Once more, gun control opponents...

[WVdemocrat]

That's a terrible comeback to my claim, IMO.  The difference is that gun control actively represses a Constitutional right of law-abiding citizens and doesn't accomplish its stated goal either.  I should be able to have a gun in my home to defend against possible home invasion, and that right should not be affected by whatever a racist psycho decided to do, no matter how horrible it was.

We can't just disregard Constitutional rights on impulsive desires to "fix" things.  It'd probably be better if everyone had to prove their identity before they voted, no?  It'd cut down on voter fraud.  However, purchasing an ID as a requirement to vote really is a form of poll tax, so we don't affect everyone's right to vote based on isolated incidents.

But we then don't give up on fighting voter fraud.

That's the point.

You're acting like I want all guns to be banned. Nobody is saying that, so enough with that nonsense BS argument that gun control somehow violates the Constitution.

We're not talking about taking away all guns. You have the right to defend your home, you have the right to hunt, and collect, and whatever the hell else you want to do with your guns other than kill people. Common sense gun control does not infringe on the rights of citizens, it is simply meant to keep guns out of the hands of people who intend to do bad things with them.

And, again, I defer you to this map.

[WVdemocrat]

He actually makes very compelling arguments. If only the NRA and the gun nuts in America would realize the logic in it.

[WVdemocrat]

Anyone come up with a sensible plan in this thread to make it more difficult for psychotics to get their grubby little hands on guns?

Reasonable regulations on gun ownership and possession for reasons of public safety are indeed totally Constitutional by the way.

Why does the left never want to talk about mental illness and the common denominator of most mass shooters being medicated?

This is about preventing those people from getting their hands on guns. People with mental illnesses, as many mass shooters have, are not inherently violent, but we need to make sure they don't get their hands on guns anyway.

And if mentally ill people who intend to commit mass murder get their hands on guns, what the hell can government do aside from make it harder for them to get their hands on guns? Eliminate mental illness altogether?

[WVdemocrat]

@DeusNaturae

You can throw up graphs like that all you want, but you're not using critical thought. How would criminal background checks on gun purchases lead to an increase in violent crime? How would mental health exams or mandatory smart guns lead to an increase in violent crime? How about caps on magazines? Tell me, I'd really like to know.

[WVdemocrat]

But, none of these facts really matter to the people who truly drive the power-agendas of the world. They want everyone to rely on the State for protection so that they can be easily controlled and won't object to crap like police militarization and various police-state measures. It starts in kindergarten when they indoctrinate kids into the pussy mentality of "don't fight back, tell a teacher." They want you to be absolutely reliant on authority and unable to defend yourself or anyone else.

You're bats*** crazy. I really shouldn't respond to this conspiratorial nonsense, BUT I have no self control, so here goes nothing....

The people who support gun control aren't members of the Secret EEEEEVIL Liberal Illuminati, they're people who are legitimately concerned about these recurring mass shootings and the concerning influence of the NRA and the gun nut lobby. The people who support gun control are the same people who oppose police militarization. They are the same people who were outraged at the police response to the protests in Ferguson.

BTW I hate when radical libertarians like you resort to the nonsense argument of "WAKE UP SHEEPLE!" whenever you know you're beat. I don't know why you guys can't just discuss and debate the issue without resorting to paranoid rants about government trying to control the people by rounding up guns.

[WVdemocrat]

^I'll reply later, but for now I'll say that I think you've misinterpreted my post. I didn't mean to say that everyone who supports gun control supports the things I associated with it, simply that gun control fits into a broader agenda of making people helpless pussies who rely on the State for protection and call the cops at a moment's notice.

Well, I disagree with that 10,000%, but I'm glad you're not generalizing all gun control supporters as wanting that to happen.

[WVdemocrat]

BTW I hate when radical libertarians like you resort to the nonsense argument of "WAKE UP SHEEPLE!" whenever you know you're beat. I don't know why you guys can't just discuss and debate the issue without resorting to paranoid rants about government trying to control the people by rounding up guns.

The ironing is delicious.

