Carrying A Weapon

The Bellman · Sep 11, 2007

oldwiseguy said:
Except that when all the 'facts' are presented, by both sides, the truth emerges, and we conservative gun supporters win everytime. And with all due respect, liberal anti's don't accept facts or truth about the gun issue. If they did they would see that there is no gun problem and move on to something else.

And, yet again, they would say precisely the same about you:

Except that when all the 'facts' are presented, by both sides, the truth emerges, although it is defeated by emotion, and we liberal gun controllers lose everytime. And with all due respect, conservative pro's don't accept facts or truth about the gun issue. If they did they would see that there is a gun problem and look at actually resolving it.

See how easy it is? And for someone like me who is neither pro- nor anti-, and who can see points for both sides, it's easy to be objective and see that both sides use just the same tactics. But to say that there are no facts which support the pro gun-controllers is just silly. Of course there are. Just as there are facts which support the pro-gunners.

oldwiseguy said:
To demonstrate this I could challenge any anti that is tuned in to present facts in support of gun control. Of course they cannot. However, what they do say will be strongly emotional, which will prove my assertion in the first place.

And, again, they would say precisely the same of you. They have facts; you have facts. They have emotional appeals; you have emotional appeals. There's no difference, because this isn't like arguing over what 2+2 equals; there's no one discernable correct answer. It's not just a matter of looking at the facts and you'll agree with me (whichever side 'me' is on).

OldWiseGuy · Sep 11, 2007

The Bellman said:
And, yet again, they would say precisely the same about you:

Except that when all the 'facts' are presented, by both sides, the truth emerges, although it is defeated by emotion, and we liberal gun controllers lose everytime. And with all due respect, conservative pro's don't accept facts or truth about the gun issue. If they did they would see that there is a gun problem and look at actually resolving it.

See how easy it is? And for someone like me who is neither pro- nor anti-, and who can see points for both sides, it's easy to be objective and see that both sides use just the same tactics. But to say that there are no facts which support the pro gun-controllers is just silly. Of course there are. Just as there are facts which support the pro-gunners.

And, again, they would say precisely the same of you. They have facts; you have facts. They have emotional appeals; you have emotional appeals. There's no difference, because this isn't like arguing over what 2+2 equals; there's no one discernable correct answer. It's not just a matter of looking at the facts and you'll agree with me (whichever side 'me' is on).

Then why do we pro-gunners consistantly win and maintain our rights to legal firearm ownership? The answer is that at the end of the day our only 'tactic' is the true facts, and while these facts may be expressed with some emotion those who render the decisions do so in the cold light of the evidence alone.

owg

The Bellman · Sep 11, 2007

oldwiseguy said:
Then why do we pro-gunners consistantly win and maintain our rights to legal firearm ownership?

Because of the constitution and the predominant American idea that each person has the right to own guns.

oldwiseguy said:
The answer is that at the end of the day our only 'tactic' is the true facts, and while these facts may be expressed with some emotion those who render the decisions do so in the cold light of the evidence alone.

Complete rubbish. And if you think that legislators determine what will be law "in the cold light of the evidence alone", you are very naive. They do it, mostly, in the cold light of what will get them votes/please their constituents.

Blackguard_ · Sep 12, 2007

Then why do we pro-gunners consistantly win and maintain our rights to legal firearm ownership?

Uhh, we don't. Aside from the CCW permit gains, it's been damage control to stave off gun rights' "death by a thousand cuts". And like the Bellman said, we have the second amendent and the support of a sizable part of the population to prevent a ban like England's and Australia's, at least for now.

Along those lines; why were the English and Australian pro-gunners thoroughly defeated?

I don't consider compromise gun bans/restrictions a "win" for gun rights, and that's about all we've been getting.

Also, Bellman is right about both sides having evidence. It's quite easy to find crime rates of places to use as a counter-example to the "more/less guns= less crime" ideas of both sides. Now, the arguments that evidence is used to support might be bunk when you consider cultural and other factors that can afect crime rates, but it's still evidence.

The problem both sides seem to not have realized is that the gun-crime correlation is not always as direct as they like to think.

OldWiseGuy · Sep 13, 2007

Blackguard_ said:
The problem both sides seem to not have realized is that the gun-crime correlation is not always as direct as they like to think.

