Times like these...

[Lurikeen]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Why can't you people understand that the fact that people break laws isn't an argument against the concept of laws?

You are demonstrating how you miss the point. It isn't that your opponent has given you flawed logic, it is that you are willfully ignoring the reasoning given to you. No kidding people break laws, duh! You're assuming that people who aren't like you are nitwits. What you don't want to understand is that an armed public is actually a good resolution to certain problems of public safety (Private gun ownership Bad! More guns bad! Right?). That goes beyond your comprehension because you have adopted the lie that more regulation equals more safety. That's why your're getting bashed with rock metaphors and the like (pun intended, since I like bad puns). The point is, the regulations you desire aren't making you safe.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Lurikeen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You are demonstrating how you miss the point. It isn't that your opponent has given you flawed logic, it is that you are willfully ignoring the reasoning given to you. No kidding people break laws, duh! You're assuming that people who aren't like you are nitwits. What you don't want to understand is that an armed public is actually a good resolution to certain problems of public safety. That goes beyond your comprehension because you have adopted the lie that more regulation equals more safety. That's why your're getting bashed with rock metaphors and the like (pun intended, since I like bad puns). The point is, the regulations you desire aren't making you safe.

Oh yea, how could I miss that point you weren't making until now?

Where did I say I didn't want an armed public? I don't want armed criminals and lunatics. Obviously, they will still find guns. I just want to make it more difficult. Currently, as I've demonstrated, it is not very difficult.

[Lurikeen]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Oh yea, how could I miss that point you weren't making until now?

Where did I say I didn't want an armed public? I don't want armed criminals and lunatics. Obviously, they will still find guns. I just want to make it more difficult. Currently, as I've demonstrated, it is not very difficult.

Actually, I was making the same point earlier. Your point over not wanting "armed criminals and lunatics" is a red herring. Nobody posting in this thread has advocated arming "criminals and lunatics."

You say, "I just want to make it more difficult" and the point I made earlier is that it is already pretty difficult. Did you miss that post I made about how one has to fill out forms and go through a NICS check at a bare minimum, just to buy a gun? As a gun owner you should know that, but your retort was some generalization that it is so easy to by pass the system and get a gun. Your extreme example simply proves the rule by exception. More often than not the system works. So why would anyone want to make it more difficult?

The anti-gun lobby wants to make it more difficult because they want to disarm everyone. Because like you, they don't think gun ownership is a right. As you said, "Then stop thinking about gun ownership as a right instead of a privilege. It isn't 1783 anymore and a musket is not an assault rifle."

No. I will continue to think of gun ownership as a right because notwithstanding the claim of gun owning liberals such as yourself, gun ownership is our right. It goes along with property ownership and being in a position to protect ones property, family, and neighbors.

What is also telling in your claim I quote above is that you are a missing the significance of the fact that when the American Revolution was fought, many of the guns used were privately owned. The Brits would have loved it if they could have fought an unarmed population. This gets to the heart of the second amendment and the point that gun ownership is not a "privilege" as you say. Our founding fathers had the common sense to understand that an assembly of citizen soldiers might be needed in the future to fight off another tyrannical government rising up against the people. Where do you think such a "militia" is going to get their guns, if they already don't own them or possess them?

Gun ownership is a right and the regulations the federal government have in place today, restricting gun ownership, are plenty. We don't need any more.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Lurikeen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Actually, I was making the same point earlier. Your point over not wanting "armed criminals and lunatics" is a red herring. Nobody posting in this thread has advocated arming "criminals and lunatics."

The claim isn't that they are advocating arming criminals and lunatics, but that they are resisting the implementation of barriers against that.

Originally Posted by Lurikeen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You say, "I just want to make it more difficult" and the point I made earlier is that it is already pretty difficult. Did you miss that post I made about how one has to fill out forms and go through a NICS check at a bare minimum, just to buy a gun? As a gun owner you should know that, but your retort was some generalization that it is so easy to by pass the system and get a gun. Your extreme example simply proves the rule by exception. More often than not the system works. So why would anyone want to make it more difficult?

In some states NICS is the only form of background check and does not apply to sales between private individuals, creating a massive private sale loophole. (Ie, one gun nut to another). That the system works is a patent falsehood. Everyone here in Northern California knows what a joke it is to get around our laws; you just go to Nevada or buy from a private party. Guy I knew from high school was the center of the largest drug bust in our county's history-- he now owns an AK47. I know many more similar examples, and it's a well-recognized issue, with 96% of Americans in support of universal background checks.

Originally Posted by Lurikeen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The anti-gun lobby wants to make it more difficult because they want to disarm everyone. Because like you, they don't think gun ownership is a right. As you said, "Then stop thinking about gun ownership as a right instead of a privilege. It isn't 1783 anymore and a musket is not an assault rifle."

No. I will continue to think of gun ownership as a right because notwithstanding the claim of gun owning liberals such as yourself, gun ownership is our right. It goes along with property ownership and being in a position to protect ones property, family, and neighbors.

