Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Tinykong]

if i read it right and followed the context it was about constitutional rights being revoked on a "whim" ... so it´s not a false equivalency

Being arrested and being denied a license to carry a firearm are not even remotely the same thing.

[TZucchini]

If you can show a person "has exhibited or engaged in behavior that suggests the applicant or card holder could potentially create a risk to public safety" shouldnt this person be denied from owning ANY type of sharp or blunt object that could be used to inflict harm? Shouldnt this person be under some type of surveilence? I mean by this very text we have a ticking time bomb walking the streets which is apparently ok as long as he cant get his hands on a firearm.

Yes. I'd certainly agree with all that.

- - - Updated - - -

if i read it right and followed the context it was about constitutional rights being revoked on a "whim" ... so it´s not a false equivalency

Yeah. You would be correct. It's about the illegal implementation of a law, followed by an appeals process. It's not a false equivalency, but Tiny loves top hop on board the "fallacy train."

[Tinykong]

So if 499 out of 500 legislators read the law, then "the legislature hasn't read the law."

What a dumb statement. Just admit you were wrong. It'll be much easier.

Maybe your math skills are lacking as well?

499 out of 500 isn't 100%.

- - - Updated - - -

It's about the illegal implementation of a law, followed by an appeals process.

Too bad that isn't what you've been describing. Arresting someone is not an implementation of law.

[Mayhem]

Maybe your math skills are lacking as well?

499 out of 500 isn't 100%.

i could be wrong but isn´t this common practice in the US?

[TZucchini]

Maybe your math skills are lacking as well?

499 out of 500 isn't 100%.

So in order to say "the legislature read the bill," it has to be 100% among all members? Where are you coming up with that opinion?

And do they have to read every single word, on every single page?

Under this definition, do you have any idea how many legislatures have never read bills? Your gripe is clearly elsewhere...

Too bad that isn't what you've been describing. Arresting someone is not an implementation of law.

Arrest is the result of the breaking of the law (possession of illegal substance), just like revocation is the result of the breaking of the law (HB 4278). You're talking about the illegal implementation of a law resulting in appeals. Not a false equivalency.

Do you follow now? Up to speed?

[Tinykong]

So in order to say "the legislature read the bill," it has to be 100% among all members? Where are you coming up with that opinion?

And do they have to read every single word, on every single page?

Under this definition, do you have any idea how many legislatures have never read bills? Your gripe is clearly elsewhere...

Yes, in order to say a group of people has done something, they all have to have done it.

Arrest is the result of the breaking of the law (possession of illegal substance), just like revocation is the result of the breaking of the law (HB 4278). You're talking about the illegal implementation of a law resulting in appeals. Not a false equivalency.

Do you follow now? Up to speed?

Thanks for misrepresenting my argument to avoid admitting you're making a false equivalency.

[steale]

Two things here. It's not "some cop". These are trained law enforcement professionals. In many cases, it's the local police chief.

Secondly, I wasn't aware that people couldn't "defend themselves" without firearms. Guess we just have to jump straight to the most effective option.

Fixed that for you. Some drugged out dude breaks into my house all bath-salted up, there's a chance I could physically restrain him without injuring either party, but why risk it? His well-being is not a priority for me at that point. I'd rather have a gun and be sure.

[Mayhem]

Fixed that for you. Some drugged out dude breaks into my house all bath-salted up, there's a chance I could physically restrain him without injuring either party, but why risk it? His well-being is not a priority for me at that point. I'd rather have a gun and be sure.

you do realise that you´re putting yourself in the postion of a guy deemed a threat to society?

[Cthulhu 2020]

Pointing out that the 2nd amendment is a thing to people who want to repeal the 2nd amendment is a waste of time, imo.

Irony when it comes to the 14th, 16th, and 24th, for you and many others.

[Svifnymr]

Giving local law enforcement professionals the ability to deny individuals the right to carry a firearm if they're deemed unsuitable? Makes sense to me.

The issue is when there is no way to be "suitable" for someone. The law is actually a revision of the current law that basically allows them to say "no" without explanation. The new law requires them to document the reason for a decline as well as allowing judicial review.

- - - Updated - - -

How do you know that the legislature didn't read it?

We don't know who read it and who didn't. We do know that "The postponement motion failed 57-91.", so 57 said they wanted more time and 91 said they didn't.

[Tinykong]

Irony when it comes to the 14th, 16th, and 24th, for you and many others.

I'd ask you to quote me ever making these statements, but you can't.

[Rukentuts]

Irony when it comes to the 14th, 16th, and 24th, for you and many others.

Only the second matters.

[Masark]

Only the second matters.

And bits of the first.

[Rukentuts]

And bits of the first.

I can't think of a bit of a first that matters tbh.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I'd ask you to quote me ever making these statements, but you can't.

Voter ID. Better things to do than waste time finding them, but we know what you've posted about it.

Other posters in this thread spooge over the 2nd and berate dirty liberals for forgetting its existence, meanwhile denouncing taxation.

Fucking irony.

[THE Bigzoman]

I'd ask you to quote me ever making these statements, but you can't.

Hasty generalizations make for surprisingly shallow attacks,

If think the 2nd amendment is a constitutional right, you must hate these other amendments.

- - - Updated - - -

Voter ID. Better things to do than waste time finding them, but we know what you've posted about it.

Other posters in this thread spooge over the 2nd and berate dirty liberals for forgetting its existence, meanwhile denouncing taxation.

Fucking irony.

He's placed conditions upon his support for Voter ID.

Particularly, that the state provides IDs in order to eliminate the statue's ability to disenfranchise voters.

How does that equate to the erosion of a constitutional amendment?

[Mahourai]

He's placed conditions upon his support for Voter ID.

Particularly, that the state provides IDs in order to eliminate the statue's ability to disenfranchise voters.

The idea that you can design a voter ID that doesn't disenfranchise legitimate voters is like saying if we just craft the right literacy tests and set the right poll taxes, they'd somehow become non-discriminatory and moral.

Oh and the same goes for abrogating gun ownership rights. There's no right way to do it.

[THE Bigzoman]

The idea that you can design a voter ID that doesn't disenfranchise legitimate voters is like saying if we just craft the right literacy tests and set the right poll taxes, they'd somehow become non-discriminatory and moral.

Oh and the same goes for abrogating gun ownership rights. There's no right way to do it.

The difficulty of meeting a condition does not change the fact that it is a condition that needs to bet met before support is given.

If anything, if the condition is impractical, it proves that someone in fact refuses to attack whatever constitutional amendment Voter ID violates.

[Mahourai]

The difficulty of meeting a condition does not change the fact that it is a condition that needs to bet met before support is given.

If anything, if the condition is impractical, it proves that someone in fact refuses to attack whatever constitutional amendment Voter ID violates.

I've been looking at both these sentences for a while now and I can't make them function as thoughts. What are you trying to say?

[THE Bigzoman]

I've been looking at both these sentences for a while now and I can't make them function as thoughts. What are you trying to say?

Would've saved time if you asked when you immediately didn't follow rather then try to process it. I don't write to intentionally confuse. Ask me to elaborate or rephrase. I'm here for the reader.

I claimed that Tinykong placed a condition for his support for Voter ID

You responded that the condition was unrealistic.

I responded that what you said didn't change the fact that the condition had to be met before Tiny supported Voter ID.

Any better?