im going to get into trouble how many more will die

[javier81]

None of the recommendations filghy made violate the 2nd amendment as it's been interpreted by the Supreme Court thus far. It's possible political debate just isn't for you. Not everyone enjoys it and that's fine.

Considering I didn't read his post, I couldn't say whether his recommendations would or wouldn't violate the 2nd amendment as it's been interpreted. I'm personally fine with political debate, I just don't find it's particularly useful within the context of this subject as the majority of people have already taken a hard stance either way and aren't likely to even soften their stance. The only thing that's ever going to change anything is time. Until then, I guess I'll exist in the minority of people who like guns, but feel the majority of people who own them are too irresponsible to be allowed the right.

[filghy2]

What are you suggesting Javier? You've made a number of posts in this thread but you are still being extremely vague about your own position.

Time itself is not going to do anything. It's already been 20 years since the Columbine massacre and 7 years since Sandy Hook. Change only occurs because enough people keep pushing for it. Sure, it's very difficult because of the NRA's grip on the Republican Party but just giving up and waiting for a better time is a sure way to ensure nothing will ever change.

On most issues there are probably 80-90 per cent of people whose minds are made up and can't be persuaded. Most political changes occur through changing the minds of a few per cent of the voters.

[Laphroaig]

Call me cynical but both sides of this argument seemed to have left too little room for pragmatism. You're a bit naive if you think your opinions are going to influence any bystanders who might be on the fence. Whether well informed or not most Americans have already formed their own opinions on the subject, and are likely to disregard your thoughts on the matter at face value simply because you're "European". I'm pro 2nd amendment and I've long since found it completely worthless to debunk the often blatantly untrue "facts", and logically flawed arguments the pro-gun folks always seemed to be armed with. Feel free to engage with that as you see fit.

While the majority probably have made their minds up, if there are people "on the fence" then by definition they are not entrenched in their viewpoint and are open to being swayed in either direction. The politics section of a niche porn board is never going to be the place to change the world but neither is burying your head in the sand and ignoring the issues. Call me cynical but maybe you want to shut down this discussion because it's making the pro gun argument look foolish, though so far you haven't exactly improved that cause.

Considering I didn't read his post, I couldn't say whether his recommendations would or wouldn't violate the 2nd amendment as it's been interpreted. I'm personally fine with political debate, I just don't find it's particularly useful within the context of this subject as the majority of people have already taken a hard stance either way and aren't likely to even soften their stance. The only thing that's ever going to change anything is time. Until then, I guess I'll exist in the minority of people who like guns, but feel the majority of people who own them are too irresponsible to be allowed the right.

"I rest my case".

[filghy2]

From what he has said I don't think Javier is a gun rights zealot, though I don't understand his motives in getting involved in the discussion. I must say that anyone who suggests that both sides of this argument are at fault for the lack of progress must be either poorly informed or is being disingenuous. The sorts of measures I mentioned earlier don't go nearly as far as what other countries have done, so their proponents are already making pragmatic compromises.

[Laphroaig]

From what he has said I don't think Javier is a gun rights zealot, though I don't understand his motives in getting involved in the discussion. I must say that anyone who suggests that both sides of this argument are at fault for the lack of progress must be either poorly informed or is being disingenuous. The sorts of measures I mentioned earlier don't go nearly as far as what other countries have done, so their proponents are already making pragmatic compromises.

To be fair, neither appears to be a complete gun nut, just misguided and unable to present an argument as to why guns, particularly assault rifles, are so great and necessary for a civilian to own.

On the subject of compromise the NRA and other gun lobbies are the main problem. Shouting down any sensible proposed control measures with cries of "unconstitutional" and "thin end of the wedge". Until that attitude disappears it's unlikely any compromise can ever be achieved.

[rabbitfufu]

another dui death, another shooting death> Which one does the media choose to make their headline? MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM. Like I said responsibly is the word many gun owners have not shot any one. Nor does every person that takes a drink harms people. IT IS THE PERSON THAT TAKES A LAW AND SCREEWS IT UP!!!!

[broncofan]

I liked Laphroaig's previous post because I agreed with most of it but I do think that rabbitfufu is a gun nut. Perhaps Javier isn't since he seems to suggest some limits to who can own guns and what kind. Maybe he wants to own a gun and shoots as a hobby or for self-defense but has not been indoctrinated by the NRA's checklist of vacuous talking points.

On the other hand, rabbitfufu shows all the hallmarks of gun-nuttery, from the disingenuous concern about other hazards without any suggested remedies to the strawman arguments that don't even acknowledge the existence of a middle ground, to the desire to own so many weapons that the guns must have a significance only he understands but cannot articulate. The arguments he makes bespeak a lack of awareness or concern for anything or anyone other than his hobby.

[rabbitfufu]

What about recently piolets stopped from pioleting planes while intoxicated, that would have been a mass killing

[filghy2]

The arguments he makes bespeak a lack of awareness or concern for anything or anyone other than his hobby.

I think you are being over-generous is describing his rants as arguments, bronco. He hasn't made anything resembling an argument: we're just inferring it.

You might be wrong about no James Joyces writing pro-gun arguments. Joyce did write a novel (Finnegan's Wake) is his own made-up version of English. I think rabbitfufu might be trying something similar.

[Laphroaig]

What about recently piolets stopped from pioleting planes while intoxicated, that would have been a mass killing

Are you drunk?