Page 1 of 14 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 138

Thread: A friend's argument on guns, I like to hear your rebuttal

  1. #1
    Sage


    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    9,737

    A friend's argument on guns, I like to hear your rebuttal

    This was on a friend's Facebook page. I find the arguments compelling and I would like to hear those on the other side ----conservatives and Libertarians Etc-- their rebuttal of the arguments

    ( copied with permission)


    Leonidas Christian Mixon

    ďWe have a gun problem and a bull**** problem in the United States. Let me start by saying I am a gun owner. I have been since I was 6. Iíve had jobs that required me to carry a weapon. Iíve been shot at more than once. Iíve disarmed people who were trying to kill me. This isnít coming from someone who doesnít understand guns. Itís precisely because I do understand them that Iím going to call out the bull**** that stops us from having the reforms to gun laws that we needed years ago. If you want to debate any of the points below, I have no problem.
    These are simple facts.

    1) I need an assault rifle for home defense.

    No, you donít. A short barreled shotgun is the best tool for home defense. And that only counts if youíre insanely proficient with it and you get incredibly lucky. The likelihood you will get the chance to use it is next to zero. If you do, youíre very likely to kill a member of your family accidentally. In a REAL altercation, you donít get to choose your field of fire. It happens incredibly fast, usually in the dark. If youíre popping off with a rifle, you are going to hit things you donít intend to. Guns are tools. Period. Assault Rifles are intended to be used on a battlefield. Battlefield tactics donít work in your house. Itís a bull**** argument.

    2) I need to protect myself from a tyrannical Government...

    Holy **** thatís stupid. That idea was from a time when the state of war was much more level. It isnít now. At all. If an armored transport shows up on your front lawn with a 50 cal on the roof, you and your AK are ****ing toast. Soldiers train, and their weapons are an extension of their body. You will instantly lose. And before you bring up guerrilla fighters in Afghanistan or Iraq... you need a reality check. Those people were born in a country that was at war, on their soil, for their entire lives. You donít compare to that on your best day. And they die in FAR greater numbers than they kill.

    3) Gun registration, background checks, etc are a slippery slope to confiscation.

    Bull****. We register cars. We have to prove proficiency to operate them. We are required to have insurance in the event we cause damage with them. Itís been that way for decades, and no one is ďcoming to take your carĒ. Making sure people have the barest minimum of responsibility doesnít lead to loss. Fear of loss leads to fundraising and bull****. Itís not rational.

    4) My gun is a right that canít be modified.

    Again, utter bull****. You canít own a howitzer unless the barrel is full of concrete. You canít own a cannon manufactured in the last century. You canít own a fully automatic weapon without a FFL. Thatís why those things are rarely used in crimes. And all of that is based on an amendment to our constitution that can be changed if we as a country see fit to do so. We have changed amendments before and we will again. If you donít understand that you need a history lesson and a dictionary.

    Creating common sense laws that put speed bumps in the way of lunatics helps. Every time. Automobile licenses, speed limits, etc donít end accidents, but they make them less frequent and less deadly. Itís a proven concept. The time for bull**** excuses is over. Itís time to step up and take responsibility. **** this stupidity.Ē
    Guns do not kill people, people kill people.

    Atomic weapons do not kill people, people kill people.

  2. #2
    Chicks dig the name!

    Checkerboard Strangler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    26,717
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: A friend's argument on guns, I like to hear your rebuttal

    Well, I disagree vehemently on the short barreled shotgun thing but otherwise he makes decent points.

    But as to overturning the 2A I am inclined to believe that won't ever happen. It is just one of those things we won't ever give up, and even if it were to be overturned, all you would wind up doing is creating the most massive underground black market and the most massive resistance movement ever seen. The only effect would be to criminalize millions of law abiding persons.
    It would be a massive failure.

    And yet, requiring some accountability from gun owners is sensible, although I would leave home handguns alone, and make things very minimal for the typical home protection handgun owner.
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    If we just got rid of democracy, or severely limited it to only those worth 1,000,000 or more this wouldnít be an issue

  3. #3
    Why so serious?
    Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Washington State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,158

    Re: A friend's argument on guns, I like to hear your rebuttal

    Sounds like the same old arguments you see on this board every day. He claims a pretty extensive background, but thereís no way to prove it. Regardless, heís entitled to his opinion just like everyone else, and his doesnít carry any more weight than mine or anyone elseís.
    "I believe in a Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings."