I disagree. The problem here is that the anti's cannot present any factual arguements that support their view. Anti's have made their gains mainly by political means (tyranny of the majority), and by fear-mongering the issue to the undecided and uninformed. Once the facts are known there is no doubt what they mean: We have a crime problem, not a gun problem.

owg

The Bellman · Sep 13, 2007

oldwiseguy said:
I disagree. The problem here is that the anti's cannot present any factual arguements that support their view.

This is just false. Your bias is preventing you from looking at the issue with anything like objectivity. There are many facts which support gun control, as Blackguard has agreed above.

I'm sorry if you don't like it, but there are facts that support an argument for gun control. Whether these facts are sufficient to warrant gun control or not is another question, but to say the facts don't exist is not even remotely truthful.

NavyGuy7 · Sep 14, 2007

Yes, there are SOME facts to support gun control. But there are also facts to support such things as murder or robbery. To say there are facts to something does not necessarily make it right.

And despite what everyone thinks about guns and gun control, let me say one thing.

Gun control is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The second amendment clearly states we have the "right to bear arms". To impose gun control would be to impede upon the rights of Americans. Thus making pro gun control people against America, if not intentionally. And I'm SURE they've heard the second amendment before.

We have the right to bear arms not only for self protection, but in case the government becomes corrupted to the point where it fails to be a democracy. When it starts to become a dictatorship, that's when the American people are supposed to rise up against the government.

That's my opinion, and it would be the same were I liberal or not. Well, I'm not a liberal, but the view would be the same.
SO everyone, stop trying to suppress Bellman's statement that there are facts to gun control. But remember that you have him trumped with the 2nd amendment. (sorry bellman, but the 2nd amendment is also a fact. And you cannot change that without upsetting most of America.)

NavyGuy7 · Sep 14, 2007

oldwiseguy said:
I disagree. The problem here is that the anti's cannot present any factual arguements that support their view. Anti's have made their gains mainly by political means (tyranny of the majority), and by fear-mongering the issue to the undecided and uninformed. Once the facts are known there is no doubt what they mean: We have a crime problem, not a gun problem.

owg

Ummm... I think they might have some facts.

But I do agree it is a crime problem, not a gun problem.

With the 2nd amendment comes the responsibility of owning a gun. Not to use it for crime, or to suppress another's rights. But yet we have the right to own them.

Guns don't kill people on their own. There is someone pulling the trigger. Cause and effect, people, cause and effect. One cannot say guns go off on shooting sprees by themselves. It is our responsibility as Americans to recognize when guns should and should not be used, and for what purposes. Crime is obviously not one of them, as it suppresses someone else's rights.

NavyGuy7 · Sep 14, 2007

Plus, gun control would only make it harder for criminals to own guns. It would not make it impossible, nor stop the black market. So by issuing gun control one takes away what little defense an honest person might have against these thugs.

WingsOfTheNeophyte · Sep 14, 2007

NavyGuy7 said:
When it starts to become a dictatorship, that's when the American people are supposed to rise up against the government.

Bah, I think it happened long ago, and no one did anything about it

Steezie · Sep 14, 2007

One thing that I never see people who advocate total freedom with guns or even less gun control and cite the second amendment was written at a time when firearms were nowhere NEAR as advaced as they are today.

I seriously doubt the founding fathers meant to say we could own any weapons we wanted. Cannons? Rockets?

Also the second amendment actually states
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." meaning that a MILITIA'S rights to bear arms shouldnt be infringed uppon. I dont see ANYTHING regarding the common man.

It states that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state and as such militia members would not be disallowed to own weapons

OldWiseGuy · Sep 15, 2007

Steezie said:
One thing that I never see people who advocate total freedom with guns or even less gun control and cite the second amendment was written at a time when firearms were nowhere NEAR as advaced as they are today.

I seriously doubt the founding fathers meant to say we could own any weapons we wanted. Cannons? Rockets?

Also the second amendment actually states
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." meaning that a MILITIA'S rights to bear arms shouldnt be infringed uppon. I dont see ANYTHING regarding the common man.

