Gun Control

[Woodruff]

Sorry, let me rephrase. Why is it important to remember that in the context of a gun control debate where members of the Democratic Party have been in control of the mayors' office in the highest gun violence cities in the United States? There is at least a correlation between Democrats and high gun violence in inner cities. Perhaps we should focus on that first.

Did you see my response to that claim?

No. Can you sum up?

Here, I linked to it: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=188997&p=4149480&hilit=population#p4149480

[BigBallinStalin]

Tighter gun restrictions probably won't be effective unless they are universal. For example, Illinois has arguably the toughest gun laws, but Chicago has seen a flood of gun violence. You can't just have tough restrictions in one state when people can easily access guns in others. It's not like they have to pass through border/customs inspections to return to Illinois from [Southern state].

I'm not sure I agree with the argument that criminals wreak havoc (whatever that may be) because they know the law-abiding citizens don't have guns. I think they wreak havoc because they're criminals. Yes?

How do you explain the target selection of criminals?

Saying "cuz they're criminals" isn't sufficient.

[Juan_Bottom]

... Seven kids a day die because of the unrestricted Right to Bear Arms.

Misplaced cause and effect. This is like saying the great works of Renoir are the result of the availability of paint in 1912, a pen and ink were the only required prerequisites to the creation of King Lear, etc..

It's also not true. In Philadelphia, for example, 80% of people die from guns because of the illegal purchase of guns.

Those guns ALL came from legal sources. At one point they may have been moved illegally, but as the other side says "criminals don't follow the laws." So flood the legal market with unwatched cheap guns and the illegal market will be soon flooded as well.

^fastposted by The Voice

... Seven kids a day die because of the unrestricted Right to Bear Arms.

Misplaced cause and effect. This is like saying the great works of Renoir are the result of the availability of paint in 1912, a pen and ink were the only required prerequisites to the creation of King Lear, etc..

The unrestricted Right to Bear Arms is the root cause of those deaths. If we had more restrictions, certainly we would lose less people. Australia had 14 mass shootings before they put in place their tight gun restrictions. They've had 0 mass shootings since.

[Night Strike]

The unrestricted Right to Bear Arms is the root cause of those deaths. If we had more restrictions, certainly we would lose less people. Australia had 14 mass shootings before they put in place their tight gun restrictions. They've had 0 mass shootings since.

Unfortunately, the Right to Bear Arms is NOT unrestricted. We don't need even MORE restrictions; we need to enforce the restrictions that are already law. If we can't enforce current laws, what difference would more laws make? And when are we going to stop passing laws that limit our personal freedoms and choices? When will the government have enough control over our lives and stop taking more?

[Woodruff]

The unrestricted Right to Bear Arms is the root cause of those deaths. If we had more restrictions, certainly we would lose less people. Australia had 14 mass shootings before they put in place their tight gun restrictions. They've had 0 mass shootings since.

Unfortunately, the Right to Bear Arms is NOT unrestricted.

You keep saying things like this, and yet you claim you don't want felons to have guns.

And when are we going to stop passing laws that limit our personal freedoms and choices? When will the government have enough control over our lives and stop taking more?

Yes...when indeed?

[Night Strike]

The unrestricted Right to Bear Arms is the root cause of those deaths. If we had more restrictions, certainly we would lose less people. Australia had 14 mass shootings before they put in place their tight gun restrictions. They've had 0 mass shootings since.

Unfortunately, the Right to Bear Arms is NOT unrestricted.

You keep saying things like this, and yet you claim you don't want felons to have guns.

The government places a lot more restrictions on guns than simply keeping felons from having them.

[thegreekdog]

Sorry, let me rephrase. Why is it important to remember that in the context of a gun control debate where members of the Democratic Party have been in control of the mayors' office in the highest gun violence cities in the United States? There is at least a correlation between Democrats and high gun violence in inner cities. Perhaps we should focus on that first.

Did you see my response to that claim?

No. Can you sum up?

Here, I linked to it: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=188997&p=4149480&hilit=population#p4149480

Okay. Why is more population congestion the culprit (in your opinion)?

[thegreekdog]

Those guns ALL came from legal sources. At one point they may have been moved illegally, but as the other side says "criminals don't follow the laws." So flood the legal market with unwatched cheap guns and the illegal market will be soon flooded as well.

Okay. I'm not sure what that has to do with increasing background checks. Are you saying tighter background checks will decrease the amount of guns that are obtained illegally? That seems counterintuitive.

[Baron Von PWN]

Those guns ALL came from legal sources. At one point they may have been moved illegally, but as the other side says "criminals don't follow the laws." So flood the legal market with unwatched cheap guns and the illegal market will be soon flooded as well.

Okay. I'm not sure what that has to do with increasing background checks. Are you saying tighter background checks will decrease the amount of guns that are obtained illegally? That seems counterintuitive.

The idea is guns in the ilegal market were at some point obtained from the legal supply. Reduce the legal supply and theoretically you reduce the illegal supply as well.

[BigBallinStalin]

Those guns ALL came from legal sources. At one point they may have been moved illegally, but as the other side says "criminals don't follow the laws." So flood the legal market with unwatched cheap guns and the illegal market will be soon flooded as well.

Okay. I'm not sure what that has to do with increasing background checks. Are you saying tighter background checks will decrease the amount of guns that are obtained illegally? That seems counterintuitive.

The idea is guns in the ilegal market were at some point obtained from the legal supply. Reduce the legal supply and theoretically you reduce the illegal supply as well.

For example, one could prohibit the production of firearms---as the US government did against alcohol and is now doing in regard to marijuana, cocaine, prostitution, heroin, terrorism, murder, etc.

Hmm, I smell a Nirvana fallacy brewing in the minds of statists here.

[Woodruff]

The unrestricted Right to Bear Arms is the root cause of those deaths. If we had more restrictions, certainly we would lose less people. Australia had 14 mass shootings before they put in place their tight gun restrictions. They've had 0 mass shootings since.

Unfortunately, the Right to Bear Arms is NOT unrestricted.

You keep saying things like this, and yet you claim you don't want felons to have guns.

The government places a lot more restrictions on guns than simply keeping felons from having them.

I know you want to dance away from this, but that is thoroughly irrelevant to my point.

[Phatscotty]

America haters and enemies of the Constitution...

[Woodruff]

Sorry, let me rephrase. Why is it important to remember that in the context of a gun control debate where members of the Democratic Party have been in control of the mayors' office in the highest gun violence cities in the United States? There is at least a correlation between Democrats and high gun violence in inner cities. Perhaps we should focus on that first.

Did you see my response to that claim?

No. Can you sum up?

Here, I linked to it: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=188997&p=4149480&hilit=population#p4149480

Okay. Why is more population congestion the culprit (in your opinion)?

Cities will necessarily have higher numbers of individuals who are out of work, using drugs, generally unhappy with their shitty lives, etc. I'm not talking about a higher percentage (as someone who grew up in a small town, I know that alcohol usage, for instance, is a pretty high percentage), but rather higher numbers. Some small percentage of those individuals will turn to crime as a means for either surviving or, more likely in my opinion, improving their lives or attaining the particular lifestyle they prefer. Cities will also necessarily have a larger "pool of victims to choose from", if you will, providing better options in crime. It's a numbers game.

[Woodruff]

America haters and enemies of the Constitution...

Says the guy who isn't interested in equality for all.

[Phatscotty]

America haters and enemies of the Constitution...

Says the guy who isn't interested in equality for all.

equality at birth, not equality in material stuff that people like you vote to have stolen from others and redistributed back to yourself, hypocrite.

[Night Strike]

America haters and enemies of the Constitution...

Says the guy who isn't interested in equality for all.

Equality of outcome is not a right.

[Woodruff]

America haters and enemies of the Constitution...

Says the guy who isn't interested in equality for all.

Equality of outcome is not a right.

So you consider, for instance, the following link to be a situation of "inequality of outcome", not a situation of "inequality of opportunity":
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/2-texas-man-after-34-years-my-partners-sister-legally-took-our-home-because-we-werent-married/legal-issues/2013/04/29/66089

[Night Strike]

America haters and enemies of the Constitution...

Says the guy who isn't interested in equality for all.

Equality of outcome is not a right.

So you consider, for instance, the following link to be a situation of "inequality of outcome", not a situation of "inequality of opportunity":
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/2-texas-man-after-34-years-my-partners-sister-legally-took-our-home-because-we-werent-married/legal-issues/2013/04/29/66089

Sounds more like a problematic sister.

[Woodruff]

America haters and enemies of the Constitution...

Says the guy who isn't interested in equality for all.

Equality of outcome is not a right.

So you consider, for instance, the following link to be a situation of "inequality of outcome", not a situation of "inequality of opportunity":
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/2-texas-man-after-34-years-my-partners-sister-legally-took-our-home-because-we-werent-married/legal-issues/2013/04/29/66089

Sounds more like a problematic sister.

You don't see the LEGAL problem due to inequality? Egad, man...it's frightening to get insight into your mind.

[Phatscotty]

I see where all the inequality comes from...

[Night Strike]

America haters and enemies of the Constitution...

Says the guy who isn't interested in equality for all.

Equality of outcome is not a right.

So you consider, for instance, the following link to be a situation of "inequality of outcome", not a situation of "inequality of opportunity":
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/2-texas-man-after-34-years-my-partners-sister-legally-took-our-home-because-we-werent-married/legal-issues/2013/04/29/66089

Sounds more like a problematic sister.

You don't see the LEGAL problem due to inequality? Egad, man...it's frightening to get insight into your mind.

Marriage isn't a right, so there's nothing inequal. Two men were in a homosexual relationship with each other and apparently did not take all the necessary legal requirements to protect each other's assets, which allowed an apparently vindictive sister to come in and take it away. The sister is the one with the problems, not the law. Much less inequality of rights.

Meanwhile, owning and bearing arms IS a right, which is why there are large problems when the government chooses to take them away from people simply because a few elitists don't like guns.

[Phatscotty]

I love how when Woodruff gets called out for treason, he changes the subject from gun control to to a redefined definition of equality. It's almost like a reflex

[Woodruff]

Says the guy who isn't interested in equality for all.

Equality of outcome is not a right.

So you consider, for instance, the following link to be a situation of "inequality of outcome", not a situation of "inequality of opportunity":
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/2-texas-man-after-34-years-my-partners-sister-legally-took-our-home-because-we-werent-married/legal-issues/2013/04/29/66089

Sounds more like a problematic sister.

You don't see the LEGAL problem due to inequality? Egad, man...it's frightening to get insight into your mind.

Marriage isn't a right, so there's nothing inequal.

NOTHING INEQUAL? Did you even read the article, or did you only look at the headline?

Two men were in a homosexual relationship with each other and apparently did not take all the necessary legal requirements to protect each other's assets

If you had read the article, you would know that they did in fact take all the necessary legal requirements to protect their assets THAT THEY WERE ALLOWED TO TAKE. You see, that is the problem.

which allowed an apparently vindictive sister to come in and take it away. The sister is the one with the problems, not the law. Much less inequality of rights.

Wow. It's actually frightening to me that someone could read that article and not believe it was an inequality of rights.

Meanwhile, owning and bearing arms IS a right, which is why there are large problems when the government chooses to take them away from people simply because a few elitists don't like guns.

Who around here is talking about taking guns away from people? You keep throwing up this false flag that doesn't exist.

[Woodruff]

I love how when Woodruff gets called out for treason, he changes the subject from gun control to to a redefined definition of equality. It's almost like a reflex

Woodruff gets called out for treason? What the hell are you talking about, Phatscotty?

I simply pointed out that you aren't at all interested in equality.

Are the voices in your head telling you to post another video? It's the devil, Phatscotty...don't listen to him.

[Woodruff]

America haters and enemies of the Constitution...

Says the guy who isn't interested in equality for all.

equality at birth, not equality in material stuff that people like you vote to have stolen from others and redistributed back to yourself, hypocrite.

What exactly have I voted to steal from others so I can redistribute back to myself? Unless you're referring to my military disability pay or my military retirement and you have the ability to show that I have voted for this to be increased in some way, you're going to have a difficult time establishing this. But then, you never have been interested in an honest debate have you, hypocrite?

Didn't you foe me for the 10th time? Make up your damn mind, coward.