    --Albert Einstein, 1929

  4. #4
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:53 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    37,187

    Re: A friend's argument on guns, I like to hear your rebuttal

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarLevant View Post
    This was on a friend's Facebook page. I find the arguments compelling and I would like to hear those on the other side ----conservatives and Libertarians Etc-- their rebuttal of the arguments

    ( copied with permission)


    Leonidas Christian Mixon

    “We have a gun problem and a bull**** problem in the United States. Let me start by saying I am a gun owner. I have been since I was 6. I’ve had jobs that required me to carry a weapon. I’ve been shot at more than once. I’ve disarmed people who were trying to kill me. This isn’t coming from someone who doesn’t understand guns. It’s precisely because I do understand them that I’m going to call out the bull**** that stops us from having the reforms to gun laws that we needed years ago. If you want to debate any of the points below, I have no problem.
    These are simple facts.

    1) I need an assault rifle for home defense.

    No, you don’t. A short barreled shotgun is the best tool for home defense. And that only counts if you’re insanely proficient with it and you get incredibly lucky. The likelihood you will get the chance to use it is next to zero. If you do, you’re very likely to kill a member of your family accidentally. In a REAL altercation, you don’t get to choose your field of fire. It happens incredibly fast, usually in the dark. If you’re popping off with a rifle, you are going to hit things you don’t intend to. Guns are tools. Period. Assault Rifles are intended to be used on a battlefield. Battlefield tactics don’t work in your house. It’s a bull**** argument.

    2) I need to protect myself from a tyrannical Government...

    Holy **** that’s stupid. That idea was from a time when the state of war was much more level. It isn’t now. At all. If an armored transport shows up on your front lawn with a 50 cal on the roof, you and your AK are ****ing toast. Soldiers train, and their weapons are an extension of their body. You will instantly lose. And before you bring up guerrilla fighters in Afghanistan or Iraq... you need a reality check. Those people were born in a country that was at war, on their soil, for their entire lives. You don’t compare to that on your best day. And they die in FAR greater numbers than they kill.

    3) Gun registration, background checks, etc are a slippery slope to confiscation.

    Bull****. We register cars. We have to prove proficiency to operate them. We are required to have insurance in the event we cause damage with them. It’s been that way for decades, and no one is “coming to take your car”. Making sure people have the barest minimum of responsibility doesn’t lead to loss. Fear of loss leads to fundraising and bull****. It’s not rational.

    4) My gun is a right that can’t be modified.

    Again, utter bull****. You can’t own a howitzer unless the barrel is full of concrete. You can’t own a cannon manufactured in the last century. You can’t own a fully automatic weapon without a FFL. That’s why those things are rarely used in crimes. And all of that is based on an amendment to our constitution that can be changed if we as a country see fit to do so. We have changed amendments before and we will again. If you don’t understand that you need a history lesson and a dictionary.

    Creating common sense laws that put speed bumps in the way of lunatics helps. Every time. Automobile licenses, speed limits, etc don’t end accidents, but they make them less frequent and less deadly. It’s a proven concept. The time for bull**** excuses is over. It’s time to step up and take responsibility. **** this stupidity.”
    There is literally nothing in there which hasn't been discussed to death in this forum dozens upon dozens of times. He even uses the exact same phrasing as it always comes up in, including the same dumb "cars" analogy, though the frequent profanity is just an added (vapidity) bonus.

    Do some searches in this forum; you'll find exhaustive responses to every single point. Every single one. You may not even need to go past the first page of threads.

    So, I don't see why anyone would bother to do it for you, again.
    The only reason to be anti-libertarian is there are people you want to control that you wouldn't be able to.

  5. #5
    Sometimes wrong
    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    53,595

    Re: A friend's argument on guns, I like to hear your rebuttal

    He was OK until #3 and by extension #4.

    The 2A does not define a state issued privilege (like driving a car) it greatly limits the government from removing the (pre-existing) right of the people to own and carry guns suitable for militia (military) use. Therefore, any comparisons to a mere state issued privilege are BS.

    Simply because the 2A, like many rights, are not unlimited does not mean that any and all limits are OK. If that was the case then the entire BoR is simply window dressing and the federal government can pass any laws that it desires. To refer to things like the AWB or magazine capacity limits as a "speed bumps" is just plain dishonesty - it's a ban on guns (or integral parts of them) currently in common use for lawful purposes.
    Last edited by ttwtt78640; 09-05-19 at 04:31 PM.
    ďThe reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.Ē ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  6. #6
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    57,192

    Re: A friend's argument on guns, I like to hear your rebuttal

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarLevant View Post
    This was on a friend's Facebook page. I find the arguments compelling and I would like to hear those on the other side ----conservatives and Libertarians Etc-- their rebuttal of the arguments

    ( copied with permission)


    Leonidas Christian Mixon

    “We have a gun problem and a bull**** problem in the United States. Let me start by saying I am a gun owner. I have been since I was 6. I’ve had jobs that required me to carry a weapon. I’ve been shot at more than once. I’ve disarmed people who were trying to kill me. This isn’t coming from someone who doesn’t understand guns. It’s precisely because I do understand them that I’m going to call out the bull**** that stops us from having the reforms to gun laws that we needed years ago. If you want to debate any of the points below, I have no problem.
    These are simple facts.

    1) I need an assault rifle for home defense.

    No, you don’t. A short barreled shotgun is the best tool for home defense. And that only counts if you’re insanely proficient with it and you get incredibly lucky. The likelihood you will get the chance to use it is next to zero. If you do, you’re very likely to kill a member of your family accidentally. In a REAL altercation, you don’t get to choose your field of fire. It happens incredibly fast, usually in the dark. If you’re popping off with a rifle, you are going to hit things you don’t intend to. Guns are tools. Period. Assault Rifles are intended to be used on a battlefield. Battlefield tactics don’t work in your house. It’s a bull**** argument.

    2) I need to protect myself from a tyrannical Government...

    Holy **** that’s stupid. That idea was from a time when the state of war was much more level. It isn’t now. At all. If an armored transport shows up on your front lawn with a 50 cal on the roof, you and your AK are ****ing toast. Soldiers train, and their weapons are an extension of their body. You will instantly lose. And before you bring up guerrilla fighters in Afghanistan or Iraq... you need a reality check. Those people were born in a country that was at war, on their soil, for their entire lives. You don’t compare to that on your best day. And they die in FAR greater numbers than they kill.

    3) Gun registration, background checks, etc are a slippery slope to confiscation.

    Bull****. We register cars. We have to prove proficiency to operate them. We are required to have insurance in the event we cause damage with them. It’s been that way for decades, and no one is “coming to take your car”. Making sure people have the barest minimum of responsibility doesn’t lead to loss. Fear of loss leads to fundraising and bull****. It’s not rational.

    4) My gun is a right that can’t be modified.

    Again, utter bull****. You can’t own a howitzer unless the barrel is full of concrete. You can’t own a cannon manufactured in the last century. You can’t own a fully automatic weapon without a FFL. That’s why those things are rarely used in crimes. And all of that is based on an amendment to our constitution that can be changed if we as a country see fit to do so. We have changed amendments before and we will again. If you don’t understand that you need a history lesson and a dictionary.

    Creating common sense laws that put speed bumps in the way of lunatics helps. Every time. Automobile licenses, speed limits, etc don’t end accidents, but they make them less frequent and less deadly. It’s a proven concept. The time for bull**** excuses is over. It’s time to step up and take responsibility. **** this stupidity.”


    theres nothing to argue really that was all feelings and opinions mostly . . nothing magical or discussion ending in anyway

    ill make the same post i do in most of these threads


    Ill probably support ANY gun law as long as it doesn't punish me (law-abiding citizen), endanger me and my loved ones while also empowering criminals.
    Many new laws suggested do just that

    Make laws that punish CRIMINAL activity and CRIMINALS with guns oand enforce the many laws already on the books
    Punsh ILLEGAL manufacturing, distribution and transportation of guns

    Do things that will actually help and wont put me at risk and i can get on board
    Quote Originally Posted by Angel View Post
    There is no such thing as a "Zef."
    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    Hispanics are one issue voters. The primary issues all relate to legality & immigration, & how they can make their illegal relatives safe in the US.
    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    I'm not at risk for AIDS. Gays are.

  7. #7
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    17,438

    Re: A friend's argument on guns, I like to hear your rebuttal

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarLevant View Post
    This was on a friend's Facebook page. I find the arguments compelling and I would like to hear those on the other side ----conservatives and Libertarians Etc-- their rebuttal of the arguments
    He sounds like a jerk who isnt interested in actual debate. He would fit in here. Tell him to try not being condescending next time.

  8. #8
    User Gdjjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    09-13-19 @ 06:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    136

    Re: A friend's argument on guns, I like to hear your rebuttal

    4 words- shall not be infringed-

    Besides that the OP use of the word "need"- needs are: air, water, food, clothing and shelter (the last two are optional)
    What many can't seem to grasp is it has nothing to to do with need. Everyone has the Right to defend themselves as they *choose*- no person, or entity has the Right, nor are they entitled to make any choice for anyone other than themselves.
    The points are compelling because they use emotion- we have to do something- yeah? Says who? "I" have to defend myself in the manner "I" see fit. "I" is the Individual- the collective demands compliance and denies the Right of the Individual- that is immoral- and Individuals have the Right to defend and protect themselves from immoral actions.
    All men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights- there are no caveats.
    Truth is constant, what was true yesterday is true today and will be true tomorrow.
    Knowledge evolves, is not biased in its origin, and can manifest itself in ways unimaginable.

  9. #9
    Conservatarian Guru
    Bullseye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    14,144

    Re: A friend's argument on guns, I like to hear your rebuttal

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarLevant View Post
    This was on a friend's Facebook page. I find the arguments compelling and I would like to hear those on the other side ----conservatives and Libertarians Etc-- their rebuttal of the arguments

    ( copied with permission)


    Leonidas Christian Mixon

    “We have a gun problem and a bull**** problem in the United States. Let me start by saying I am a gun owner. I have been since I was 6. I’ve had jobs that required me to carry a weapon. I’ve been shot at more than once. I’ve disarmed people who were trying to kill me. This isn’t coming from someone who doesn’t understand guns. It’s precisely because I do understand them that I’m going to call out the bull**** that stops us from having the reforms to gun laws that we needed years ago. If you want to debate any of the points below, I have no problem.
    These are simple facts.

    1) I need an assault rifle for home defense.

    No, you don’t. A short barreled shotgun is the best tool for home defense. And that only counts if you’re insanely proficient with it and you get incredibly lucky. The likelihood you will get the chance to use it is next to zero. If you do, you’re very likely to kill a member of your family accidentally. In a REAL altercation, you don’t get to choose your field of fire. It happens incredibly fast, usually in the dark. If you’re popping off with a rifle, you are going to hit things you don’t intend to. Guns are tools. Period. Assault Rifles are intended to be used on a battlefield. Battlefield tactics don’t work in your house. It’s a bull**** argument.

    2) I need to protect myself from a tyrannical Government...

    Holy **** that’s stupid. That idea was from a time when the state of war was much more level. It isn’t now. At all. If an armored transport shows up on your front lawn with a 50 cal on the roof, you and your AK are ****ing toast. Soldiers train, and their weapons are an extension of their body. You will instantly lose. And before you bring up guerrilla fighters in Afghanistan or Iraq... you need a reality check. Those people were born in a country that was at war, on their soil, for their entire lives. You don’t compare to that on your best day. And they die in FAR greater numbers than they kill.

    3) Gun registration, background checks, etc are a slippery slope to confiscation.

    Bull****. We register cars. We have to prove proficiency to operate them. We are required to have insurance in the event we cause damage with them. It’s been that way for decades, and no one is “coming to take your car”. Making sure people have the barest minimum of responsibility doesn’t lead to loss. Fear of loss leads to fundraising and bull****. It’s not rational.

    4) My gun is a right that can’t be modified.

    Again, utter bull****. You can’t own a howitzer unless the barrel is full of concrete. You can’t own a cannon manufactured in the last century. You can’t own a fully automatic weapon without a FFL. That’s why those things are rarely used in crimes. And all of that is based on an amendment to our constitution that can be changed if we as a country see fit to do so. We have changed amendments before and we will again. If you don’t understand that you need a history lesson and a dictionary.

    Creating common sense laws that put speed bumps in the way of lunatics helps. Every time. Automobile licenses, speed limits, etc don’t end accidents, but they make them less frequent and less deadly. It’s a proven concept. The time for bull**** excuses is over. It’s time to step up and take responsibility. **** this stupidity.”
    With all due respect to your friend there isn't an original thought in the entire clip. I do give him a B+ on his writing skills however - he's adept at spinning logical fallacies and non sequiturs into a very amusing piece.
    State of Liberalism Progress Report
    1961: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" - JFK
    2019: Where's my free stuff!

  10. #10
    Sage

    Common Sense 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    09-09-19 @ 09:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    7,526

    Re: A friend's argument on guns, I like to hear your rebuttal

    The Supreme Court spelled it out in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER.

    Held:

    1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2Ė53.

    (a) The Amendmentís prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clauseís text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2Ė22.

    (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Courtís interpretation of the operative clause. The ďmilitiaĒ comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizensí militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizensí militia would be preserved. Pp. 22Ė28.

    (c) The Courtís interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28Ė30.

    (d) The Second Amendment ís drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30Ė32.

    (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Courtís conclusion. Pp. 32Ė47.
    "I want to be clear, Iím not going nuts"
    Joe Biden, New Hampshire, August 26, 2019

Page 1 of 14 12311 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •