A serious analysis of "Guns don't kill people... people kill people"

If that is true, why do you keep harping on wanting to abolish civilian ownership of whatever it is YOU call an assault weapon, when in fact they are a sub-set of rifles, and ALL rifles (including the non-assault weapon ones) account for only 3% of homicides annually. That's not saving as many lives as possible, that's saving a tiny amount of lives that is just margin of error sort of measurements as a result! Which is a fancy way of saying that even if you can eliminate ALL of that 3% subset (and you can't), and even if nobody who would have used what you label as an 'assault weapon' didn't decide to use something else, it's even less.

All you're doing is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic while it slowly sinks.

We've lowered our homicide rates by about 66% (NOT a typo) for reasons that pretty much nobody can figure out, but you think eliminating a category of weapons that do such a small amount of damage, relatively speaking, is going to make a significant difference? HAH!!! It won't even be statistically significant.

 

No you need to quit MakingShitUp.

Actually the OP rambles along bouncing from one topic to another. It makes me think of and understand Nikki Haley’s comment to Ramaswamy the other night. I’m thinking you didn’t get high marks in English Composition.

But you go on about saving lives; is that the “Topic”?

Then you bring up “military-style/assault weapons”; is that the “Topic”?

Then you point out that it takes two people to complete a firearm purchase; is that the “Topic”?

Then you bring up manufacturers; I don’t think they are the “Topic”, but if they are, let me know.

Then you bounce around about “controlling” guns before and after purchase; which “I” believe is your goal. Is that the Topic”?

You seem to be against banning manufacture because “we need them for the military”. But, let me point out here, AGAIN, “military weapons are not available for sale to the public. But, is that the “Topic”?

“keeping dumb arguments to yourself”, should apply to you, too.

Then in conclusion you seem to focus on Outlawing the sale of military-style weapons. (Which, as I pointed out already is outlawed.) So is that the Topic?

If you read your OP I think you see, at best, your OP is confusing.

I’ve shown, it’s hard to pin down just what “the Topic” is by “reading the OP”
As you can see the OP, Your OP is confusing.

I’m way past “wasting time” here. I’ve addressed every point “you’ve made”, the purpose of firearms, the sale of firearms, your “THEREFORE” being ONE of many possible “THEREFORE’s” and, the Constitutionality of it all. We’ve discussed the Supreme Court decisions of Heller and Bruen, we’ve even discussed that the the Judiciary can not legislate; they just can’t, it’s not Constitutional. So it’s disingenuous to say “the Topic” of the OP hasn’t been addressed, because everything you brought up in the OP and every thing you’ve brought up that wasn’t in the OP AbsaByGodLutley has been addressed and addressed in spades.

Who’s “we”? You and the mouse in your pocket? Because IMHO “we” doesn’t know what “we” wants. And as far as “FACTS” are concerned “we” wouldn’t know one if they were a bus that tan over “we”.

I wouldn’t dream of it.

 

No, it’s an excellent critique of your scatter-gun OP.

 

Huh? Are you feeling ok?

 

That's your plan, isn't it? To try to "rebut" my arguments in the threads where I am NOT making them. Because you can't in the threads where I AM.

You know where my arguments about the 2nd A are, and EVERYBODY who has ever read those threads knows you were unable to rebut them. THIS thread is not about the 2nd A. This is why you keep trying to bring it up here and not there.

 

Because innocent people DIE!

Dumb question!

"a sub-set of rifles" sounds good to me...

Saving whatever percent of the population was represented by shootings like Parkland, Uvalde .... etc, sounds well worth it to me. Even if it's the 0.000....whatever% of homicides. Bottom line: I could not care LESS what the percentage is.

Look, you try to tap dance and make knots of yourself when my argument is quite simple: we save as many innocent lives as we can. And those we can't save, we can't. What part is so difficult to understand?

 

It's ONE topic. And I have explained it a dozen times: the logical conclusion of the bumper sticker that starts with "Guns don't kill people..." is that guns should be kept away from people. That's it! Everything else is either minutia or topics that have already been demonstrated in the threads in which THOSE are the topic.

Nope... But I did explain what it meant for the benefit of those who asked. I have no problem because it's besides THE POINT.

