I am pro-gun - ask me anything...

It's quid pro quo. If the info does not lead to arrest he gets nothing. This is basic law enforcement

 

First you write that nothing I wrote has any weight against your opinion. I gave you facts and links. You gave zip. You fail.

 

Why not go to the source of most crime, which are the fatherless offspring of liberal compassion, who grow up mean and angry. While firearm liberty has endured and thrived responsibly among the more civilized in the nation. Fatherless homes are the growing source of our nations violence. Like Romney said, it's the breakdown of the family at the root of it. All the firearm regulation in the world won't touch the problem. What is needed are values. We should stop giving money to promiscuous women who give birth to fatherless children. Because this is where 90 percent of all the killing and brutality is being spawned.

 

Yeah let those kids starve

 

Is that an argument to strip rights from everyone due to the actions of a few?

Are you suggesting that because some people are murderous killers, with or without a firearm, that the rest of us should lose the right to defend our families and lives?

Do we make alcohol illegal because 90,000 people die from it each year? Well, we did try that didn't we.

When it comes to murder with firearms, the bulk of it occurs in gang infested cities, with the vast majority of that being minority on minority.

Gun violence and murder varies greatly along racial lines. If the problem was guns, that variation would not exist. Unfortunately that variation is huge.

White people in the US, for example, last year used a firearm to murder at a rate of 1.5 per 100k. A pretty low number, considering we have over 300 million firearms in this country.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/

 

You did post a couple of links which I read and I appreciate that. I am always interested in learning more information.

You used two fallacies to try to dispute my argument. One slippery slope and the other was a falacy of illogical conclusion. Just because canad cancelled part of their program doesnt mean a different program wouldnt work in the us.

 

I don't have to Google anything. And I don't need to get a linguistics degree to make my point. I don't actually need to do anything more, because here you have proven my point for me. Which was that the wording in the 2nd Amendment is ambiguous. So much so, that even well respected scholars cannot agree.

See, it was quite easy.

BTW, of your links... the first one doesn't work. And the other two take me to law professors. Not linguists. And since our argument (and especially yours) was based on linguistics, I have no idea how they are relevant. And I don't quite understand why you do that, given that your whole rhetoric revolved around linguistics.

But it doesn't actually matter, because my point has been agreed on.

 

They are starved...for affection, values, counsel, principles, example, leadership, and in general, a Father. Put the onus where it belongs. On those who create them and on their families.

 

You left one thing out. Actual food. So you don't care if they starve. Got it

 

They aren't cattle. Besides, it's clear that your way doesn't work. Unless you consider murder, misery, and mayhem, a success. Let their parents feed them. Hell, mice know as much.

 

Yeah. Lets try not giving them money for food. I mean....what could go wrong? LOL

 

The method you're talking about uses acid to reveal deeper impressions left by the stamping process.

This can easily be defeated by cutting all the way through the metal/plastic frame, then filling it in with new material.

Your method would only catch the dumb criminals.

Also, what do you plan to do with 3D printed guns?

 

*gasp* I wonder if the criminal knows that.

So is murder, straw sale/theft of a firearm, a felon in possession of a firearm, and destruction of the S/N itself.

How many more laws would you be interested in having them violate? I'm sure they'd oblige.

 

You do of course realize that the national average on a firearm trace is more than 11 years right?

https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/docs/ttcxlsx/download

That means if for some reason a gun is dropped at the scene of a crime, if the firearm has not had it's S/N destroyed, the best they can do is trace it back to who the dealer sold it to 11 years ago.

Maybe.

Awesome.

 

I guess it's a good thing we have a lot of other documents written by those same people who explain their intent behind the 2A then.

 

No **** sherlock. I still don't consider going easy on an armed robber to be a good trade. And you're going to be unlikely to get many snitches that way. To say nothing of the fact that gang members routinely murder each other for snitching so it's not really so common as you represent.

 

Your guys argument stands on legal theory he is unqualified to make and misinterpreting. My linguist stands purely on the rules of the language and is heavily supported by noted legal scholars.
Just because someone says something else doesn't make it reasonable. In fact, ignoring grammar tends to make it the opposite.

 

You think plea bargaining is some kind of new tool rarely used? You have much to learn...LOL

 

No it gets used a lot, to drop the firearms charges.

http://chicagoreporter.com/thousand...-being-dismissed-cook-county-criminal-courts/

From January 2006 through August 2013, thousands of cases involving a weapons violation were thrown out in Cook County’s criminal courts, The Chicago Reporter found. More than 13,000 cases that included a gun violation have been dismissed during that period, shows the Reporter’s analysis of records maintained by the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County. In fact, more felony cases involving a gun–from illegal possession to unlawful sale to a felon–have been thrown out than cases with any other type of charge.

 

Quote me where I said that o wise and learned one. I said I didn't consider the trade a good one and that snitching is not generally accepted as a practice among criminals sure that they will murder each other and even families of same over it.
It is by no means a silver bullet which is what you're treating it as. Though that's par for the course for you

 

Quote me where I said it was a silver bullet. I am not looking for a silver bullet. I am looking at part of the solution. Even you seem to admit it would be

 

nah

 

I am showing that there are limits to what can be used for defense. Or rather you're showing us. That was the point, now where the lines get drawn is up to some interpretation. That was the point I was making. Thanks for providing the proof.

 

Go ahead and show where I've said I am ok with gun banning. Why the silly game.
I am asking where your line in the sand is drawn for weapons?
I never said anything about tanks being what ordinary citizens would keep and bear. I am asking per your interpretation, is it constitutionally protected?

 

No I am not. I own a gun. For hunting purposes.
Also a crossbow.