"Owning Guns is Bad" VS "De-fund the Police"

Michael Cole said:

Screw the analogy. Restrictions and bans are two different things. Really, really simple to understand.

Click to expand...

If you legally prohibit something .. it's a ban. Totality is irrelevant.

It would be like prohibiting the ownership of every gun but an AR-15 is not a ban on guns. Very simple to understand.

Michael Cole said:

Your man of straw is IQ challenged

Click to expand...

actually his point is well taken and that you complain about it proves it so. The democrats have been whining about gun ownership for years. The looters and rioters-while perhaps not being Democrat party members-who are certainly allied with the left, have proven how stupid the anti gun arguments of the Democrats are. Democrat run cities prevented their police from stopping violent looters and rioters. If you want to keep your business from being trashed and yourself safe when you are caught in a riot, you best be armed

Michael Cole said:

What I know is that police haven't been defunded and only extremists want to ban guns. That's why it's a strawman.

Click to expand...

every single person running for the Democrat nomination wanted to ban the guns that are the best choices for allowing a shopkeeper or store owner to deal with violent looters

Michael Cole said:

No one has ever proposed a ban on guns. No police have been defunded. I prefer to see the reality of events. Hypotheticals can be interesting, but the OP isn't presented as a hypothetical.

Click to expand...

Weasel words-every dem contender wanted to ban all sorts of guns-every one of them wanted to ban semi auto rifles. Most wanted to ban semi auto handguns that held more than 10 rounds.

Michael Cole said:

My god. Has everybody forgotten how to use the English language? A "ban on guns" means no one can own a gun. If you are allowed to buy a gun, guns aren't banned. Simple English.

If I own a liquor store, and I stop selling Bud Light, does that mean I don't sell beer?

Click to expand...

IF every faith is banned but say the Episcopal Church, is there a ban on religious freedom?

jotathought said:

If you legally prohibit something .. it's a ban. Totality is irrelevant.

It would be like prohibiting the ownership of every gun but an AR-15 is not a ban on guns. Very simple to understand.

Click to expand...

Alrighty then. I have no clue what you're talking about. I'm talking about restricting something's use and banning something's use. These are two different things. If you disagree they are two different things, then you are not aware of their meanings.

Nobody has proposed banning guns. The argument presented against that assertion was a bill that restricted the use of guns, specifically, certain types of firearms. This legislation had no effect on Walther P38s nor .45 Colts. It did not ban guns. So that argument is false, and my original assertion stands.

Nobody has proposed banning guns.

Michael Cole said:

Alrighty then. I have no clue what you're talking about. I'm talking about restricting something's use and banning something's use. These are two different things. If you disagree they are two different things, then you are not aware of their meanings.

Nobody has proposed banning guns. The argument presented against that assertion was a bill that restricted the use of guns, specifically, certain types of firearms. This legislation had no effect on Walther P38s nor .45 Colts. It did not ban guns. So that argument is false, and my original assertion stands.

Nobody has proposed banning guns.

Click to expand...

you are lying yet again-EVERY DEMOCRAT running for the presidential nomination wanted to ban all sorts of guns. You are pretending that since none of them have YET to call for banning every possible firearm, they aren't gun banners.

TurtleDude said:

IF every faith is banned but say the Episcopal Church, is there a ban on religious freedom?

Click to expand...

:lamo

You're not serious?

jotathought said:

If you legally prohibit something .. it's a ban. Totality is irrelevant.

It would be like prohibiting the ownership of every gun but an AR-15 is not a ban on guns. Very simple to understand.

Click to expand...

Michael Cole said:

Alrighty then. I have no clue what you're talking about. I'm talking about restricting something's use and banning something's use. These are two different things. If you disagree they are two different things, then you are not aware of their meanings.

Nobody has proposed banning guns. The argument presented against that assertion was a bill that restricted the use of guns, specifically, certain types of firearms. This legislation had no effect on Walther P38s nor .45 Colts. It did not ban guns. So that argument is false, and my original assertion stands.

Nobody has proposed banning guns.

Click to expand...

Incorrect. A ban on semi-automatic weapons would ban the .45 Colt. It is a semi-automatic firearm. As are nearly every sporting rifle other than a bolt action. So a ban on semi-automatic firearms is nearly a total firearm ban.

Seems pretty clear that when it comes to firearms you are in need of greater understanding of the subject matter, as are the left leaning legislators who make the same factually false claims about the gun banning legislation proposals.

Michael Cole said:

:lamo

You're not serious?

Click to expand...

you think if democrats want to ban the most popular rifles and pistols-the firearms most useful for use against looters, the democrats are not in favor of banning guns

eohrnberger said:

Incorrect. A ban on semi-automatic weapons would ban the .45 Colt. It is a semi-automatic firearm. As are nearly every sporting rifle other than a bolt action. So a ban on semi-automatic firearms is nearly a total firearm ban.

Seems pretty clear that when it comes to firearms you are in need of greater understanding of the subject matter, as are the left leaning legislators who make the same factually false claims about the gun banning legislation proposals.

Click to expand...

most gun banners don't know much about firearms. What they do know is that the people who oppose the politicians they support, are often gun owners. Gun bans are a weapon these lefties use to harass people who don't support leftwing politicians or Democrats

Michael Cole said:

Alrighty then. I have no clue what you're talking about. I'm talking about restricting something's use and banning something's use. These are two different things. If you disagree they are two different things, then you are not aware of their meanings.

Nobody has proposed banning guns. The argument presented against that assertion was a bill that restricted the use of guns, specifically, certain types of firearms. This legislation had no effect on Walther P38s nor .45 Colts. It did not ban guns. So that argument is false, and my original assertion stands.

Nobody has proposed banning guns.

Click to expand...

You're focused on the totality of guns ..

Let's try this .. In 2012 - 2013, Michael Bloomberg targeted "sugary beverages" larger than 16 ounces and stated food service establishments couldn't sell them. According to the Washington Post, this was a ban on "sugary beverages" even though soft drinks and other beverages were available in other sizes. Using your definition of ban, do you agree with the Washington Post that it was a ban?

Hmmm .. even the U.S. Marines have banned the public display of the Confederate Battle Flag aboard an installation .. is it really a ban, based on your definition, since it's not in totality?

TurtleDude said:

most gun banners don't know much about firearms. What they do know is that the people who oppose the politicians they support, are often gun owners. Gun bans are a weapon these lefties use to harass people who don't support leftwing politicians or Democrats

Click to expand...

What gets me is the banneroids get fed this line of crap from their favored politicians, aren't bothered to do even the most basic rudimentary fact checking on what's being proposed, and simply, religiously, fall in line behind those politicians and their factually false legislative proposals, then crow about it 'look how good a leftiy I am I support gun ban proposals', and get mad when the factually false aspects of the legislative proposals are pointed out. :roll:

I've been witness to this 'rodeo of stupidity' before, way too often to count. It's getting boring. The Democrats need new writers, legislative and otherwise.

eohrnberger said:

What gets me is the banneroids get fed this line of crap from their favored politicians, aren't bothered to do even the most basic rudimentary fact checking on what's being proposed, and simply, religiously, fall in line behind those politicians and their factually false legislative proposals, then crow about it 'look how good a leftiy I am I support gun ban proposals', and get mad when the factually false aspects of the legislative proposals are pointed out. :roll:

I've been witness to this 'rodeo of stupidity' before, way too often to count. It's getting boring. The Democrats need new writers, legislative and otherwise.

Click to expand...

it would be akin to them saying all cars with automatic transmissions should be banned and then claiming they support the right of the people to own cars

BBL -good night

TurtleDude said:

it would be akin to them saying all cars with automatic transmissions should be banned and then claiming they support the right of the people to own cars

BBL -good night

Click to expand...

You have a good night too.

TurtleDude said:

you are lying yet again-EVERY DEMOCRAT running for the presidential nomination wanted to ban all sorts of guns. You are pretending that since none of them have YET to call for banning every possible firearm, they aren't gun banners.

Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about? Do you not get it? Crimeny. I'll get to the part you don't understand, but let's get something straight here. If you're going to engage in a discussion surrounding law, you need to be specific. Slippery slopes aren't codified. The term "banning" as I'm using it, as it is commonly used, I can't think of any other way to use it; means to prohibit. Crack cocaine is prohibited. Restricting something's use means it is permitted under certain conditions. Morphine is restricted to use with a doctor's prescription. Guns are restricted. Have been for a long time. Banning their use would mean no one could possess a firearm, not even police. Just like crack cocaine can't be possessed by anyone, even a doctor. Simple terms. Let's use them, please.

Now, what you don't understand is this is all show. Beto O'Rourke is a bad actor. The public is ripe for gun restrictions because of school shootings. "Assault weapons bans" are not new. They're designed to quell public fear. That's the Democrats' angle, just as it was previously. Gun control and illegal immigration are two issues which appear to be a tug of war between parties, but both are actually complicit in their inaction.

Nobody can take your guns away. Beto knows this. All the Democrats know this. Restrictions can be debated on their merits, which in my opinion, are as useless as drug laws. But don't fall into the trap in thinking <whoever> wants to take all our guns away. People get fearful. Can't really blame them when their schools get shot up. Democrats are playing that side for votes.

jotathought said:

You're focused on the totality of guns ..

Let's try this .. In 2012 - 2013, Michael Bloomberg targeted "sugary beverages" larger than 16 ounces and stated food service establishments couldn't sell them. According to the Washington Post, this was a ban on "sugary beverages" even though soft drinks and other beverages were available in other sizes. Using your definition of ban, do you agree with the Washington Post that it was a ban?

Hmmm .. even the U.S. Marines have banned the public display of the Confederate Battle Flag aboard an installation .. is it really a ban, based on your definition, since it's not in totality?

Click to expand...

Okay. This is getting really dumb. Not worth the effort.

eohrnberger said:

Incorrect. A ban on semi-automatic weapons would ban the .45 Colt. It is a semi-automatic firearm. As are nearly every sporting rifle other than a bolt action. So a ban on semi-automatic firearms is nearly a total firearm ban.

Seems pretty clear that when it comes to firearms you are in need of greater understanding of the subject matter, as are the left leaning legislators who make the same factually false claims about the gun banning legislation proposals.

Click to expand...

I skimmed the legislation. I don't even know what date it was written. All I saw was reference to rifles, not handguns. It doesn't matter. Here's why.

I've owned the same gun for 42 years. Some of my friends have owned the same guns for 50+ years. My mother has owned her guns for 60+ years. When my mother bought her first .22, the one I learned to shoot with, liberals were already called gun grabbers. "They're gonna take away all our guns!" has been a political talking point for more years than many of our members have been alive. And guess what, no one has ever come for any of our guns. Ever.

If you haven't noticed, I'm a staunch 2nd Amendment supporter. I think gun restrictions are as useless as drug laws, as I already stated. You're so far into rightwingland that you don't even recognize an ally when you see one. You're too focused on arguing stupid little definitions while missing the broader reality. I'll stick with the reality.

Nobody is coming to take your guns away.

Michael Cole said:

I skimmed the legislation. I don't even know what date it was written. All I saw was reference to rifles, not handguns. It doesn't matter. Here's why.

I've owned the same gun for 42 years. Some of my friends have owned the same guns for 50+ years. My mother has owned her guns for 60+ years. When my mother bought her first .22, the one I learned to shoot with, liberals were already called gun grabbers. "They're gonna take away all our guns!" has been a political talking point for more years than many of our members have been alive. And guess what, no one has ever come for any of our guns. Ever.

If you haven't noticed, I'm a staunch 2nd Amendment supporter. I think gun restrictions are as useless as drug laws, as I already stated. You're so far into rightwingland that you don't even recognize an ally when you see one. You're too focused on arguing stupid little definitions while missing the broader reality. I'll stick with the reality.

Nobody is coming to take your guns away.

Click to expand...

"arguing stupid little definitions" ?
Those are the definitions being used in the legislation that you are supporting, and you've made posts which demonstrate a clear disconnect between what you think the legislation says, what is actually says, and what the legislation will actually do when implemented as law.

The broader reality is that once passed into law, the definitions of terms becomes key as the basis for enforcement, and the legislators will do their typical 'oops - unintended consequences' lame excuse.

eohrnberger said:

"arguing stupid little definitions" ?
Those are the definitions being used in the legislation that you are supporting, and you've made posts which demonstrate a clear disconnect between what you think the legislation says, what is actually says, and what the legislation will actually do when implemented as law.

The broader reality is that once passed into law, the definitions of terms becomes key as the basis for enforcement, and the legislators will do their typical 'oops - unintended consequences' lame excuse.

Click to expand...

Once someone believes that the way to stop criminals from getting a certain type of gun, is to ban honest people from owning them, what is to stop them from wanting more bans when other guns are used by criminals?

TurtleDude said:

Once someone believes that the way to stop criminals from getting a certain type of gun, is to ban honest people from owning them, what is to stop them from wanting more bans when other guns are used by criminals?

Click to expand...

The premise has already been proven as false. That premise being that gun bans or further gun restrictions on law abiding firearms owner and enthusiasts, who will follow them, have any impact in the least bit of impact on criminals obtaining guns on the street nor their using them to commit crimes.

Yet, the banneroids continue assert that already proven false premise as fact. :roll:

So, clearly, facts don't matter when they run counter to the political narratives they want to push. :shrug:
As if that's some sort of revelation. We see it daily in the leftist DNC Pravda Political Propaganda 'news' media. :2mad:

eohrnberger said:

The premise has already been proven as false. That premise being that gun bans or further gun restrictions on law abiding firearms owner and enthusiasts, who will follow them, have any impact in the least bit of impact on criminals obtaining guns on the street nor their using them to commit crimes.

Yet, the banneroids continue assert that already proven false premise as fact. :roll:

So, clearly, facts don't matter when they run counter to the political narratives they want to push. :shrug:
As if that's some sort of revelation. We see it daily in the leftist DNC Pravda Political Propaganda 'news' media. :2mad:

Click to expand...

The Hughes amendment (banning the registration-and thus ownership of machine guns) proved that crime control is not what motivates the Democrats. Furthermore, when the Democrats keep pushing laws that ONLY erode the rights of legal gun owners, it is a fair speculation to believe that eroding our rights is what is really the true motivation of the Democrat Party

TurtleDude said:

The Hughes amendment (banning the registration-and thus ownership of machine guns) proved that crime control is not what motivates the Democrats. Furthermore, when the Democrats keep pushing laws that ONLY erode the rights of legal gun owners, it is a fair speculation to believe that eroding our rights is what is really the true motivation of the Democrat Party

Click to expand...

Seems rather blatantly dishonest (lying) of the Democrat party, their leaders, and their politicians, if you ask me.
I wonder why their supporters put up with that recurring dishonesty?
But I hesitate to start a thread on that topic, as it'd be only a long list of 'whataboutism' from them, rather than an honest discussion.

sanman said:

On the one hand, Lefties say "You shouldn't be allowed to own guns! If you feel threatened, have the cops come to save you!"

Now, from the other side of their mouths, the Lefties are saying "Cops? To hell with cops! There shouldn't be any cops! De-fund the police!"


So if you're not allowed to own guns to save yourself from harm, and if there can't be any cops to save you from harm -- then is the inevitable outcome that you shouldn't be safe from harm?


Or are Lefties just retarded and totally lacking in any basic logic skills or credibility?

Click to expand...

What needs to end is cops policing their own. We need a Federal agency that does nothing but investigate and prosecute abuse by law enforcement. They can have a confidential tip line for the good police to report abuse or corruption by other cops without fear of reprisal. The blue wall needs to come down now.

iguanaman said:

What needs to end is cops policing their own. We need a Federal agency that does nothing but investigate and prosecute abuse by law enforcement. They can have a confidential tip line for the good police to report abuse or corruption by other cops without fear of reprisal. The blue wall needs to come down now.

Click to expand...

Federal agency might mean over-concentration of power. I think state-level agencies could be better. But you make a good point.