How To Scare The Shit Out Of Many American Gun Advocates: (Page 5)

StuckInTheSixties: slasian says:
"Not being able to defend your self with your gun because of a hypocrites' low is restriction."

I've never advocated restrictions that would prevent a law abiding person from being able to "defend your self with your gun."

slasian: StuckintheSixities said:

"I've never advocated restrictions that would prevent a law abiding person from being able to "defend your self with your gun." "

Nice to see these words from you. And its a shame to read the title of the thread.

People advocate Guns for what you told us right now. Hehehe

StuckInTheSixties:

Perhaps if you read more than the title your replies wouldn't be so boneheaded.

On second thought, that wouldn't help in your case ...

slasian: hehe! Why do we go to the insults when we find our self in a square? I had been following this thread from the beginning, at your age perhaps it is considered as wise to insult people when they point out the big fallacy of an argument

On second thought, that wouldn't help in your case...

StuckInTheSixties:

Okay. Please point out the "biggest fallacy" of my argument, as you perceive it.

LiptonCambell: >>>I assume that you must be alluding to a belief of your own that any sort of restriction (pertaining to firearms, or otherwise) would automatically precipitate "further restrictions."

If by automatically, you mean immediately, No. But I certainly believe one follows the other.....

StuckInTheSixties:

I suppose by "automatically," I meant "unavoidably."

If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that having any sort of restriction on firearms whatsoever will unavoidably lead to further restrictions, to the detriment of society.

Do I understand you correctly?

LiptonCambell: I certainly believe that creating restrictions will normalize it, yes.

I always lean on the belief that, given the right circumstances, any government can and will use the power you grant against them. This is where tyrants come from, and the only way to prevent it from forming is to never give it the strength against the people. And even small, mundane compromises such as registering your weapon to your name and address, could be used by the government as a horrifying weapon against the people

Maybe its 'cause I grew up seeing Bush work the angles- but I don't trust governments with that kind of power...and frankly, I doubt giving the government that kind of information will make for a safer society either.

StuckInTheSixties:

lipton says:
"I certainly believe that creating restrictions will normalize it, yes"

"It" being what? What do you mean by "it"?

You seem to be making an argument against any regulations about anything whatsoever.

Are you an anarchist?

LiptonCambell: Lol no I am not an Anarchist 60's. Are you a Socialist?

And IT meaning regulations and restrictions regarding guns and gun ownership

StuckInTheSixties:

Oh. I see. So you apply this idea only on certain things that you have a passion for, but it doesn't apply to other things.

Okay.

LiptonCambell: Yes. Is taking each instance under personal review and consideration unreasonable?

StuckInTheSixties:

You miss my point, I think.

Why wouldn't the same concerns pertain to any and all regulations?

Shouldn't you be concerned that ... oh ... regulations for speed limits could result in the government confiscating everyone's auto?

LiptonCambell: And I think you miss my point. I judge things on an individual basis- I do not live by an all-encompassing axiom. And i find regulations for speed limits to be reasonable- and more importantly, I cannot phantom how going faster or slower on roads could lead to a dictatorship.

StuckInTheSixties:

I don't fathom how mandating a documentation of the "chain of ownership" of firearms could lead to a dictatorship.

the real slim DEEPy: the us is already a facism anyway

StuckInTheSixties:

Hyperbolist.

slasian: The fallacy in your argument begins with the title it self, American's advocate gun for what you and I had agreed upon, self defense. The second baseless ground in your argument is your proposal that these restrictions will control the Gun market. Criminals already get their guns from the black market, and long before your restrictions they had set a system to arm them selves which systematical feed the black markets with any type of arsenal, and your restrictions will only cause fuss making it more difficult for the low abiding citizens to have his right for armament and protect his life and property.

Again your other weakness in the argument is even if you put the restricting legislation applicable it doesn’t guaranty that it will reduce criminals from possessing a fir arm, they are already criminals and they will break the low to arm them selves which is as easy as a silly little girl’s game for them. They had channels to be fed and I am sure the group behind the black market will find this as an opportunity to make more profit, it is like you will create an artificial shortage of supply to the market and you will increase the demand, even those low abiding citizens will try to buy from the black markets. So the restriction will only hassle low abiding folks.

I think, the real restriction should be on the factories, go to the source. Yeah why don’t we talk about it, eh is it because the government of America makes billions of dollars each year from the factories? Do you think a restriction works while the same amount of Gun is being produced, I think you can see the fact that some of the black markets are systematically feed by the gun industry it self, I am not talking only about the streets of America only; from the Jungles of Congo to the desert of Iraq American Gun factories had a channel of black markets that systematically feed the gun market.

BellasBoy: Dear SITS,I smoked a truckload of dope in the past, like 20 years ago. 'Didn't' is past tense, 'don't' would have been present tense. If you don't think the mainstream media and Hollywood don't ridicule my place in the demographic scheme you have some serious filters on your input receptor. I'm waiting for an American version of the 1935 Nuremburg Laws so I can totally be marginalized. If this country falls further into the web of our Marxist president I think I'll start smokin' dope again, I can probably get some good weed down at the local Occupy encampment.

BellasBoy: The NRA sez there are nearly 100 million handguns in the U.S. Those are registered handguns. Who knows how many unregistered. Let's say just half of that number, half a million. That's 1,500,000 thousand handguns. The horses are out of the barn. What a pointless discussion.

the real slim DEEPy: where should the horses be? in politicians hands? yeah, i really trust politicians more than citizens.

the real slim DEEPy: as far as the automobile statement, thats way off track. the right to bear arms is s fnudamental right, and to change that, all you need is 2/3 of the states to go along, and you can have it your way.

driving a car is left up to the states to delegate as a priveledge.

StuckInTheSixties:

I've got a full plate here ...

slasian says:
"The fallacy in your argument begins with the title it self, American's advocate gun for what you and I had agreed upon, self defense."

Explain why, please.

slasian says:
"The second baseless ground in your argument is your proposal that these restrictions will control the Gun market."

I've never said that my suggestion for a mandated documentation of chain of ownership" would "control the gun market." I've only said that it would REDUCE criminal access to guns.

slasian says:
"Criminals already get their guns from the black market"

Right. And this would reduce that black market.

slasian says:
"... and long before your restrictions they had set a system to arm them selves which systematical feed the black markets with any type of arsenal"

Again, had you actually read any of what has transpired previously in this thread, you'd know that I addressed that. Those guns must be manufactured, not something easily done. When those guns are in the ownership of the manufacturer, they're legal. When a gun falls into the hands of a criminal, that ownership is illegal. The problem occurs at some point between those two ownerships. A mandated documentation of the chain of ownership would reduce that.

slasian says:
"... and your restrictions will only cause fuss making it more difficult for the low abiding citizens to have his right for armament and protect his life and property."

I would suggest that a small "fuss" imposed on the law abiding citizen would be a reasonable tradeoff for the reduction of the black market that would result.

slasian says:
"Again your other weakness in the argument is even if you put the restricting legislation applicable it doesn’t guaranty that it will reduce criminals from possessing a fir arm they are already criminals and they will break the low to arm them selves which is as easy as a silly little girl’s game for them. They had channels to be fed and I am sure the group behind the black market will find this as an opportunity to make more profit"

You fail to understand something. What you're describing is akin to the black market in drugs. This is different. Drugs can be manufactured or grown relatively easily. Firearms can't be manufactured easily (not in the same mass-manufacturing process, at least). With drugs, they are illegal throughout the entire chain. With guns, they are legal, and then become illegal.

slasian says:
"it is like you will create an artificial shortage of supply to the market and you will increase the demand, even those low abiding citizens will try to buy from the black markets. So the restriction will only hassle low abiding folks."

That's absurd. Law abiding people would have no difficulty obtaining firearms. They would be able to obtain them in the same way they do now, through legal purchase.

slasian says:
"I think, the real restriction should be on the factories, go to the source. Yeah why don’t we talk about it, eh is it because the government of America makes billions of dollars each year from the factories? Do you think a restriction works while the same amount of Gun is being produced, I think you can see the fact that some of the black markets are systematically feed by the gun industry it self"

Finally, an intelligent utterance from you. You are correct. The manufacturer would be a part of this documented chain of ownership. They would be the first link in that chain.

BellasBoy says: "
Dear SITS,I smoked a truckload of dope in the past, like 20 years ago. 'Didn't' is past tense, 'don't' would have been present tense."

Fine. But you made the assumption that I smoke dope, and tossed it out as a derisive comment. I don't. Ergo --- fail.

BellasBoy says:
"If you don't think the mainstream media and Hollywood don't ridicule my place in the demographic scheme you have some serious filters on your input receptor."

I never said that. It's an opinion. I only said that your comment fails to take into account that the opinion could be held in reverse.

BellasBoy says:
"I'm waiting for an American version of the 1935 Nuremburg Laws so I can totally be marginalized. If this country falls further into the web of our Marxist president I think I'll start smokin' dope again, I can probably get some good weed down at the local Occupy encampment.

Just a bit of paranoia there ...

BellasBoy says:
"The NRA sez there are nearly 100 million handguns in the U.S. Those are registered handguns. Who knows how many unregistered.

The FBI estimates that there are a minimum of 200 million privately owned legal firearms, and as many as 350 million total.

BellasBoy says:
"The horses are out of the barn. What a pointless discussion."

I'd interpret that reality somewhat differently, I think. You appear to suggest that since there are already a lot of guns, restricting the continuous flow of guns from legal ownership into illegal ownership is pointless. I disagree. But your above demonstrated paranoia about the USA turning into something like Nazi Germany in the thirties is contradictory to that reality. There's a lot of guns in private hands. Those guns aren't going to be confiscated. It just ain't gonna happen for the simple fact that it would be impossible.

deep says:
"as far as the automobile statement, thats way off track. the right to bear arms is s fnudamental right"

That's a good point. So instead of using the auto example as I did, just apply any First Amendment issue instead.

But we were speaking about "restrictions and regulations." That's a broad term, certainly encompassing countless things that aren't specified within the Constitution, such as speed limits for autos.

the real slim DEEPy: moores law???

the real slim DEEPy: are you ready for a party, too bad, cause hitler obama wont let you!!! there, i fulfilled the prophecy.

read your other thread about where criminals get their guns, 60's.