Gun Confiscation

[scrogdog]

I'd probably be either in the hospital or to scared to leave the house.

JM, I usually enjoy your posts even in disagreement, but don't you think that's a little silly?

You've done nothing to explain yourself. Why would your life be so endangered seeing as you should still have plenty of other guns?

I'm 54 years of age, live in gun controlled Ma, and have held a gun in my hand once in my entire life. It was not loaded.

So, how'd I get this far? How did my family get this far? My dad never owned a gun and he's now 77. In fact, none of my two other siblings own guns either!

What's going on do you think? Dumb luck?

[jpsmith1cm]

Honest question; not trying to be a jerk here.

What bad things happen in your life if all you've just mentioned is banned?

You're asking the wrong question, really.

The question is WHY does this stuff need to be banned in the first place?

Why is the government insistent upon taking something from law abiding citizens?


Since these are the changes being implemented or proposed, these questions MUST be asked and answered adequately and satisfactorily before any change is made.

[scrogdog]

Nothing, because I'll simply disobey the laws.

So then, you are potentially arrested and thrown in jail?

Not sure how this helps you, your family and indeed gun activists in general, but ok.

Geez, I just don't see it as that big of a deal and you guys are failing miserably in making me understand.

If you think these sorts of arguments will win the day for you, I beg to differ.

You sound collectively unprepared for the battle ahead. If these posts are "your game" then I predict that you will lose big. Sorry.

[scrogdog]

You're asking the wrong question, really.

The question is WHY does this stuff need to be banned in the first place?

Why is the government insistent upon taking something from law abiding citizens?


Since these are the changes being implemented or proposed, these questions MUST be asked and answered adequately and satisfactorily before any change is made.

It needs to be banned for the simple reason that none of you have ANY logical argument why they should not be!

Lets start there, shall we? I've asked for this in a series of posts and none have delivered?

Your case is TRULY this weak and you expect to win? Gads. I don't know what to say.

[jpsmith1cm]

So then, you are potentially arrested and thrown in jail?

Not sure how this helps you, your family and indeed gun activists in general, but ok.

Geez, I just don't see it as that big of a deal and you guys are failing miserably in making me understand.

If you think these sorts of arguments will win the day for you, I beg to differ.

You sound collectively unprepared for the battle ahead. If these posts are "your game" then I predict that you will lose big. Sorry.

Actually, under none but the strictest of laws would that happen.

None of the proposed federal laws criminalize already legal guns, they just make manufacture and future transfer illegal.

The entire anti-gun argument, IMO, is based in emotion and is completely devoid of logic and common sense.

Assault doesn't define a weapon or a bullet, unless that weapon jumps up and commits acts of aggression ON ITS OWN. Since no weapon can do that, it's really an illogical term on its face.

Weapons have no mind, no personality, no inherent good or evil. They are simply tools. Tools that can be used for good or for ill.

Perhaps, more than gun control, we need to expend more effort punishing the criminals that we've already got running around rather than making more laws to make more criminals that we just won't punish.

[jpsmith1cm]

It needs to be banned for the simple reason that none of you have ANY logical argument why they should not be!

Lets start there, shall we? I've asked for this in a series of posts and none have delivered?

Your case is TRULY this weak and you expect to win? Gads. I don't know what to say.

We need to punish the actual law breakers rather than punishing lawful people.

[scrogdog]

We need to punish the actual law breakers rather than punishing lawful people.

That is not a reason that your life will be adversely affected by the removal of SOME GUNS.

Why are you safer owning those guns rather than just the ones allowed? Show me something; precedent, statistics... ANYTHING.

[jpsmith1cm]

It needs to be banned for the simple reason that none of you have ANY logical argument why they should not be!

Lets start there, shall we? I've asked for this in a series of posts and none have delivered?

Your case is TRULY this weak and you expect to win? Gads. I don't know what to say.

Nice evasion.

Logically impossible to prove a negative.

You want the change, you must prove your case.

[jpsmith1cm]

That is not a reason that your life will be adversely affected by the removal of SOME GUNS.

Why are you safer owning those guns rather than just the ones allowed? Show me something; precedent, statistics... ANYTHING.

Only law abiding people follow laws. More laws will not affect those who do not follow laws.

This is only simple logic.

[scrogdog]

Only law abiding people follow laws. More laws will not affect those who do not follow laws.

This is only simple logic.

I'm not sure I follow.

I don't see a lot of grenades being used by the lawless here in the US even by the lawless whose intent is mass destruction.

Your explanation?

[scrogdog]

Nice evasion.

Logically impossible to prove a negative.

You want the change, you must prove your case.

Uh, it is not logically impossible to prove a negative. If I tell you that there is no car in my garage there is little effort on your part proving that to be true.

Please.

What case must I prove? That you have failed to show why you are safer with these weapons than without?

That's easy, simply read the general replies to this topic.

[scrogdog]

Nice evasion.

Logically impossible to prove a negative.

You want the change, you must prove your case.

Actually, under none but the strictest of laws would that happen.

None of the proposed federal laws criminalize already legal guns, they just make manufacture and future transfer illegal.

The entire anti-gun argument, IMO, is based in emotion and is completely devoid of logic and common sense.

Assault doesn't define a weapon or a bullet, unless that weapon jumps up and commits acts of aggression ON ITS OWN. Since no weapon can do that, it's really an illogical term on its face.

Weapons have no mind, no personality, no inherent good or evil. They are simply tools. Tools that can be used for good or for ill.

Perhaps, more than gun control, we need to expend more effort punishing the criminals that we've already got running around rather than making more laws to make more criminals that we just won't punish.

Fine. In that case using logic and common sense describe how you are safer with these weapons than without.

Simple request, still unfulfilled. I can only imagine that you and others along with the NRA feel that your average moderate cant see through an argument based on cliches and rather pedestrian and inaccurate views of the rules of logic.

I suppose that you can only hope that your pundits in Washington have better and more logic-oriented arguments.

If this crap is all you have, then you deserve to lose this fight.

Again, I say to you that I am a moderate on this issue. Despite my repeated request and even plea to give me something other than rhetoric, no one has delivered.

[jpsmith1cm]

Rhetoric?

I've pointed several questions your way and made several points.


What weapons do you think that the proposed assault weapons ban includes? Are you thinking that it ONLY affects those nasty black rifles as used by Lanza?

If so, you're sadly mistaken.

It affects a HUGE number of common rifles and handguns used millions of times annually to defend life and property.

So, yes, this proposed (and quite unlikely) legislation WOULD decrease safety for many Americans.