House Democrats introduce bill prohibiting sale of semi-automatic weapons: Reeeee - Polidicks

Lol Im literally arguing for making people entitled to a licensing process, which is better than we have with cars and I guess I just am an anti gun nut? I want to ban guns? Jeez, maybe this is why nothing is getting done.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53162966]Because it shows that an argument is not per se legitimate[/QUOTE] Actually your "counter argument" didn't make any sense. An explosive device is mechanically and chemically different from a firearm and is used for totally different reasons.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53162966]Because it shows that an argument is not per se legitimate[/QUOTE] Reductio ad absurdum is a valid, though simplistic, argument to make. However it requires that you understand the reasoning behind your opponent. If you don't, then you make false assumptions and you wind up with a worthless point, because the logic backing it wasn't accurate to begin with. In this case you are making a false equivalence.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53162966]Because it shows that an argument is not per se legitimate[/QUOTE] What argument? Yours? It's always "I want to have guns" "Oh but death rays are illegal, why is that?" "Because they're restricted under *law here*" "WELL WE SHOULD PUT GUNS UNDER THAT LAW TOO CUZ THEY'RE ALSO DANGEROUS" [QUOTE=Tetracycline;53162975]We are talking about a person's right to property ownership, especially those items that cause damage to matter. If you dont see the relationship then thats on you, not me[/QUOTE] Yep, exactly what I am getting at right here.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53162971]Actually your "counter argument" didn't make any sense. An explosive device is mechanically and chemically different from a firearm and is used for totally different reasons.[/QUOTE] We are talking about a person's right to property ownership, especially those items that cause damage to matter. If you dont see the relationship then thats on you, not me

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53162970]Lol Im literally arguing for making people entitled to a licensing process, which is better than we have with cars and I guess I just am an anti gun nut? I want to ban guns? Jeez, maybe this is why nothing is getting done.[/QUOTE] Could you please take the time to make a post that isn't condescending or rude? Here's an argument against licensing: The parameters for licensing firearms purchases, as you say to be left up to the states, can be mercilessly hard to the point of it not being viable. You may say "tough shit", but this also could lead to states barring the poor, barring those they deem "mentally unfit", barring those that just so happen to vote for a different party, and their papers get lost in transit.

[QUOTE=F.X Clampazzo;53162969]It's legal of course but you can't use it for medium/large game like deer. Like iirc, if you shoot a deer with 5.56 and a game warden catches you then you're in trouble.[/QUOTE] maybe in your state, it's perfectly fine here. not my preferred cartridge since it has a habit of shedding the jacket, leaving a bunch of copper around the heart that'll slice up your hands when you're cleaning it, but it'll get the job done

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53162975]We are talking about a person's right to property ownership, especially those items that cause damage to matter. If you dont see the relationship then thats on you, not me[/QUOTE] A firearm can be used for self defense, hunting, sports and target shooting. An explosive has very limited uses outside of, say, fireworks. The relationship is that they tend to have highly reactive chemical compounds within them. But that's where the relationship ends.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53162975]We are talking about a person's right to property ownership, especially those items that cause damage to matter. If you dont see the relationship then thats on you, not me[/QUOTE] Many items can cause damage to matter, even on a larger scale that most firearms that the average person can buy in the US. That criminals and madmen use their guns for the wrong reasons doesn't mean I should have to give up mine.

[QUOTE=butre;53162955]find me an example of a gun killing someone with no human input. I'm waiting.[/QUOTE] I can give you a lot of incidents of a child killing themselves on accident with a gun if that counts.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53162977]Could you please take the time to make a post that isn't condescending or rude? Here's an argument against licensing: The parameters for licensing firearms purchases, as you say to be left up to the states, can be mercilessly hard to the point of it not being viable. You may say "tough shit", but this also could lead to states barring the poor, barring those they deem "mentally unfit", barring those that just so happen to vote for a different party, and their papers get lost in transit.[/QUOTE] Good thing we already have courts. Yes, my proposal is not the be all end all legal document, but yeah I do think my proposal is a good middle ground between banning and total freedom for firearms, you literally get both.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53162981]I can give you a lot of incidents of a child killing themselves on accident with a gun if that counts.[/QUOTE] And I'm sure a lot of people here would be more than happy to have laws requiring that firearms be out of the reach of children.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53162944]Are you saying my bomb collection is endangering society? Fuck off my bombs arent sentient.[/QUOTE] Shocking fact: You can own bombs, hell the 2nd Amendment even covers nuclear weapons. The only thing stopping you is the bureaucratic clout that is the international atomic agency.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53162981]I can give you a lot of incidents of a child killing themselves on accident with a gun if that counts.[/QUOTE] if a kid sticks his tongue in an outlet, is it the outlet's fault or the parent's fault?

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53162982]Good thing we already have courts. Yes, my proposal is not the be all end all legal document, but yeah I do think my proposal is a good middle ground between banning and total freedom for firearms, you literally get both.[/QUOTE] No, it's not. It opens the door to horrible discrimination and bureaucratic red tape because whoever's in office decides that a group they don't like doesn't deserve the same rights as others. Would you be saying it's a "good middle ground" if Alabama were to ban transgender individuals from owning firearms?

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53162983]And I'm sure a lot of people here would be more than happy to have laws requiring that firearms be out of the reach of children.[/QUOTE] finally sensible gun control everyone can agree upon! I'm not sure whether laws like these aren't already in the books though.

[QUOTE=Aide;53162866]I own 2 guns. Can anyone think of a legitimate purpose for actual SMG, AR, or PDW.[/QUOTE] The exact same purpose as whatever the 2 guns you own is? Assuming the SMG/AR/PDW is just semi-auto. I don't understand, who actually wants to get rid of semi-automatic weapons altogether? People really think that A) it's reasonable and acceptable to literally limit gun ownership to bolt-action rifles and pump shotguns and B) that it will actually stop mass murders from occurring? Can someone explain to me what the next step is when the first post-semi-auto ban mass murder takes place? What are you going to say when someone sits on an apartment balcony and uses a bolt action to kill 15 people? What are you going to say when someone runs into a movie theatre with a pump shotgun and blocks the exit? Do we ban those too? I'm not a false-flag gun-control conspiracy theorist by any stretch of the imagination, but man if there were somebody out there with an agenda to get rid of guns, you guys sure would make it easy with this logic.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53162987]No, it's not. It opens the door to horrible discrimination and bureaucratic red tape because whoever's in office decides that a group they don't like doesn't deserve the same rights as others. Would you be saying it's a "good middle ground" if Alabama were to ban transgender individuals from owning firearms?[/QUOTE] Yeah, that's why we have courts, you can challenge a particular states licensing process based on being unfair. We already have things like this happening.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53162862]Iirc they introduced a ban somewhere that was so poorly written it barred police from carrying their weapons[/QUOTE] New York's SAFE Act banned all magazines over 10 rounds, and prohibited you from loading more than 7, and for about 2 weeks they forgot to include an exemption for police and military.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53162988]finally sensible gun control everyone can agree upon! I'm not sure whether laws like these aren't already in the books though.[/QUOTE] Mainly its implementation. Trigger locks are cheap as dirt but tend not to be one-size-fits-all, and are actually kinda hard to get off of the weapon in a jiffy (see: dude breaking in). A mandatory safe makes sense on paper, but safes are expensive to buy and install, and it'd lead to some serious eyebrow raising to try and "prove" someone has a safe. However I'd be fine with legislation that charges the owner of the firearm if it leads to a negligent discharge, say in the event of a child pulling the trigger on themselves or another. The risk of legal action alone would get many guns out of stupidly easy to access places.

[QUOTE=butre;53162986]if a kid sticks his tongue in an outlet, is it the outlet's fault or the parent's fault?[/QUOTE] Maybe it's the system's fault?

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;53162984]hell the 2nd Amendment even covers nuclear weapons. [/QUOTE] No it doesn't. It covers any conventional weapons, but not WMDs because they have absolutely no defensive purpose. You don't protect your country by wiping off the face of the earth.

[QUOTE=srobins;53162989]The exact same purpose as whatever the 2 guns you own is? Assuming the SMG/AR/PDW is just semi-auto. I don't understand, who actually wants to get rid of semi-automatic weapons altogether? People really think that A) it's reasonable and acceptable to literally limit gun ownership to bolt-action rifles and pump shotguns and B) that it will actually stop mass murders from occurring? Can someone explain to me what the next step is when the first post-semi-auto ban mass murder takes place? What are you going to say when someone sits on an apartment balcony and uses a bolt action to kill 15 people? What are you going to say when someone runs into a movie theatre with a pump shotgun and blocks the exit? Do we ban those too? I'm not a false-flag gun-control conspiracy theorist by any stretch of the imagination, but man if there were somebody out there with an agenda to get rid of guns, you guys sure would make it easy with this logic.[/QUOTE] What about when [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_shooting"]someone[/URL] kills 33 using two handguns (one of them a .22)? Are you going to ban handguns? Good luck.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53162991]Yeah, that's why we have courts, you can challenge a particular states licensing process based on being unfair. We already have things like this happening.[/QUOTE] So you would rather have a series of courts that waste immense amounts of taxpayer money going on a case-by-case basis, and are okay with allowing discrimination to take place "because we have courts"? In what way is that a step forward?

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53162987]No, it's not. It opens the door to horrible discrimination and bureaucratic red tape because whoever's in office decides that a group they don't like doesn't deserve the same rights as others. Would you be saying it's a "good middle ground" if Alabama were to ban transgender individuals from owning firearms?[/QUOTE] If a states democratically elected legislature decides to make licensing super hard then you have lots of ways to fight back, you just seem to really not want to accept ANY form of gun control and make up all sorts of externalities that could easily be dealt with in the legislation or in practicality

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53162995]Mainly its implementation. Trigger locks are cheap as dirt but tend not to be one-size-fits-all, and are actually kinda hard to get off of the weapon in a jiffy (see: dude breaking in). A mandatory safe makes sense on paper, but safes are expensive to buy and install, and it'd lead to some serious eyebrow raising to try and "prove" someone has a safe. However I'd be fine with legislation that charges the owner of the firearm if it leads to a negligent discharge, say in the event of a child pulling the trigger on themselves or another. The risk of legal action alone would get many guns out of stupidly easy to access places.[/QUOTE] Write in a gun safe subsidy? or tax deduction, whatever.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53163008]Write in a gun safe subsidy? or tax deduction, whatever.[/QUOTE] Could probably do that. Again it just becomes an issue of keeping track of all of that stuff. Safes are incredibly difficult to install, and some people in rented housing/apartments probably can't get one.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53162991]Yeah, that's why we have courts, you can challenge a particular states licensing process based on being unfair. We already have things like this happening.[/QUOTE] What happens when the government rules against you and the state of Alabama (shockingly) sides with.. [I]the state of Alabama[/I], and rules that transgender people aren't fit to own firearms?

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53162996]Maybe it's the system's fault?[/QUOTE] no, it's the parents fault for not either putting those plastic things in the outlet or saying "hey kid don't stick your tongue in the outlet"

[QUOTE=srobins;53163013]What happens when the government rules against you and the state of Alabama (shockingly) sides with.. [I]the state of Alabama[/I], and rules that transgender people aren't fit to own firearms?[/QUOTE] That would be clearly unfair, which should be included in any amendment entitling people to a licensing process. [editline]26th February 2018[/editline] and discrimination, like what are these fucking arguments guys?