I agree with Piers

For the record, I probably spent 3 minutes listening to your two links. Originally Posted by gnadfly

That's obvious. I said in my original post, listen to 9:30 onwards, on the second link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SlfRCkZt1A

I thought England was a fag country-Archie Bunker

A very false assumption. I can recognize a building totally engulfed in flames—that doesn’t mean I know how to either extinguish it in a safe manner, nor does it mean I am an expert on fire prevention. I can recognize when support beams on a bridge look rusted and warped, that does not make me a structural engineer. Originally Posted by Old-T

Just an incredible number of false analogies. If the point is to emote, Mrs Old-T by all means have a discussion with Mrs Essence. If the point is to reduce gun deaths, by all means, propose a solution that does so. I have proposed my solutions. Where's yours?

But I've pegged you as anti-gun months ago in the Zimmerman thread.

That's obvious. I said in my original post, listen to 9:30 onwards, on the second link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SlfRCkZt1A Originally Posted by essence

Nah, you've already wasted too much of my time. For the third time, what are YOUR solutions? Discuss YOUR solutions.

Nah, you've already wasted too much of my time. For the third time, what are YOUR solutions? Discuss YOUR solutions. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Keep the 2nd amendment
Keep the right to bear arms
Keep the right to hunt
Keep licensed ranges where any kind of weapon can be used as recreation
Stricter control on types of weapons allowed
Stricter control on licensing, two independent proposers, 5 day wait
Mandatory training for anybody owning a gun
Stricter control on sales of ammunition
Amnesty for anybody handing in spare guns/ammunition if they want to
All the above across all states

Keep the 2nd amendment
Keep the right to bear arms
Keep the right to hunt
Keep licensed ranges where any kind of weapon can be used as recreation
Stricter control on types of weapons allowed
Stricter control on licensing, two independent proposers, 5 day wait
Mandatory training for anybody owning a gun
Stricter control on sales of ammunition
Amnesty for anybody handing in spare guns/ammunition if they want to
All the above across all states Originally Posted by essence

Those may all be perfectly reasonable requirements. They are also all infringements on the right to keep and bear arms. The second amendment doesn't allow that.

Either we have a Constitution or we don't. If we just pretend the Constitution doesn't say what it clearly says, then at that point, we don't really have a Constitution. If you're convinced that we absolutely must infringe on the right to bear arms, then the only option is to repeal the second amendment.

Those may all be perfectly reasonable requirements. They are also all infringements on the right to keep and bear arms. The second amendment doesn't allow that. Originally Posted by joe bloe

I know, you said this nonsense elsewhere.

It was crap then, it is crap here.

You never answered the question of what limits on arms you propose, what regulations, what controls.

None?

My jaw drops to the floor again.

I know, you said this nonsense elsewhere.

It was crap then, it is crap here.

You never answered the question of what limits on arms you propose, what regulations, what controls.

None?

My jaw drops to the floor again. Originally Posted by essence

What part of no infringements do you not understand? If no infringements are allowed, then the only way to restrict gun access is to REPEAL THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

When you operate outside the Constitution in one instance, you set precedent that allows further violations in other cases. We have to respect the sanctity of the law. We can't just pretend that the law doesn't say what is says because we don't agree with it.

I personally think some of the drug laws are draconian and do more harm than good; but I do not advocate that we pretend those laws don't exist; I advocate we change them. We don't pretend that our laws are "living documents" that have to be reinterpreted from time to time; we change them.

But a license and a driving test will not keep unqualified drivers from driving a car. Adam Lanza did not get the guns he used legally. Therefore, we MUST ban all cars if we are going to stop drunk driving deaths. It only makes sense. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I am trying to be reasonable, but I get the impression you are intentionally not listening. "Eliminate" and "reduce" are not the same thing.

Reading your other posts you do not really sound like someone who wants to ban all cars, so do you think cars should have no restrictions? Five year olds driving with no limits? I doubt you believe that either so we are both discussing what the reasonable restrictions on cars, or guns, should be. What one person is willing to give up in exchange for reduced murders by guns or cars may be different than what another is willing to give up, however so long as people want to irrationally argue only the extremes we will make little if any progress.