NO! That's a small part of the explanation as to how the conclusion is obtained. If you disagree with that you need at a minimum a buyer and a seller to complete a firearm purchase, it would be appropriate to rebut it because it IS part of the logic used. Even though not itself the topic because it's obvious...

Look... in any statement there is a premise, one or more conditions and a conclusion. The CONCLUSION is the topic. The rest is simply to explain or clarify how the conclusion is reached. PLUS a mention of some elements that are irrelevant to the discussion, which I address only as a courtesy or to try to avert that others use them to go off topic (like the car example). Anybody who is incapable of understanding how a serious debate works, is incapable of participating in one.

For example, anybody who asks something like

Focus! YOU said "But you and other anti-gun folk, don't really want to ...."

The quote is in the post your responded to.

I know you're not paying much attention to what I write. But do you at least pay attention to what YOU write?

Anyway... Now you know what the topic is. If you have anything comment, I'll be listening. If you have anything to say about any of the peripheral topics, I'll be happy to send a link to the appropriate thread where THOSE are proven.

 

there is nothing to rebut. You refuse to actually explain your actual position on the second amendment with your bobbing and weaving. what we do know is that you clearly refuse to recognize the fact that it guarantees an individual right because that blows away your craving gun bans

 

I guess it amounts to “aspirin kills innocent people, I don’t care how many and I don’t care how many people it helps, I want to stop the sale of it and if you disagree you are wrong”.

 

When I asked you what "THE" topic was you said read the OP. I re-re-read the OP and found you had covered many topics that ... YOU ... went on to discuss in subsequent posts.

It ( was one of you main points in "the ->OP". "military style weapons" (or "assault weapon" <-

"it takes two people to complete a firearm purchase"
Was another of several main points made in the OP.

There is not need to get snarky, I made an earnest effort to read your OP thoroughly, and touched on every sub-topic in it in my previous reply. IF you wanted to have a "serious debate" about your "topic" you could have answered that "the topic is the conclusion I drew in the OP", when I asked; "OK what IS the topic". Instead of replying, "read the OP"

"Who's we?" -noone

No, I said: "But you and other anti-gun folk, don't really want to stop the violence; you prefer to ban guns.

No, what I quoted in blue was in the post I responded to.

Like I said you don't need to get snarky, you can't get snarky in a actual "debate".

Why not just STATE what the topic is? But OK, I'm going with:
"we need to outlaw the sale of military-style weapons to people"
Since that was the conclusion of your many faceted OP; and which I covered several times, the first of which was in post #423:

Where I responded to your "topic", that was my FIRST post in this thread and I responded to "THE topic". So, I did respond to your "topic" right off the bat. You replied:

So you capitulated in that reply but, claimed victory on the grounds of "pure logic".

No,thank you, I'm done. "Debating", if that's what you want to call it, gets to be a battle of beating you but, you getting snarky and trying to win by being more and more obtuse. I hit the nail on the head in my first post and then spent a day chasing your replies around, only to be told I missed "the topic"; when I beat your "topic" in my first post to this thread. You obviously want to ban the sale of "military style ice cream cones - AKA "assault weapons" to the public. No matter what you call them, banning the sale or manufacture of semi-automatic sporting rifles in common use is forbidden by the Second Amendment.

 

Exactly!

My position on the 2nd A is easy, simple and very comfortable for me to defend.

It's simply that linguists...
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-101-for-gun-advocates.585785/
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-102-to-keep-and-bear-arms.586083/

And historians...
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...form-part-of-a-well-regulated-militia.589757/

Are RIGHT!

How can it get any easier that that? Especially when the self-appointed "legal expert" of the forum can only respond (and I am quoting you): "there is nothing to rebut. "

 

and none of them can establish that an individual right was not intended. some of them claim it was to support a state militia. and as Kates noted in his influential law review article (which carries far more weight than any linguist in a legal environment) that in no way denigrates the individual right position

 

There is only ONE topic. The rest are arguments. AND, most predominantly, explanations of what the topic IS NOT. I have seen how gun advocates invariably attempt to change the subject. So, for example, I found it important to point out that any moderately reasonable person has at least a broad idea of what is meant by "assault weapons". There is always a gun advocate who get fixated on that when they find themselves unable to debate the REAL point.

