Jeerleader wrote:

Rongone wrote:

My last word on this subject and dealing with your childish reactionary rhetoric:

Look in the mirror.

All I ask for is continuity of argument and not misrepresenting what I say.  
.

All you ask is for total impunity to put other posters down and to play the victim when they reply in kind.

And, golly gosh, you are so smart,,,,,

Last edited by Goose (5/27/2015 7:07 pm)

Just Fred wrote:

Ok, Jeer we have to start somewhere where we can find some common ground on this issue.

Do you foresee any type of hand-held weaponry made available to the public that would be considered over-the-top, and too dangerous and lethal that we, as a nation, should say, "No, sorry, you can't have one of those things."

Well, here is a good one for you Fred. It is the GE M134 MiniGun and thanks to the National Firearms Act, any fully automatic weapon made before 1986 is fair game to civilians in most states. 







 

Just Fred wrote:

Well, Tennyson, isn't that just swell.

No, not really, but it IS perfectly legal in most cases for a citizen to have one of these.

It goes to the heart of just what the 2nd Amendment is aimed at providing. Do you need a weapon for personal protection or to avert a government takeover. If you are worried about the later than this is the type weapon for you. 
Problem is, we as citizens would be SO OUTGUNNED it would be pathetic. 

I have a handgun and keep it for personal protection. It has a small magazine and that is all I really want or need. 




 

Goose wrote:

I just think we should regulate guns that are better suited for a pitched battle (Or the efficient murder of school children) than they are for home defense.

But being better suited for pitched battle is the deterimate criteria for protection.  The criteria that the Supreme Court uses to determine if a gun has 2nd Amendment protection is if it is of the type usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the common, ordinary military equipment in use at that time, . . .  and for arms that no longer have current military usefulness, the types of arms in common use by the citizens, are also protected.

If any firearms enjoy near absolute protection under the 2nd Amendment it is a modern semi-auto, hi-cap civilian version of a military rifle, i.e., AK-47, AR-15 in .223/5.56mm or .308/7.62mm caliber and a semi-auto pistol in 9mm or .45 caliber.

Goose wrote:

I understand that you love guns

I don't "love" guns. Although I might buy one soon. 

What I "love" is the gun debate.

Goose wrote:

and couldn't care less about children.

What is your problem?  Are you reflexively driven to go there when you have no reasoned reply?

Goose wrote:

But that is no excuse for constructing an alternate reality and behaving like a complete wanker on this site

No alternate reality here. 

The points I make are solidly grounded in the Constitution and the law. 

Goose wrote:

All you ask is for total impunity to put other posters down and to play the victim when they reply in kind.

I have made it a point to not go personal since the new enforcement program has been intitiated here. 
Whatever "victim card" I've played here was out of sarcasm not from hurt feelings.
That I point out the misreprsentations and duplicity of you and others is neiter a personal attack nor playing the victim card, it's just defense from dispicable and desperate 'debate' tactics.

Goose wrote:

And, golly gosh, you are so smart,,,,,

I know my arguments are factually bulletproof (pardon the pun); that's why you and others need to say crap like -I don't care about children- or that I'm "insane"  and you and others need to misrepresent (lie) about what I do say. (All the while warning me about personal attacks LOL)

Those tactics confirm you have no real reply, no real argument, no real position other than I am beneath you because I "love" guns, because I'm motivated by "hate", because I've been brainwashed by Fox and the NRA. 

You claim that "The goal here is to discuss the issues of the day in an atmosphere of mutual respect, not to indulge in pointless quarrels and expressions of condemnation and hatred of your fellow posters" but where is that respect extended to me? (Especially from you as a moderator to me as a guest)

Goose wrote:

I don't think that jeer comes here to find common ground with his fellow citizens.
He is here for different reasons altogether.

I consider debate (not "discussion") to be the highest form of discourse.  The back and forth between OPPONENTS, each making their points and rebuttals is where political positions get refined and solidified.

As I said in the post you deleted, "I much rather listen / read / watch those who I disagree with and consider their points as to confirm that my already arrived at positions are correct and most importantly, can withstand challenge. I read / listen to opposing commentary much more than those that agree with me. You can't bully me with your personal attacks; the only way to "win" is in the realm of reasoned oppositional argument."

I'm not under any delusion that I will ever change your position on anything.  I enjoy challenging anti-gunners and those on the "left" (who, IMNSHO --as a group-- maintain policy positions at odds with the Constituion) and I enjoy being challenged by them.  I consider it pathetic and embarrasing to maintain a policy / political position that you are unwilling to defend against reasoned challenge.

You hold yourself up to be a shining example of high intellectual function but you can only define other's positions (after you misrepresent them) as insane and driven by emotional constructs ("hate") . . . How is that being respectful (or "smart")?  You say you want discussion here to be based in respect but how can I respect you and others, when you and others employ ONLY intellectually dishonest argumentation? 

If your intent is to drive away oppositional views then you are doing a great job.  I can't see how participating in discussion only with those who agrre with you gives you any feeling of satisfaction and self-worth, knowing that you can't stand the heat of real debate. 





 

Just Fred wrote:

Ok, Jeer we have to start somewhere where we can find some common ground on this issue.

Do you foresee any type of hand-held weaponry made available to the public that would be considered over-the-top, and too dangerous and lethal that we, as a nation, should say, "No, sorry, you can't have one of those things."

Of course.  As I said before, I'm not an absolutist, I'm not a "proponent of unlimited gun rights" . . .

I believe that where the line is drawn now and the main restrictions in place now are reasonable and can withstand constitutional challenge.  The Title II weapons like full autos and miniguns and anti-tank guns and anti-aircraft guns should remain available only to those who go through the Class III background check. 

It is interesting to note that in 1934 when the law on full autos etc, was wriiten, Congress knew it did not have the power to ban them and to be more constitutionally "safe", wrote the restrictions in the tax code.  The law requires a tax to be paid on the tansfer of ownership of the weapon.

As I said in the post above, if any firearms enjoy near absolute protection under the 2nd Amendment it is a modern semi-auto, hi-cap civilian version of a military rifle, i.e., AK-47, AR-15 in .223/5.56mm or .308/7.62mm caliber and a semi-auto pistol in 9mm or .45 caliber.

I am more on the side of restricting the access of criminals to society than limiting guns to law abiding citizens.

if I were king for a day I would decree the following to reduce the criminal misuse of guns:

1) Decriminalize drugs and use the $$ saved to do the following:
2) Enforce with vigor laws criminalizing the violent misuse of firearms.
3) Don't use weapons offenses as bargaining chips to be thrown out for guilty pleas for other charges.
4) Never allow the pleading down of felony gun charges to misdemeanors.
5) Mandate full time sentenced to be served for any violent misuse of a firearm.
6) Enhanced sentences for repeat offenders / felon in possession with reduced appeal opportunities, even for capital crimes.
7) Mandate states maintain the most up-to-date database of prohibited persons possible (including a red flag for mental issues - HIPPA be damned). and this be shared with the federal system and all other states.
8) Increase funding for parole/probation programs for both oversight of the boards responsible for release and enforcement of conditions of release and tighten controls on those under conditional release.
9) Increase funding for states / cities for FTA/fugitive recovery with a priority on violent offenders.
10) Enact a nationwide concealed weapon permit system for law-abiding citizens that no state or municipality can opt out of.

If these steps were taken criminal firearm homicide would fall 60%+ within three years.

 

Last edited by Jeerleader (5/28/2015 8:35 am)