Keep the 2nd amendment
Keep the right to bear arms
Keep the right to hunt
Keep licensed ranges where any kind of weapon can be used as recreation
Stricter control on types of weapons allowed
Stricter control on licensing, two independent proposers, 5 day wait
Mandatory training for anybody owning a gun
Stricter control on sales of ammunition
Amnesty for anybody handing in spare guns/ammunition if they want to
All the above across all states Originally Posted by essence

Was that so hard?

Stricter control on types of weapons allowed
Stricter control on licensing, two independent proposers, 5 day wait
Mandatory training for anybody owning a gun
Stricter control on sales of ammunition

Of course the devil is in the details. What do you mean by "stricter control?"
Also what is a proposer? Why do you want to reduce the waiting period in some states?
Describe what mandatory training you propose for gun ownership and how we are going to get all gun owners to take it. I gather you don't expect criminals to take the training.

BTW, go to a couple of gun manufacturers sites and you'll find they offer free gun safety training online.

I am trying to be reasonable, but I get the impression you are intentionally not listening. "Eliminate" and "reduce" are not the same thing.

Reading your other posts you do not really sound like someone who wants to ban all cars, so do you think cars should have no restrictions? Five year olds driving with no limits? I doubt you believe that either so we are both discussing what the reasonable restrictions on cars, or guns, should be. What one person is willing to give up in exchange for reduced murders by guns or cars may be different than what another is willing to give up, however so long as people want to irrationally argue only the extremes we will make little if any progress. Originally Posted by TGBeldin

My point is, no matter how many restrictions you put on them, some people who shouldn't have them will get them.

Keep the 2nd amendment Takes a constitutional amendment to change it anyway.

Keep the right to bear arms Uh, that is the second amentment.

Keep the right to hunt I don't see anything about the "right" to hunt in the Constitution.

Keep licensed ranges where any kind of weapon can be used as recreation What do you mean licensed ranges? It sounds good but what does it mean? State owned? Lockers for your guns like England? Wouldn't that be construed as infringing on a right?

Stricter control on types of weapons allowed Who is going to decide what weapons will be allowed? Obama? The state government? The local government?

Stricter control on licensing, two independent proposers, 5 day wait I don't understand this unless you want a cooling off period. If you can get a 2 minute background check then why not go with that. Ask any woman who is trying to protect herself from a stalker. Can she wait five days?

Mandatory training for anybody owning a gun What if you can't pass the training do you lose your right to self defense. If they can't pass handgun training what about a shotgun. You didn't specifiy what type of gun.

Stricter control on sales of ammunition What is the point of this? Why not stricter controls on gasoline to reduce traffic deaths?

Amnesty for anybody handing in spare guns/ammunition if they want to This one is really amazing. You assume that everyone is some kind of law breaker and they need amnesty. Amnesty is for criminals.

All the above across all states What happened to the Constitution and the 10th amendment?

Anytime you put restictions on a right then it ceases being a right and becomes privilege.

My point is, no matter how many restrictions you put on them, some people who shouldn't have them will get them. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Of course. But reducing that number of people who "shouldn't" from 100 to 50 or 25 is still a laudable goal.

The number who "shouldn't" will remain constant. Unless you think gun laws will make people less crazy. None of the proposals I've seen would have kept Adam Lanza from getting the guns and doing what he did.

if they had had bullet proof glass, he would never gotten in

I don't get it.

Joe Bloe, gnadfly, JDB and others seem to be saying there should be absolutely no regulation, control or restriction on availability of arms, nor on the type of arms. Otherwise the 2nd amendment is violated.

This is so jaw droppingly irrational and stupid that the first time i read it I thought they were having a laugh and being provocative, or else had imibed too much tea.

But then they repeat it.

Again and again.

Can somebody explain how anybody can be quite so stupid?

Even CoG, in his libertarian extremes, doesn;t always say there should be absolutely no restriction.

Is rational debate futile?

At least they have come out of their closet.