Ironing? I suppose you mean irony?

Tell me, how is that ironic?

Let me guess, you're going to tell me that liberals always revert to the "FOR GOD'S SAKE, WILL SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!!" argument. That's my prediction. Of course, that's obviously a ridiculous point because liberals in this thread have been the ones debating logically, but nonetheless I predict that's what you're going to tell me.

[WVdemocrat]

That's "ironing is delicious" line is from the Simpsons.

I'm slightly ashamed that I didn't get that reference. I pride myself on being a Simpsons aficionado.

[WVdemocrat]

BTW I hate when radical libertarians like you resort to the nonsense argument of "WAKE UP SHEEPLE!" whenever you know you're beat. I don't know why you guys can't just discuss and debate the issue without resorting to paranoid rants about government trying to control the people by rounding up guns.

The ironing is delicious.

Ironing? I suppose you mean irony?

Tell me, how is that ironic?

Let me guess, you're going to tell me that liberals always revert to the "FOR GOD'S SAKE, WILL SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!!" argument. That's my prediction. Of course, that's obviously a ridiculous point because liberals in this thread have been the ones debating logically, but nonetheless I predict that's what you're going to tell me.

Nope.

Read the thread again.  From the OP.  Notice anything?  Do you notice how one side, from the word go, has posted one strawman after another strawman, right before a string of inults?  So while it's true (which is why you guessed it) that many of you do go to the "children" card too quickly when you don't get your way, you haven't done that (much) here.  You've done something that is much more common.  You made up arguments for the other side, you've insulted and you've lied.  Your side has serious issues debating with libertarians because of the hate.

I don't hate libertarians. I disagree with them on many issues, but I don't hate them.

And I'm not trying to insult them. I respond to their points with my points. That is all.

[WVdemocrat]

We are a violent country. It goes all the way up to the President and the general lust for war they have. Gun control would change little even if it was constitutional.

What is gun control? It's such a vague term that you could literally be talking about anything. I don't know what you're talking about. Tell me, what specific policy proposals are unconstitutional? List them. List actual policies that are supported by the political left, which are unconstitutional.

I dont even like guns, but there is not really a reason to support gun control. You need to change the violent culture of America if you want to actually stop gun violence.

https://youtu.be/Lu5SJcNp0J0?t=15s

Ah, welp - people aren't gonna change, so we might as well do nothing. -Right wingers

No! That's absurd. That's not a policy proposal, that's a cop out. You know how you stop gun crime? Stop criminals from getting their hands on guns.

The point is often made that the vast majority of violent crimes aren't gun crimes. More violent crimes are committed with knives, by unarmed perpetrators, and with blunt objects than are committed with guns. This leads to the conclusion that violence is the result of people, not a result of weapons. Therefore, whatever policy prescription we put forward should address the problems that exist in people, not in weapons.

And what exactly is your brilliant plan to stop the criminal mentality in America? Please, do share.

Concealed carry is important for personal safety. As has been said before, if one of the patrons at the movie theater shooting in Denver had been armed, the shooting could have been minimized. Having responsible, trained people carrying is hardly a threat to public safety. The reality in much of this country is one of long police response times. Especially in much of rural America, police officers can take a significant amount of time to respond to violent crime. A fast, effective response to violent crime is crucial. Concealed carry provides that response.

We don't need people taking the law into their own hands. Let police officers deal with it, end of story. If everybody's running around with guns trying to be vigilantes, then suddenly America turns into the wild, wild west. It'd be chaos.

[WVdemocrat]

In closing, I propose two questions.  To restate my original question, do you believe government should have a monopoly on the use of force especially deadly force? And in the nature of compromise, accept the same regulations on voting that you would on gun ownership?

1.) Are you advocating vigilantism? That very quickly slips into chaos. I believe that the only instance anyone has the right to apply deadly force is in the case of self defense. This goes for police and for the citizenry. I advocate police de-militarization and cutting military spending, so don't even try to cast me as a "totalitarian STATIST!!" like you libertarians so often do.

2.) VOTING DOESN'T KILL PEOPLE