Empirical Liberty Framework for Debating Gun Control

[CID1990]

This is why I just laugh at these cute little marches on Washington

Much ado about

nothing happening

[Col Hogan]

You can take Iowa out of the Maybes and put it in the Good Luck with That.

Like I said, my criteria was “last four presidential elections”. You were blue at least once.

Sure, you can nitpick many. IN almost certainly would vote against. Even in the lock category, NH is pretty resistant to Govt overreach.

The point here being, it ain’t happening. The best hope for libtards is to stack SCOTUS and overturn DC v Heller or just continue to whittle away at gun characteristics (i.e. AWBs).

Yea, I’d move IN to the Good Luck With That column...but VA will move to the Lock column very soon...

But your point is spot on...

[Baldy]

This is why I just laugh at these cute little marches on Washington

Much ado about

nothing happening

'March for Our Lives' crowd smaller than expected: report

A Sunday estimate of the crowd at the “March for Our Lives” rally for gun control in Washington, D.C., on Saturday was much smaller than the crowd estimated by organizers.

Digital Design & Imaging Service Inc. estimated around 200,000 people attended the rally, CBS News reported. Organizers on Saturday estimated 800,000.

Washington, D.C., metropolitan police have yet to release their own estimates.

The respected imaging firm uses balloons to fly cameras over events in order to estimate crowd size. The service said there was a margin of error of 15 percent for their estimation. The crowd size was largest at 1 p.m., the company said.

The company said the 2017 Women’s March was the largest single-day demonstration in U.S. history, with 440,000 participating. That number corresponds well with city officials' estimates at the time, as reported by The Associated Press.

This child driven gun grab isn't going to end well for them.

[Ibanez]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[93henfan]

This child driven gun grab isn't going to end well for them.

I think it was Wilco who said,

"Come on children
You're acting like children
Every generation thinks
It's the end of the world"

[houndawg]

It’s cute how naive you are sometimes.

I'm sure somebody in Australia before 1996 said they wouldn't collect the guns there either.

Australia didn't have 300,000,000 weapons. You can't collect 300,000,000 anything. It was an FBI agent that told me that the barn door is open and the horse long gone over 20 tears ago.

[houndawg]

This is why I just laugh at these cute little marches on Washington

Much ado about

nothing happening

'March for Our Lives' crowd smaller than expected: report

A Sunday estimate of the crowd at the “March for Our Lives” rally for gun control in Washington, D.C., on Saturday was much smaller than the crowd estimated by organizers.

Digital Design & Imaging Service Inc. estimated around 200,000 people attended the rally, CBS News reported. Organizers on Saturday estimated 800,000.

Washington, D.C., metropolitan police have yet to release their own estimates.

The respected imaging firm uses balloons to fly cameras over events in order to estimate crowd size. The service said there was a margin of error of 15 percent for their estimation. The crowd size was largest at 1 p.m., the company said.

The company said the 2017 Women’s March was the largest single-day demonstration in U.S. history, with 440,000 participating. That number corresponds well with city officials' estimates at the time, as reported by The Associated Press.

This child driven gun grab isn't going to end well for them.

for who?

[89Hen]

This debate:
Is like any pro-choice movement
Don't like guns... don't buy one (The end)

Almost any.

[Chizzang]

This debate:
Is like any pro-choice movement
Don't like guns... don't buy one (The end)

Almost any.

[Pwns]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dZn0D_9VY8

This guy is obviously a house negro on the great plantation that is Amerikkka.

[BDKJMU]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dZn0D_9VY8

This guy is obviously a house negro on the great plantation that is Amerikkka.

Kudos to Mr Robinson..

[CID1990]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dZn0D_9VY8

This guy is obviously a house negro on the great plantation that is Amerikkka.

Nobody had to say Greensboro at all and I would have guessed he was from the Piedmont area of NC from his accent


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

House passes sweeping gun legislation to expand background checks to cover virtually all sales
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... gislation/

House donks take their 1st steps towards their wet dream of a national gun registry. Granted it has zero chance of becoming law as long as conks hold on to either the senate or White House...

[GannonFan]

House passes sweeping gun legislation to expand background checks to cover virtually all sales
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... gislation/

House donks take their 1st steps towards their wet dream of a national gun registry. Granted it has zero chance of becoming law as long as conks hold on to either the senate or White House...

I don't see anything wrong with it - it has exceptions for gifts within a family and apparently transfers for hunting and sports. What's so odious about it, other than it came from the Dems?

[BDKJMU]

House passes sweeping gun legislation to expand background checks to cover virtually all sales
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... gislation/

House donks take their 1st steps towards their wet dream of a national gun registry. Granted it has zero chance of becoming law as long as conks hold on to either the senate or White House...

I don't see anything wrong with it - it has exceptions for gifts within a family and apparently transfers for hunting and sports. What's so odious about it, other than it came from the Dems?

Universal background checks is the 1st step needed to create a national database. If you could make a 100% guarantee that down the road, universal background checks would never, ever be used to create a national database, and that confiscation would never, ever happen, then there wouldn't be much wrong with it. But since you can't make that guarantee, and mass confiscation is the ultimate goal of the left, THAT is what is so odious about it.

[Col Hogan]

House passes sweeping gun legislation to expand background checks to cover virtually all sales
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... gislation/

House donks take their 1st steps towards their wet dream of a national gun registry. Granted it has zero chance of becoming law as long as conks hold on to either the senate or White House...

I don't see anything wrong with it - it has exceptions for gifts within a family and apparently transfers for hunting and sports. What's so odious about it, other than it came from the Dems?

Every weapon I have purchased since 2004 has been bought in a state that does not require gun registration...only a few states require universial gun registration...

So, for a moment, let’s assume this bill becomes law...

How would the government know if I decided to sell a gun to my neighbor??? The answer is, they won’t...

It is odious because it requires mandatory universial gun registration...which will not happen...and laws that are unenforceable should never be considered...IMHO

Gun Registration Requirements

https://ballotpedia.org/Firearm_registr ... s_by_state

[css75]

2nd Amendment is the last resort amendment, which means if government gets too controlling, overthrow it. How close are we?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[SDHornet]

BTW Chiz this is how the thinking I'm talking about works with respect to fun violence. What is the probability that a randomlly selected sale of a rifle to someone younger than 21 will result in the death of a human being that otherwise would not have occurred at the time it occurred? How many millions of sales of rifles to people younger than 21 are there? I think you would expect, without trying to look it up, that the probability is very low. So why are we saying that someone who is 19 can't go out and buy a semi-automatic 22 with a scope so they can go squirrel hunting with it?

But if someone buys a rifle then intentionally kills someone with it they are engaging in an intentional act that obviously SHOULD be illegal. If you have a rifle and you are TRYING to kill someone with it the probability that a death will result obviously becomes fairly high. And, again, there is an intentional attack on another individual.

That doesn't mean Bobby Joe shouldn't be able to buy his 22 when all he wants to do is go squirrel hunting.

John
I'm aware of the sliding scale of morality that gets applied to life and death
Which is why I am NOT in the business of crawling into other peoples rights

There is no inconsistency in my view on rights like you struggle with

I think
guns should be legal and fairly easy to get
I think
women should be allowed to consult their doctor
without sanctimonious cunts like you inserting themselves in the middle
I think
voting should require as much proof of identity as boarding a international flight
I think
Freedom of speech is more important than hurting peoples feelings

[GannonFan]

I don't see anything wrong with it - it has exceptions for gifts within a family and apparently transfers for hunting and sports. What's so odious about it, other than it came from the Dems?

Universal background checks is the 1st step needed to create a national database. If you could make a 100% guarantee that down the road, universal background checks would never, ever be used to create a national database, and that confiscation would never, ever happen, then there wouldn't be much wrong with it. But since you can't make that guarantee, and mass confiscation is the ultimate goal of the left, THAT is what is so odious about it.

Well, technically, any background checks were/are the 1st step needed to create a national database, and you could argue there were steps before that. And there are certainly steps still to take even after this before we get to a national database. I'll stand up and argue against a national database when and if that ever comes up as a proposal. But we're not at that point yet, and arguing that any incremental steps towards that end also need to be rebuffed, especially when we've already taken incremental steps without the dreaded national database happening, is silly. This isn't a national database, and it's not the last step before there is one, so I'm all for this law.

[SDHornet]

Universal background checks is the 1st step needed to create a national database. If you could make a 100% guarantee that down the road, universal background checks would never, ever be used to create a national database, and that confiscation would never, ever happen, then there wouldn't be much wrong with it. But since you can't make that guarantee, and mass confiscation is the ultimate goal of the left, THAT is what is so odious about it.

Well, technically, any background checks were/are the 1st step needed to create a national database, and you could argue there were steps before that. And there are certainly steps still to take even after this before we get to a national database. I'll stand up and argue against a national database when and if that ever comes up as a proposal. But we're not at that point yet, and arguing that any incremental steps towards that end also need to be rebuffed, especially when we've already taken incremental steps without the dreaded national database happening, is silly. This isn't a national database, and it's not the last step before there is one, so I'm all for this law.

I disagree. It's the small incremental steps that eventually get to the point of no return wrt whatever is deemed as the final straw. Once you are on the doorstep realizing it's time to battle that "final straw", then it's already too late.

[GannonFan]

I don't see anything wrong with it - it has exceptions for gifts within a family and apparently transfers for hunting and sports. What's so odious about it, other than it came from the Dems?

Every weapon I have purchased since 2004 has been bought in a state that does not require gun registration...only a few states require universial gun registration...

So, for a moment, let’s assume this bill becomes law...

How would the government know if I decided to sell a gun to my neighbor??? The answer is, they won’t...

It is odious because it requires mandatory universial gun registration...which will not happen...and laws that are unenforceable should never be considered...IMHO

Gun Registration Requirements

https://ballotpedia.org/Firearm_registr ... s_by_state

I don't understand that rationale - the one that if you can evade the law somehow that it's therefore not enforceable and should never be considered. Every law can be broken and unenforced. I can drive 100 mph and if a cop or camera isn't there to catch me then I've beaten the law. I can lie on my taxes and get away with it and that would be unenforceable.

And your point that it's unenforceable undermines your first point. This isn't universal registration, it's universal background checks. That's different.

[GannonFan]

Well, technically, any background checks were/are the 1st step needed to create a national database, and you could argue there were steps before that. And there are certainly steps still to take even after this before we get to a national database. I'll stand up and argue against a national database when and if that ever comes up as a proposal. But we're not at that point yet, and arguing that any incremental steps towards that end also need to be rebuffed, especially when we've already taken incremental steps without the dreaded national database happening, is silly. This isn't a national database, and it's not the last step before there is one, so I'm all for this law.

I disagree. It's the small incremental steps that eventually get to the point of no return wrt whatever is deemed as the final straw. Once you are on the doorstep realizing it's time to battle that "final straw", then it's already too late.

Of course it's not, the final straw is the final straw. How is that too late? Like I said, we've taken incremental steps many times in the past and we're not anywhere close to the final straw. If we keep taking steps that get us half the way there, we'll never get there. This is a reasonable and proper law - it's not registration, it's not burdensome (heck, most sales already require a background check anyway). Blocking any law that, if contorted enough could be conceived to be on the road to something truly odious, is really tortured logic. Like I said, I'll fight a national database - I'm not going to fight something that's far from it.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Every weapon I have purchased since 2004 has been bought in a state that does not require gun registration...only a few states require universial gun registration...

So, for a moment, let’s assume this bill becomes law...

How would the government know if I decided to sell a gun to my neighbor??? The answer is, they won’t...

It is odious because it requires mandatory universial gun registration...which will not happen...and laws that are unenforceable should never be considered...IMHO

Gun Registration Requirements

https://ballotpedia.org/Firearm_registr ... s_by_state

I don't understand that rationale - the one that if you can evade the law somehow that it's therefore not enforceable and should never be considered. Every law can be broken and unenforced. I can drive 100 mph and if a cop or camera isn't there to catch me then I've beaten the law. I can lie on my taxes and get away with it and that would be unenforceable.

And your point that it's unenforceable undermines your first point. This isn't universal registration, it's universal background checks. That's different.

It's a violation of privacy

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

I disagree. It's the small incremental steps that eventually get to the point of no return wrt whatever is deemed as the final straw. Once you are on the doorstep realizing it's time to battle that "final straw", then it's already too late.

Of course it's not, the final straw is the final straw. How is that too late? Like I said, we've taken incremental steps many times in the past and we're not anywhere close to the final straw. If we keep taking steps that get us half the way there, we'll never get there. This is a reasonable and proper law - it's not registration, it's not burdensome (heck, most sales already require a background check anyway). Blocking any law that, if contorted enough could be conceived to be on the road to something truly odious, is really tortured logic. Like I said, I'll fight a national database - I'm not going to fight something that's far from it.

For every law these asshats try to pass they need to give up 2.

Not that it matters to me anyway

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[SDHornet]

I disagree. It's the small incremental steps that eventually get to the point of no return wrt whatever is deemed as the final straw. Once you are on the doorstep realizing it's time to battle that "final straw", then it's already too late.

Of course it's not, the final straw is the final straw. How is that too late? Like I said, we've taken incremental steps many times in the past and we're not anywhere close to the final straw. If we keep taking steps that get us half the way there, we'll never get there. This is a reasonable and proper law - it's not registration, it's not burdensome (heck, most sales already require a background check anyway). Blocking any law that, if contorted enough could be conceived to be on the road to something truly odious, is really tortured logic. Like I said, I'll fight a national database - I'm not going to fight something that's far from it.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I'll pass on the "death by a thousand cuts" mentality, and stick to the "repeal the 2nd amendment or STFU" mentality.