This is what I mean. No! That is NOT a point. That is an unavoidable premise. At a minimum you need a buyer and seller. That is an obvious, uncontroversial, basic premise that only a nihilist would deny. So debating that, as if it were a point, is a CLEAR attempt to avoid the real topic.

And, I say again: what I and other anti-gun folk want is IRRELEVANT to this thread. Another attempt to change the subject.

Anyway.... let's skip the nonsense and focus on the topic.

That would be the logical conclusion of the sentence that starts with "Guns don't kill people...". Mind you, the actual conclusion would be ANY weapon. But I reduced it to a certain type of weapons that you mention to try to avoid the "what you want is to ban all weapons..." argument. Because, again, what I WANT to do is irrelevant. I was clearly unsuccessful in your case.

So, with everything that is not the topic out of the way, do you have anything to say about what IS the topic?

Apparently not. So we are clear that if we were to take the statement that starts with "guns don't kill people.." to its ultimate conclusion (i.e. add a "therefore"), the logical conclusion of that statement (not mine) would be that we need to ban gun sales.

This was meant as an invitation for gun advocates to add a DIFFERENT "therefore" if they believed the statement had any value. Looks like nobody has....

 

In your opinion, you’ve cherry picked “historians and linguists” in those threads and declared them unquestionably right, as you’ve just done here. Which, their “opinions” are very questionable.

They are outnumbered of course, by historians and linguists that side with multiple Supreme Court decisions that upheld the INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms that are IN COMON USE.

Then, even though, as you so often do, you claimed that no one had refuted your claims. Even though they AbsaBy GodLutely WERE REFUTED.

And then claimed, since those “claims” weren’t refuted (which they definitely were by several different posters in several ways and, several different times) you declared your opinions were fact.

And, then went on to use your opinions as “facts” to support yourself in each of those threads.

And, BTW, the post I’m responding to is “off” this threads “topic”!

 

They prove that an individual right to own firearms is not addressed. Not prohibited, not restricted, not affirmed... simply not addressed.

But you refused to discuss that in the thread where it IS on topic. Yet you grab every opportunity to make your claim in threads where it's NOT. And that is a clear indication that you can't rebut my the historians' and linguists' arguments

 

wrong-when it says the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE that means the individual citizens. It didn't say the RIGHT OF THE MILITIA nor the RIGHT OF THE SEVERAL STATES-it said the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE.

 

He never can establish that the founders did not intend an individual right. At best he can assert that the main purpose of the amendment was to allow people to have the tools needed to be part of an effective militia. He also fails on the practicality grid because if a farmer, blacksmith, cobbler or farmer needed to possess (keep) a firearm to "bear" in the militia, they had to be able to have the weapon and nothing prevented them from using it for other lawful purposes. His unsupported argument suggests that congress could prevent you from owning a firearm unless or until you were actually called up which is ridiculous. Militia is not regular army. Those serving in the militia are not professional soldiers but rather men who have other occupations. They have to keep arms in order to be proficient with them

 

wrong again-the right of the people to KEEP AND BEAR arms shall not be infringed. that's about as plain as it gets to anyone who honestly examines the issue

 

can anyone explain how someone who may be called up is expected to keep firearms to bear in the militia without possessing those weapons prior to being called up?

 

We'd have to conclude that in everybody's opinion. How else could we interpret the fact that nobody has rebutted them?

Not even Scalia, who is not a historian or a linguist, could "cherry-pick" different views from neither. So he made up his own out of thin air.

I only declare them unquestionably unquestioned. If you can think of a reason other than that they're right, feel free to share.

Funny how they never made it to that thread.

Maybe one day somebody will take the OP of those threads, and respond to them point by point. I can think of many reasons why justices like Scalia, Alito, Thomas,.. would make up historical and linguistic arguments. Including the fact that private cruises and private jets must be a lot of fun. But I can think of NONE why historians would. However, the references are there. And nobody has rebutted them.

 

all you need to do is read THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE.

 

The individual right of the people to do... WHAT?

Respond here...
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-102-to-keep-and-bear-arms.586083/

... and in a way that addresses the points made in the OP of that thread.

 

Very simple. “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.”

 

keep arms which means to possess. QED

 

it's like pounding sand down a rat hole. its black knight stuff