gun legislation are so crass nowadays is because we're sick of trying to compromise. One side of politicians are willing to talk and compromise and the otherside isn't, one side needs to go.

 

Our leaders will do something when we put the pressure on them to do something or they get voted out. True, their allegiance is to corporate and top 1% donor money, but they can't spend it if they're not in office.

[TheGreatBuzz]

20 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

 

or ...it need to be more restrictive than YOU like... leading to you being told to STFU... right? 

Well one could make the argument that the laws are already more or less where I want them.  And lets be honest, the likelyhood of them moving in your direction are slim.  So if you are wanting me (the collective me) to move of the position that I already hold, there will need to be more to entice me to move.  Or I'll just let everything stay as is and be happier than you are. 

46 minutes ago, crabbypatty said:

Statements like that make it sound like you have no idea the hoops you actually have to jump through to legally buy a gun.

Man I'm on your side but I got no clue what you are talking about here.  Unless you are in MD or something, it's pretty easy to buy a gun.  

[crabbypatty]

12 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

Man I'm on your side but I got no clue what you are talking about here.  Unless you are in MD or something, it's pretty easy to buy a gun.  

For most they can order a gun online, easy peasy, yes.

But you have to ship it to a FFL, make sure said FFL is on the sellers list (if not they have to send their info in)

wait for it to arrive, or go to a gun store and purchase, fill out the 4473, wait while they do the nics check, hope you don't get delayed (3 days wait)

Then either walk out with your gun or come back in 3 days, unless you were flat out denied (tons of reasons for delays/denials)

 

And again, the point is, if you are a law abiding citizen following the framework of the laws already in place, it SHOULD be easy to purchase a gun.

Many in this thread think you just walk into a store, plunk your money down and walk out. Sometimes that's the case after the 4473 and nics, but oftentimes you end up waiting for awhile and or get delayed. I used to get delayed every time because someone with the same name had a lengthy criminal history.

 

For me here in WV it's easy as can be. I got to bypass all the safety course bs because I have a valid dd214. Show that to the clerk, pay my $75, come in a few weeks later to pick up my ccw.

CCW holders in WV don't have to deal with the nics check, so I buy what I want, have it shipped to my ffl, fill out my 4473, pay my transfer fee and I'm out the door. No nics check, the ffl just files the form away in case the ATF needs to see it at some point.

 

For most it's not that fast/easy. And for me at first it wasn't either.

Edited March 19, 2019 by crabbypatty

[TheGreatBuzz]

5 minutes ago, crabbypatty said:

For me here in WV it's easy as can be. I got to bypass all the safety course bs because I have a valid dd214. Show that to the clerk, pay my $75, come in a few weeks later to pick up my ccw.

CCW holders in WV don't have to deal with the nics check, so I buy what I want, have it shipped to my ffl, fill out my 4473, pay my transfer fee and I'm out the door. No nics check, the ffl just files the form away in case the ATF needs to see it at some point.

Fair points.  FL is the same way.  Since I am active duty, I got my CCW quickly.  And I avoid a lot of that stuff by having a CCW already.

[crabbypatty]

7 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Fair points.  FL is the same way.  Since I am active duty, I got my CCW quickly.  And I avoid a lot of that stuff by having a CCW already.

Unfortunately for you Florida is headed the wrong way quickly. FL like VA used to be one of the bastions of gun freedom. But it seems like they have made a hard left turn recently.

How do you feel about all the noise they're making down there about NY style restrictions?

[tshile]

19 hours ago, Simmsy said:

It seems to me that for gun rights advocates, their argument or reasons for wanting a gun come down to two things: "Its my right!" and "I need to protect my family". Now how come your right to own a gun is more important than my right to go to the grocery store and not get my head blown off? Why is your right to own a gun more important than the right for someone to peacefully pray at their house of worship or children at school? This argument now sounds selfish and ignorant to me. Your wants and needs are now more important than the lives and safety of every other American in this country? Not very patriotic.

 

I'm also sick of people needing to protect their families with guns. If you want to keep a gun in your house to protect keep your family safe, I can completely understand that reasoning. However, people who buy guns in case of an apocalypse or in case they need to overthrow the government...you're insane. 

 

I would also like to add that if you feel the need to take a gun on your hip everywhere you go, you're also whackjob and shouldn't have a gun. ...

 

2 hours ago, Simmsy said:

I think you're missing the point, objective, subjective...it doesn't matter. The gun advocates don't respond to fact or emotion, I don't see the point in "debating" anymore. At some point someone is going to have to end the "conversation" and pass some effective gun control with or with the input of gun advocates.

 

It's funny because in the last few pages, minus one poster that I have no memory of reading posts from them before, the gun advocates have been generally fine and willing to discuss things.

 

It's the gun control advocates that seem to have a case of missing facts and being complete and utter assholes.

 

Keep ****ting all over people who disagree with you then crying that they are the problem in the debate.

[tshile]

2 hours ago, mcsluggo said:

 

 

is it compelling to point at DC, and strict gun purchase laws, as an example.... when Virginia is 100 yards away.  Virginia, home of the NRA.... where it is easier to buy a gun than it is to find whole-fat milk?   

 

 

that is an argument for why we need federal rules on guns, rather than local rules... because we have free movement across the non-borders between states and interstate commerce clauses that render local restrictions useless.   

 

It's interesting that DC, with all its strict gun laws, has the gun violence and murder rates it has while VA (supposedly the problem because they can just come over here and buy guns) doesn't have that problem.

 

Don't get me wrong, we're not a shiny star of the country in terms of low crime and violence, but if you compare our numbers to DC you'd be excused for wondering if the numbers were reporting on the same thing given how incredibly different they are.

 

 

31 minutes ago, crabbypatty said:

Unfortunately for you Florida is headed the wrong way quickly. FL like VA used to be one of the bastions of gun freedom. But it seems like they have made a hard left turn recently.

How do you feel about all the noise they're making down there about NY style restrictions?

 

Excuse me, but what the hell are you talking about?

 

Virginia is a shall issue state. In general it's a very pro-gun state. The only place they really differ from Florida and Texas is when it comes to using your gun to defend yourself. VA has a very clear outline of what is/isn't acceptable, whereas the others don't really care and even let you protect property.

 

But when it comes to owning/carrying a gun Virginia is very much pro-gun.