What is also telling in your claim I quote above is that you are a missing the significance of the fact that when the American Revolution was fought, many of the guns used were privately owned. The Brits would have loved it if they could have fought an unarmed population. This gets to the heart of the second amendment and the point that gun ownership is not a "privilege" as you say. Our founding fathers had the common sense to understand that an assembly of citizen soldiers might be needed in the future to fight off another tyrannical government rising up against the people. Where do you think such a "militia" is going to get their guns, if they already don't own them or possess them?

Gun ownership is a right and the regulations the federal government have in place today, restricting gun ownership, are plenty. We don't need any more.

I don't find this reasoning compelling. In the 1700's, there was far more parity between an armed populace and the federal government. If you think a bunch of obese rednecks with firearms will ever be the only thing standing between the most sophisticated military machine that has ever existed, and tyranny, I don't think you're being realistic. If a tyrannical government ever rises against the people in the USA, it will be silent and nonviolent, and due to voter apathy... as is currently occurring. (Most of our representatives literally do not even represent the interests of their constituents.) What are you going to do, go down to DC and shoot a corrupt politician?

If you really cared about keeping the government in line, and weren't just exploiting the notion to defend your guns, you wouldn't be so quick to simply abstain from voting and let it all go to hell. That attitude is 10x more dangerous than the populace not having guns. Instead, you're content to sit in your room and wait for the Feds to come in so you can blast them, because I guess you think that's a better way to defend your liberty?

Also note I don't even want to take your guns away. In spite of your slippery slope fallacy, making our joke regulations actually function isn't some ploy to eventually take everyone's guns. It may be that way for anti gun liberals, but not for me. What I'm in favor of wouldn't even affect you, and you wouldn't care if you weren't a radical.

[Lurikeen]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The claim isn't that they are advocating arming criminals and lunatics, but that they are resisting the implementation of barriers against that.

You mean more barriers, since there is no resisting the current laws if one wants to legally own a firearm. Let's be clear here.

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In some states NICS is the only form of background check and does not apply to sales between private individuals, creating a massive private sale loophole. (Ie, one gun nut to another). That the system works is a patent falsehood.

Yes, let's grab an exception to the rule (which is fastly changing in many states where private sales are concerned) and then run around like chicken little and declare the "sky is falling" (i.e. "That the system works is a patent falsehood.") [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] BTW, I told you about NICS being the only check in some states, along with some other facts, in my earlier post. Looks like you didn't read it after all.

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Everyone here in Northern California knows what a joke it is to get around our laws; you just go to Nevada or buy from a private party.

Generalize from the particular much, and then jump to conclusions? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What you probably should state is that you know some people who "get around" California gun control laws. Then ask yourself so what? You're actually making my point for me. That is, more regulations aren't the answer, your example is a case in point. However, your anecdote is not compelling when claiming the system is failing. Nice attempt, though.

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't find this reasoning compelling.

Not surprising.

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In the 1700's, there was far more parity between an armed populace and the federal government.

An irrelevant point to the constitutionality of owning a firearm. However, the answer isn't to limit gun ownership to create a civilian population which can't protect itself from government.

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you think a bunch of obese rednecks with firearms will ever be the only thing standing between the most sophisticated military machine that has ever existed, and tyranny, I don't think you're being realistic.

Silly ad hominem which is also irrelevant to the point of the constitutionality of gun ownership.

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If a tyrannical government ever rises against the people in the USA, it will be silent and nonviolent, and due to voter apathy...

That very well may be the case, but ignores the historical background of why the framers of the constitution instituted the right of a citizen soldiery (aka "militia") and private gun ownership.

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you really cared about keeping the government in line,....

More silly ad hominem which isn't relevant to the discussion at hand.

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Also note I don't even want to take your guns away.

In fact, you do. You want to impose further limits upon gun sales and that certainly has the potential of "taking my guns away."

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In spite of your slippery slope fallacy,

There was no "slippery slope fallacy" offered by me. However, you are doing pretty good with the fallacious reasoning here, so I don't trust that you could recognize a "slippery slope" even if you slid down one all the way to the bottom of it.

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What I'm in favor of wouldn't even affect you, and you wouldn't care if you weren't a radical.

One of the most dangerous types of liberals are those who don't recognize they are liberals. You obviously have some knowledge, but you lack an essential understanding of why a conservative would not want additional regulations. In fact, only a liberal would call for additional regulations as you are doing.

Thanks for the conversation. Yours is the last word.

EDIT: Oh, and calling me a "radical" isn't terribly convincing that you aren't a liberal.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Flunklesnarkin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Gun owners don't have to over power the government. They just have stay resolute to their peaceful values and when images of the government slaughtering them shows up you will see how quickly the people turn on the government.

I'm not against gun ownership.

I swear it's like the only point you people know how to argue against is some caricatured anti-gun liberal extremist stance, which you'll go through great lengths to distill from what I say.

Strengthening regulations for gun purchases, including a universal background check in order to make it more difficult for criminals and mentally ill to obtain guns and close the private purchase loophole, does not equal Adolf Hussein Obama taking all your guns away. Do you all have criminal records? Is that why you're so adamant about this?