Well bicker, I'll have to be up front with you. If you insist that I (and others) respect your opinion, you should at least try a little harder to express it rather than simply roll off talking points and reject any discussion or questioning about what you've said. Remember, this is a discussion forum.Originally Posted by bicker
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
LOL, of course I do, at least for me.
You can't just claim "this is reasonable" ... or "I have people skills"
I'm not attempting to evade anything. It's unreasonable to restrict the rights of people who aren't causing any problems (ie CCW).
I agree with you that high cap mags contribute to the additional deaths in certain cases (reason). I disagree given the proliferation in the marketplace that banning them will have any impact (reason) and seizing them tramples on property rights (reason). Given those set of facts, banning them is pointless. Same thing with certain rifles. In addition, my position is supported by facts such as the experience of several states who have enacted just such a ban and continue to have tragedies.
Many of the proposals are not written by reasonable people. I'm willing to listen to reason and agree to disagree. When, however, there is no reason or logic to a position, I'll call it out.
For instance, the Feinstein ban allows me to keep the weapons I own if I register them (for a fee). I can't sell them or transfer them to my heirs. Who cares about my property rights or the 2nd amendment, Diane doesn't like guns. Let's be honest, her proposal has very little to do with safety and everything to do with her hatred of guns and those who own them.
Finally, if the politicians and the anti-gun people were serious and reasonable, they wouldn't be proposing policies that have failed over and over again.
Rob.....there are alot of us who think like you. I think we're not as in-your-face as many gun rights people are.....but we're still here.
As I've said many, many times, the two distinct personalities I'm seeing among some people are very different. One type seems to be peaceful people who are willing to compromise on many issues, and they try to appreciate other people's positions/feelings. The other.........well, they want what they want dammit, and if they don't get it, then the world is trying very hard to destroy them, so they are constantly on guard.......with their protection at their side.
It isn't just a disagreement about weapons.........its an entirely different Weltanschauung.
And these discussions I guess are fine for back and forth stuff, but some people are never going to budge an inch.........so its fairly futile to try.
Try not to get discouraged Rob.
Furthermore, these standard-capacity magazines (or "high cap" as the trendy seem to call them) are quite useful for law-abiding citizens.
And it isn't as if such things are new. I have a Browning pistol in my safe here, a model still produced to this day. It was designed in 1914, and takes a 20 or 30 round magazine, though it is usually carried with a 13 or 15 round magazine.
People who tell you 6 or 10 rounds are "sufficient" simply are unaware of modern firearms training curriculum, and do not understand the dynamics of the reactive fight. I as always am happy to suggest reliable instructors to any who PM me.
Thank you, Cathy A. Rob
It is a discussion forum. Your denying that I have expressed my perspective, and completely, is offensively disrespectful. It's you trying to claim that you get to dictate what constitutes a substantive perspective on the issue - conveniently applying your bias to justify labeling anything that disagrees with what you want as insubstantial - just like you're trying to dictate what is and isn't the correct approach for our nation. You don't get to dictate that. You keep trying to rationalize your questioning of value judgments, qualitative appraisals of the facts, the importance of one life, the actual rights people have, etc., but that's all based on your perspective which I disagree with, and yes, I disagree with them as a reasonable person disagreeing with your perspectives. And I will repeat that every single time you try to deny it, because your opposition doesn't deserve an unrebutted soapbox.
Besides, your are a partisan. You are biased against the perspective I support, so your qualitative appraisals of my perspective are literally worthless, because they're tainted by that bias. So the only purpose you could have for posting them is to be offensively insulting, or to distract attention from perspectives you don't like, because you want your perspective to be the only one voiced. Tough. Get over it.
More blatant proof of the offensively insulting tactics that you seemingly think are appropriate to rely on to gird yourself against the reality that reasonable people disagree with your perspective.
No it isn't; we restrict the rights of people who aren't causing problems all the time when they are in a population that includes people who do cause problems - the population in question in this case is "gun owners".
Your refusal to accept that we disagree about this, and that we can still remain both reasonable people in doing so, is indeed evasion.
And you're entitled to your agreement and disagreement. Just like everyone else. Including those who reasonably look at the data you look at and draw the opposition conclusion. Even though it is your preference to try to claim that it is not possible to reasonably look at that data and draw the opposite conclusion.
This is a perfect example of the fallacious rhetoric from gun supporters that we've seen several time in this thread and see often in the broader public arena: The inane insinuation that anything that doesn't absolutely, completely and utterly eliminates 100% of the risk is not worthwhile. It's a fallacy. Since the risk if of death, the burden rests on you, supporting the contention you support, to prove that more people would die if the restrictions and bans would be put in place than if they are not.
Given that the Second Amendment is fully satisfied even with all the restrictions and bans proposed in place. Even though you disagree about that.
False. Again, this is the nonsense we typically see coming from gun supporters from all quarters - the offensively self-centered presumption that proposals that go against what they want must therefore be unreasonable. That overt disrespect for people who disagree with them is a major source of the "heat" of these issues, as mentioned very early in this thread.
And I'm willing to listen to reason and agree to disagree. When, however, there is inadequate humane or moral standing included in the reason for a position, I'll call it out.
As I have said before in my 67 years I have never felt the need to carry a weapon. That includes the time my bank was robbed by 3 armed men. Me being armed would have done me or anyone else any good. To feel the need to be armed all the time seems silly to me.
The feeling in the US by many that you have the right to be armed all the time and that is a right stated in the 2nd amendment is crazy. People today now say the 2nd amendment was put in the constitution to protect them from the government. They are crazy enough to actually say the 2nd gives them the right to use those arms against the government. I think that is called treason.
We change government by the power of the ballot box that is what keeps us from becoming a third world country. I fear those people who think the 2nd amendment was written so they could have the firepower to over throw the government.
Gabby Gifford's efforts to establish a group that would offset the power of the gun lobby should be applauded. She will have my support. You must remember that gun sales is a business. The manufactures make millions of dollars off of installing fear in people. The gun lobby makes millions off of the blood running in the halls at Sandy Hook, Aura and the blood of the six people killed when Gabby was shot. We don't need anymore Sandy Hooks.
Guns KILL!
So why not try discussing something instead of just stating conclusions?
+1 and applause, too.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote