• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is "common sense" gun control?

What is "common sense" gun control?


  • Total voters
    28
Great. Explain how my argument is unsound.


I have done this at least three times, on this thread alone.

I'm going to give you permission to shove this in my face. I've read through this thread and have not seen one real life example given by you.

I'm starting to believe you are incapable of supporting your argument with real life examples and instead rely solely on debunking those presented by others. Please prove me wrong or continue avoiding the fact and making it glaringly obvious to everyone that your intentions are dubious.
 
I'm going to give you permission to shove this in my face. I've read through this thread and have not seen one real life example given by you.
I'm not at all sure why, given my argument regarding how licensing and registration create an infringement, I -need- to provide a real life example.

If you can explain how my argument is unsound, please do so.
If you have a specific question regarding my argument, please ask.
 
You can deliver as many off-topic counterexamples as you want -- being off-topic renders then irrelevant.

Simple posession of a -firearm- harms no one.
Simple posession of a -firearm- is a danger to no one.
Your reference to -nuclear weapons- does nothing to change this.

:roll: Fine then. Does military possession of artillery weaponry mean that possession of artillery is not dangerous? After all, if it were dangerous, nobody would be permitted to have it, right?
 
I'm not at all sure why, given my argument regarding how licensing and registration create an infringement, I -need- to provide a real life example.

If you can explain how my argument is unsound, please do so.
If you have a specific question regarding my argument, please ask.

And I'm not sure why anyone would make your argument when they clearly cannot prove that it is valid through "common-sense". If you can't see why real life examples are important when considering laws then you really have no business arguing about them.

Its such a simple question, does your refusal or inability to answer it make you feel uncomfortable with your position at all? If not then you truly are blind.
 
And I'm not sure why anyone would make your argument when they clearly cannot prove that it is valid through "common-sense".
If you had the slightest idea what my argument was, you's understand why there doesnt seed to be a single 'real life' example for it to be sound.

I suggest you start at post #73 and work backwards.
When you have questions, ask.
 
Last edited:
:roll: Fine then. Does military possession of artillery weaponry mean that possession of artillery is not dangerous? After all, if it were dangerous, nobody would be permitted to have it, right?
Artillery isn't part of the discssion. I thought that was clear...?
 
If you had thje slightest idea what my argument was, you's understand why there doesnt seed to be a single 'real life' example for it to be sound.

I suggest you start at post #73 and work backwards.
When you have questions, ask.

Let me get this straight, your argument does not have to align with actual fact for it to be sound? Sounds like someone forgot their crazy pills.
 
Let me get this straight, your argument does not have to align with actual fact for it to be sound? Sounds like someone forgot their crazy pills.
:roll:

When you have some clue as to what my argument is, please get back to me.
 
When you decide to settle on something concrete instead of a jumble of vague statements and debunks, let me know.
Just so you know -- nothing you've posted here has affected the validity of my argument in any way.
 
Last edited:
Just so you know -- nothing you've posted here has affected the validity of my argument in anyway.

You can say its valid all you want, but I've successfully shown that it has no place in the real world. If you're not talking about Gun Control and its effects on the real citizen then I guess we're done here.
 
You can say its valid all you want, but I've successfully shown that it has no place in the real world.
You havent shown squat.
In fact, I dont think you can show that you understand what my argument is in the first place.
 
You havent shown squat.
In fact, I dont think you can show that you understand what my argument is in the first place.

You're just proving my point over and over by your lack of response to the question.

Of course I can't show that I understand your argument, even you are unable to understand it. That's why you haven't clarified yourself in any way and instead send me on a wild goose chase. The only response you can come up with to my questions is "you don't understand my argument, but I really do have one and it is sound. Go find it."
 
Of course I can't show that I understand your argument...
How do you explain that -you- cannot understand my argument, while everyone else here, can and does?

They may not agree with it, and they have done their darndest to show that it is unsound, but they -certainly- undestand it.

What do they posess that you do not?
 
How do you explain that -you- cannot understand my argument, while everyone else here, can and does?

They may not agree with it, and they have done their darndest to show that it is unsound, but they -certainly- undestand it.

What do they posess that you do not?

Its not what they possess. They assume. I'd love for someone to explain your complete argument since you lack the communication skills to do so. Then we will see if they assumed correctly.
 
Its not what they possess. They assume. I'd love for someone to explain your complete argument since you lack the communication skills to do so. Then we will see if they assumed correctly.
Ah -- the 'I'm to smart to understand what everyone else does" argument.

:roll:

Keep thinking that, and let those of us who have an interest in honestly discussing the issue go back to doing do.
 
What do you mean by "those adjudicated ‘mentally infirm’ ?

I mean, I know they're trying to keep guns away from soldiers who came back from the war with PTSD. I hope that's not who you mean. How about people that take anti-depressants? Should they be banned from owning guns too?
 
Ah -- the 'I'm to smart to understand what everyone else does" argument.

:roll:

Keep thinking that, and let those of us who have an interest in honestly discussing the issue go back to doing do.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said intelligence was the issue. I merely try to make as few assumptions as possible, thus my stream of questions at you (which you continue to dodge).

Your dodging is getting old. Here are your options:

1. Outline your argument and how it applies to the real world.
2. Dodge the question and insist that it is me with the problem, confirming my suspicion that your tactics are dubious.
 
What do you mean by "those adjudicated ‘mentally infirm’ ?

I mean, I know they're trying to keep guns away from soldiers who came back from the war with PTSD. I hope that's not who you mean. How about people that take anti-depressants? Should they be banned from owning guns too?

Sure, why not. If you're on any kind of mind ****ing medication you shouldn't be allowed to purchase guns. This goes for convicted drug users and people on anything other then over the counter meds.
 
Yes... and this then creates an infringement on the right to arms.

How is it an infringement? I am not denying your right to bear arms. I am only making sure you have the right.


You cannot buy the gun until you undergo the check, and you undego the check because you might be breaking the law. Prior restraint.
No, you undergo the check to make sure you haven't broken the law previously and thus still have the right to own a gun.
 
How is it an infringement? I am not denying your right to bear arms. I am only making sure you have the right.

It creates a precondition that by necessity means that it no longer is a right, but a privilege. You don't need to ask for permission from "daddy" to do something that is an inherent right.

Licensing is a form of permission asking.
 
Bans for felons fall outside the "law abiding" requirement.
Background checks infringe on the rights of the law abiding.
How then do you propose we keep guns out of the hands of felons? Would a simple "I promise that I am not a felon" suffice?
As a law abiding citizen I have no problem whatsoever with being subject to a background check to prove that I am. Haven't been wrongfully accused of being a felon yet.
 
Back
Top Bottom