LET'S BAN GUNS!

[clubgop]

[
Well maybe you should defer to the people that actually know what they are talking about and realize the anti gun people aren't among them. What you want, you already have. Background checks? Check. Age restrictions? Check. Waiting periods? Check. So what are you whining about?

I'm not whining. If you read more carefully, I'm asking if YOU support those restrictions or, if not, which restrictions, if any, you do support.

I don't support additional regulations. Stop saying I do. I come here to learn. (My mistake, this re-entry may be short-lived.) I want to present a case to friends who want guns banned, but I can't get a straight answer from anyone on which regulations make sense and which don't, which are in place already and which aren't.

I don't currently have a good argument on why new bans won't work, so I don't try to challenge people in my world. I would, though, if I could get straight answers. If all you want to do is bash me for opinions I don't have, though, well, I'll leave you to it.

What I support doesn't matter cause everytime this happens I have to man the barricades from people like you. It is all security theater and feelz. It is not on me to preserve my rights. The burden should be on those that want to take them. If you still have questions and can't get answers then you nor the gun grabbers have met the burden.

[K@th]

What I support doesn't matter cause everytime this happens I have to man the barricades from people like you. It is all security theater and feelz. It is not on me to preserve my rights. The burden should be on those that want to take them. If you still have questions and can't get answers then you nor the gun grabbers have met the burden.

By people like me, you mean people who do not support additional regulations? Does that make you, people like me?

[Smitty-48]

I don't currently have a good argument on why new bans won't work....

The onus is on you to prove that new bans would work, an argument is about proof, "prove a negative" is a logical fallacy, you have to prove your case, nobody has to disprove it.

The 2nd Amendment is the entrenched in the fabric of the nation, and it is the status quo, why would anybody surrender one bit of control to the likes of you, when you're invoking the "prove us wrong" fallacy? That's bad faith, dictionary definition of.

This is the problem with the gun control loonies, they employ that fallacy, and they cherry pick data to fit their confirmation bias, but this is not working for them, it's actually destroying their credibility, which is why they can't get anything passed, because even people who are willing to consider restrictions, they don't trust the gun control loonies to operate in good faith, so they just say no to anything, lest the loonies get their feet in the door, it's the fallacious gun control loonies, who are the ones preventing the status quo from being changed, they are the poison pill, even for people who want some restrictions, in fact, the more these gun control loonies prattle on, the less restricted it becomes, because while they're not moving the ball down the field, they are inciting a widespread backlash in the opposite direction.

[clubgop]

What I support doesn't matter cause everytime this happens I have to man the barricades from people like you. It is all security theater and feelz. It is not on me to preserve my rights. The burden should be on those that want to take them. If you still have questions and can't get answers then you nor the gun grabbers have met the burden.

By people like me, you mean people who do not support additional regulations? Does that make you, people like me?

You admit you don't know anything but are self righteous enough to claim to know you dont want additional regulations? Right.

[Montegriffo]

I think it's time to stop using negative terms such as ''assault rifles'' from now on they should be refered to as weapons of peace.

[K@th]

I don't currently have a good argument on why new bans won't work....

The onus is on you to prove that new bans would work, an argument is about proof, "prove a negative" is a logical fallacy, you have to prove your case, nobody has to disprove it.

That's nice. That'll win the argument for me. I'll try that next time..... see if it gains me any ground.

[K@th]

You admit you don't know anything but are self righteous enough to claim to know you dont want additional regulations? Right.

You are an idiot if you can't grasp gist of my simple question.

[DBTrek]

Give this Sheriff a minute of your time.

[Smitty-48]

Just so you know, even here in gun control crazy Canada, the age limit for a firearms license, is 12 years old, when you're 12, you can get your Minor's License, so 15 is legal in Canada too.

There's actually a clause which allows the Chief Firearms Officer here to issue a license even if the kid is younger than twelve, if they can show that they need to shoot to hunt in order to provide for the family, which, that's kind of like the Indian clause, because that would most likely be on the reservation, or up north of 60, but doesn't have to be.

[DBTrek]

Just so you know, even here in gun control crazy Canada, the age limit for a firearms license, is 12 years old, when you're 12, you can get your Minor's License, so 15 is legal in Canada too.

There's actually a clause which allows the Chief Firearms Officer here to issue a license even if the kid is younger than twelve, if they can show that they need to shoot to hunt in order to provide for the family, which, that's kind of like the Indian clause, because that would most likely be on the Reservation, but doesn't have to be.

The conflicted left.
Police are a bunch of murderous state thugs and closet KKK members. . .
. . . and also the only people among us who should have guns.

Derp derp