reply to post by rickm
Your ad hominem attack says to me you've got nothing. You're just repeating yourself over and over at this point and haven't added anything to this
thread in a while. Every single one of your positions has been refuted to the ground with facts, logical explanation as to why things are, and
definitions. I know you've stated that you don't want criminals or mentally unstable people to have guns. Over and over. What that means, however,
is for you to stop supporting your previous positions, because that is the logical extended conclusion, only criminals will have guns.
The logic train goes like this: I shouldn't have to explain it but here we go. You have acknowledged how easy it is for anyone to purchase a firearm
"under the table" in a person to person transaction of a privately owned firearm for non-commercial purposes. (If you sell firearms in commercial
numbers you get a knock on the door from the BATFE really quickly). You have ignored the various state laws already attributed to these transactions,
but we'll let that slide for now. You also haven't refuted how easy it is for criminals to acquire firearms despite the very stiffest of laws. You
have stated, however, that despite all of the aforementioned, you think legislation against a constitutional guarantee is in order to prevent or make
illegal undesirable individuals from getting firearms, despite acknowledging or at the very least not refuting the fact that would have almost zero
effect. Your train crashed.
However, in legislating further against a constitutional guarantee you've added even more precedent to do so in the future, the final outcome of this,
and history has shown this over and over and over and over and over again, is revocation of that guarantee either through nullification by legislation
or outright amendment. Because of how easy it is to acquire firearms as you've already stated, only criminals will be the ones with guns. But then
you've stated you think firearms ought not be illegal for normal citizens...
You must either stop supporting your previous position, or be wholly of the position that there needs to be an amendment that nullifies the 2nd.
Here's another. You deride me for not wanting restrictions, and the ethos of your words suggest you think very highly of yourself for wanting some
restrictions. Yet I among others here have proved without a doubt through facts and statistics that legislation has done nothing to curb gun violence
in any meaningful way, and in some instances has made it worse. To those you have either agreed or haven't refuted...
Do you see your own cognitive dissonance?
Edit: Do you see how despite not "saying" you want criminals to have guns, your argument logically insinuates it? It's really odd for me and others
here because you're contradicting the practical application of your position.
It would be like me saying, "I think cannabis should be constitutional guarantee for normal citizens, but I'm willing to support legislation that
would, in the long term, eventually make it illegal for anyone to have it, at which time everyone who has cannabis is now technically illegal and a
edit on 3-12-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)