One of my favorite discredited gun control arguments

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Turtledude, Mar 10, 2023.

  1. DentalFloss

    DentalFloss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    11,445
    Likes Received:
    3,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I like it much better that no government official knows what guns I may or may not have, or how much gold and silver I may or may not have. Which isn't anywhere near enough, but just being greater than zero beats 99% of the population in a SHTF situation.

    Perhaps, but it's not anymore. You, as a Florida resident, should know that pretty much everywhere you go you are literally surrounded by legally armed civilians. Since you are here posting, I'm going to assume that no ccw holder has killed you, and since you haven't mentioned it, I'm also going to assume you haven't been shot, threatened, or molested, so by now you should know from personal experience that it's nothing to fear.

    Yet, it seems you still do. If I may ask, why?

    I wouldn't count on that being accurate. Still, at least in some places that is no longer true, and even though my wheelchair is faster than a normal walk, or even a jog, it's not faster than a sprint or a bullet. Don't get me wrong, if I'm in a situation where I can **** without undue risk, I will. I don't carry because I have some fantasy of shooting someone, I do so because I don't want to get shot myself.

    Indeed, I think if I ever do shoot anyone, especially if they die (though that is preferable to a living person suing me), that would mess with my mind for the rest of my life, and hope it never comes to pass.

    That's changed, too, and good thing. Because when the something going bump in the night is not the wind blowing the porch door open, I don't have time to get the gun, then get the ammo, then load it, and then be ready. By then, I'd be dead. No thanks. I have been dead, and it really wasn't that bad, but I'm not ready just yet, and it would destroy my wife, so not today, mf-er. Wrong house! (Not you, the hypothetical bad guy.)

    Hmm. Requiring people to swear an Oath to Support and Defend the Constitution. Where have I heard those words before?
     
  2. Pro_Line_FL

    Pro_Line_FL Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    25,616
    Likes Received:
    13,905
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There is no need for that. There was gun control when the Constitution was written, and when 2A was added. If they wanted to ban any restriction of any kind, the 2A would not have been worded the way it was.

    Like this: "The right of the citizens to bear arms for any purpose shall not be restricted in any way, shape or form"
     
  3. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In 1791...
    What restrictions did the federal government place on citizens?
    What restrictions did the states place on citizens?
    How does this meaningfully differ from "shall not be infringed"?
     
  4. Pro_Line_FL

    Pro_Line_FL Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    25,616
    Likes Received:
    13,905
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Maybe some people back them felt the same way, but the Founders did not

    I didn't say I fear it. I am a ccw holder myself. We are discussing gun rights at the time of the Founders. Maybe you lost track.

    Well, it is accurate.

    Yes. Taking a life comes with a heavy mental toll.

    Yes. Guns rights are far looser now than they were back at the time of the Founders. They probably didn't have as much to fear as today people have in places like Florida.

    Yes. Swear an oath if you want to own a gun, because you had to be an official member of a militia if you wanted to own one. No oath, no gun.
     
  5. DentalFloss

    DentalFloss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    11,445
    Likes Received:
    3,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't know where you live, bro, but when we moved in here, I checked the crime in the area, and as far as I could tell, the most serious crime near here was missing kids, probably runaways or parental interference. Out on the highway there is a bit of shoplifting, which is normal unfortunately, and some hookers, but I don't think selling something that is perfectly legal to give away should be a crime.

    You probably are a member of the US militia, or depending on your age, maybe were. Taa daa, just like magic. But you should know that.
     
  6. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your statemented no no basis in fact or reason.

    Alexander Hamilton didn't need to...
    - Ask permission form the federal government, and his state, separately, to buy a gun.
    - Ask permission from his state, and his city, separately, to carry a gun
    - Choose his gun from a list of firearms approved by his state
    - Tell his state what guns he has
     
  7. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,253
    Likes Received:
    20,241
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    so many people have a hard time understanding federalism and the concept of a federal government of limited powers
     
  8. Pro_Line_FL

    Pro_Line_FL Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    25,616
    Likes Received:
    13,905
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I live in a more populated area and crime is sky high. Why?

    I said swearing an oath was a requirement to own guns back in the days of Founders, but not today. Gun lawa are much looser now, and getting looser, than back then.
     
  9. DentalFloss

    DentalFloss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    11,445
    Likes Received:
    3,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You tell me. In the Tampa Bay area, generally speaking, crime is not much of a problem for most people in most places. There will always be exceptions to that, which is why I carry, just in case I happen to be one of those unlucky people in one of those unlucky places, but even DTSP, and downtown Tampar (sic) are safe areas. Pinellas county is the most densely populated in the State, and while I'm not dumb enough to say it doesn't exist, it's not a widespread issue.

    Crime peaked in the late 80s to early 90s, and declined for 30 years until the pandemic, defund the police, and the summer of riots all happened at the same time. Not to mention prosecutors that won't prosecute, no cash bail policies, and the outright decriminalization of certain acts, as just one example in CA if you steal $950 or less they won't touch you. The inmates are running the asylum, and the criminals know they powers that be won't touch them, so they do what criminals do. But Florida is a bit different... Have you ever heard Sheriff Grady Judd speak? That is Florida law enforcement to a T.
     
  10. Pro_Line_FL

    Pro_Line_FL Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    25,616
    Likes Received:
    13,905
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Again? Ok, since copy/paste is easy to use: I live in a more populated area and crime is sky high. Why?

    There are neighborhoods in Florida which are among the most dangerous in the nation. If crime is low in Tampa, then good for them, but to offer one example simply does not mean we don't have a crime problem, because we certainly do with many areas WAY above national average.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2023
  11. DentalFloss

    DentalFloss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    11,445
    Likes Received:
    3,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well... I don't know where that place is, I understand if you want to keep that information to yourself, but wherever it is, the information that is as high crime as you seem to think has not leaked out over here. So I don't have enough information to answer your question.

    Since you live there, apparently, I figured you might have some insight that I do not. I guess I was wrong.
     
  12. Pro_Line_FL

    Pro_Line_FL Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    25,616
    Likes Received:
    13,905
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I forgot you were one of the posters who needs everything spoon-fed to them.

    "With a crime rate of 47 per one thousand residents, Fort Lauderdale has one of the highest crime rates in America compared to all communities of all sizes - from the smallest towns to the very largest cities. "

    And its not just Ft Lauderdale. Violent crime rate average in US is 366.7 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants, and places like Daytona its three times higher.

    [​IMG]
     
  13. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Never mind the fact they speak from ignorance or dishonesty.
    Note the failure to respond
     
    Turtledude likes this.
  14. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,452
    Likes Received:
    7,603
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1) Entirely false
    2) Entirely false
    3) Entirely false
    4) Entirely false
    5) They also disarmed religious and ethnic minorities. Those strictures have been found unconstitutional.
     
  15. Pro_Line_FL

    Pro_Line_FL Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    25,616
    Likes Received:
    13,905
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sorry, but history is what it is, and it doesn't change by you shrieking that you don't believe it, or even with people trying to re-write it. Things are different today. We know that.
     
  16. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes.
    And it proves your claims false.
    But then, you knew you were false when you made them.
     
    Reality and Turtledude like this.
  17. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,253
    Likes Received:
    20,241
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    HE was quoting a well know propagandist-Saul cornell. Cornell claimed that because ONE city had SOME restrictions on loaded weapons-that meant the founders were all fans of such laws. We all know that was BS.
     
    Reality likes this.
  18. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,253
    Likes Received:
    20,241
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    what is your purpose in parroting the dubious assertions of a paid anti gun shill? Do YOU think that Cornell was correct in his CONCLUSION that because one city had (less than he claimed) restrictions on loaded weapons that meant all or most or even a plurality of the founders supported that?
     
    Reality likes this.
  19. Pro_Line_FL

    Pro_Line_FL Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    25,616
    Likes Received:
    13,905
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If you want to disprove it, then do so with references, but your never ending attempts to attack the author is tiresome. You invented the idea that it is about one city, and I already showed you that was not the case.

    Screaming "I don't believe you" is not an argument. Its called living in denial.

    Again, history is what it is. Its weird it offends you so much.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2023
  20. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,452
    Likes Received:
    7,603
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No one is shrieking, ad hominem violates forum rules.
    Again: There are no federal analogs. At the time of the founding the BOR only applied to the Feds. Post 14th amendment the same restrictions that apply to the feds apply to the states.

    Ergo: State laws in this case are not the analogous laws required to be proven post NYSRPA v Bruen.

    You can cite whatever quacks you feel you need to, they're still quacks and demonstrably wrong. Laughably so. Worthy of mockery even.
     
    Turtledude likes this.
  21. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,253
    Likes Received:
    20,241
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I am curious about your purpose in citing a guy who is a well known whore of the anti gun movement and I take issue with his conclusions. I attack him because of his conclusions and his constant failure to understand the difference between state powers and a limited federal government. Most of us who actually have studied this issue conclude that the existence of local or state criminal codes is further proof that the founders had no intention to give similar powers at a federal level. Cornell and Stevens have argued that the existence of state restrictions on carrying concealed weapons etc, was proof that the founders wanted them at a a federal level but seemed to have "forgotten" to include them in Article One Section Eight. I find it hilarious-as I have said before, watching the postings of those who purportedly support lawful gun ownership but don't like the fact that their beloved Democrat party is anti gun
     
  22. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,452
    Likes Received:
    7,603
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I also like how when they examine Art I Sec 8, they somehow are blind the the entirety of the Marque and Reprisal clause which contemplates a populace that needs bare permission to start attacking enemy ships of the line, and they disregard the actual historic use of that clause by congress to make us a privateering superpower so potent the Euros all banded together and claimed privateering was now piracy despite them inventing both art forms and treating them quite differently for the past 500 years (and more) to that point. Sore losers.
     
    Turtledude likes this.
  23. Pro_Line_FL

    Pro_Line_FL Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    25,616
    Likes Received:
    13,905
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I am curious why you scream "I don't believe you" every time you hear things you don't like. That is not an argument

    If you have another version of American history, then why not present it?

    Historical events are not conclusions.

    Why does history offend you? The attitude goes hand-in-hand with people like DeSantis who criminalize speech about topics which make people uncomfortable. Maybe this should be added to the list, because clearly it makes some people VERY uncomfortable.

    Things are different today, and that's fine, but history is what it is, but you can ask around if someone would pay you to re-write the books.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2023
  24. Pro_Line_FL

    Pro_Line_FL Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    25,616
    Likes Received:
    13,905
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Who is 'they' and what does this have to do with anything?
     
  25. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,253
    Likes Received:
    20,241
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    OK you can evade as you see fit-why do YOU THINK Cornell pushes such "historical facts"

    What makes me laugh is how he tries to insinuate the founders wanted federal gun control powers. and that is what he has done. he and a couple other leftwingers (like the apt named Carl Bogus)did it in their laughable Amicus brief in Heller. They claimed that since in some cities, "papists" were not allowed to carry firearms -that means that the DC ban on handguns was not an affront to the Second Amendment. What is lacking that brief is addressing the point Kates made before Heller was decided-that there is no evidence that an individual right was NOT intended by the founders and also lacking was any analysis of the tenth amendment failings
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2023

Share This Page