It states that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state and as such militia members would not be disallowed to own weapons

The militia is/was made up from the people at large. The right to arms was given to the people that form the militia, not to the militia. In other words when the militia was called upon the members showed up with their arms. They didn't assemble as the militia and then receive their arms from a locked government armory. Also the arms were those that could be 'borne' about by a person. Cannons, rockets, bombs, etc. cannot, and therefore are not included in the second amendment, although could be part of the assembled militia's armaments.

owg

OldWiseGuy · Sep 15, 2007

The Bellman said:
This is just false. Your bias is preventing you from looking at the issue with anything like objectivity. There are many facts which support gun control, as Blackguard has agreed above.

I'm sorry if you don't like it, but there are facts that support an argument for gun control. Whether these facts are sufficient to warrant gun control or not is another question, but to say the facts don't exist is not even remotely truthful.

I meant facts that substantially support the argument for strict gun control laws. The anti's facts are easily trumped by the pro-gun facts. To demonstrate this just present any anti fact and I'll trump it easily with a verifiable pro-fact.

owg

NavyGuy7 · Sep 15, 2007

WingsOfTheNeophyte said:
Bah, I think it happened long ago, and no one did anything about it

LOL. Then why do we still have the freedom to say things such as this? Obviously we are not at that stage.... yet. True, I will agree that many politicians are corrupt, but we are clearly not a dictatorship. Or I could be arrested for saying the things I say, right? Or you, if the reverse was in charge.

Yet we still have this freedom of speech, as well as many others I could state. Think the facts over before you blurt out some biased remark. (At least it seemed biased, to me...)

NavyGuy7 · Sep 15, 2007

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

Nice try, but it says it right here. If it had meant the militia, it would say militia where the bolded word is. It can be argued that "people" means the common man.

And I never implied we could own such advanced weapons. But you cannot deny the right to bear arms completely. We can still own things such as pistols, revolvers, shotguns, etc. You are putting words into my metaphorical mouth.

And thanks, Oldwiseguy, for the earlier comment on that person's quote. It is exactly what I was thinking, in a sense. At least, I can say I agree with it.

The Bellman · Sep 15, 2007

oldwiseguy said:
I meant facts that substantially support the argument for strict gun control laws. The anti's facts are easily trumped by the pro-gun facts. To demonstrate this just present any anti fact and I'll trump it easily with a verifiable pro-fact.

Ah, so now you're changing your claims. Now it's facts that "substantially support the argument for strict gun control laws". Nice try. Sorry, but the point has been made - you are wrong. There are facts that support both sides of the debate. Both sides use those facts and emotional appeal.

OldWiseGuy · Sep 15, 2007

The Bellman said:
Ah, so now you're changing your claims. Now it's facts that "substantially support the argument for strict gun control laws". Nice try. Sorry, but the point has been made - you are wrong. There are facts that support both sides of the debate. Both sides use those facts and emotional appeal.

Nope. That's what I meant all along. I didn't think I had to spell it out. I still challenge you or any anti to produce a 'fact' that supports your position. I'll shoot it down so fast it'll make yer hed spin!

owg (crack shot!)

TimmyPage · Sep 15, 2007

Avoid the need for a defensive weapon, always be the attacker instead.

The Bellman · Sep 16, 2007

oldwiseguy said:
Nope. That's what I meant all along. I didn't think I had to spell it out. I still challenge you or any anti to produce a 'fact' that supports your position. I'll shoot it down so fast it'll make yer hed spin!

Which is exactly what the other side says. And, from someone who is neither pro or anti, both sides are as good at doing it as each other.

OldWiseGuy · Sep 17, 2007

The Bellman said:
Which is exactly what the other side says. And, from someone who is neither pro or anti, both sides are as good at doing it as each other.

If you are neither pro nor anti you are one that I hope to get on the pro side; not that you'll buy a gun but that you will support the right to do so.

owg

Carrying A Weapon

The Bellman

Guest

Wake me when it's soup.

The Bellman

Guest

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

Wake me when it's soup.

The Bellman

Guest

NavyGuy7

Guest

NavyGuy7

Guest

NavyGuy7

Guest

Veteran

Steezie

Guest

Wake me when it's soup.

Wake me when it's soup.

NavyGuy7

Guest

NavyGuy7

Guest

The Bellman

Guest

Wake me when it's soup.

Regular Member

The Bellman

Guest

Wake me when it's soup.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency