4th Circuit panel rules federal law requiring handgun buyers to be 21 or older is unconstitutional

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Well Bonded, Jul 13, 2021.

  1. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In the 2010 report "Summary of Select Firearms Violence Prevention Strategies" the DOJ noted that “universal” background checks can’t be effective without a reduction in the illegal sources of guns to criminals and can’t be enforced without comprehensive firearm registration.
    In "Source and Use of Firearms Involved in Crimes: Survey of Prison Inmates, 2016", the DOJ reported in Table 5 where criminals get their guns. We see that vast majority of guns in the hands of criminals come from straw purchases, family transfers, theft and the underground market (Illegal sources of firearms that include markets for stolen goods, middlemen for stolen goods, criminals or criminal enterprises, or individuals or groups involved in sales of illegal drug). A total of 0.8% come from gun shows. Purchases from "good guys" in private sales don't even show up.
    What does a UBC do to prevent criminals from getting guns?
    https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf
    https://health.ucdavis.edu/health-n...micide-or-suicide-rates-in-california/2018/11

    Under HR.8, one of these situations in each set of three are illegal without a background check:
    A gift to my brother.
    A purchase of a gun my father left to my brother.
    A “forever loan” of a gun to my nephew.

    Loaning an AR-15 to my uncle to hunt coyotes on his ranch.
    Loaning an AR- 15 to a complete stranger while we compete in 3 Gun
    Loaning an AR-15 to my buddy the cop to shoot on his uncle’s property to see if he likes the trigger.

    Loaning a shotgun to a co-worker to carry while he’s fishing two states away.
    Loaning a shotgun to a close single mom friend whose violent ex-husband gets out of jail at the end of the week.
    Loaning a shotgun to a neighbor to shoot some skeet at the local range.

    Which ones are illegal?

    In a nutshell, the percentage of people who want to infringe a right doesn't matter. If "greater safety for society at large" allowed laws to ignore Constitutional protections, then we wouldn't have any Constitutional protections.
     
  2. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Funny, because YOU were the one who was posturing. I showed that, in my post which you reported, for my pointing out that you had not been able to follow what I had clearly said, and referring to you by the name of a famous, fictional detective. My, aren't you the thin-skinned one?

    I wonder if that will get THIS post deleted, too.
     
  3. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So here is the ever-present conceit, of your arguments; anything you say, you demand be taken as true, based solely on your say-so. I cannot recall you, once, in this thread, linking anything to back up your claims, in posts addressed to me. Yet, you call everything I write, ignorant, & tell me to go, "learn,"
    thereby giving me the job of fact-checking all your assumed true contentions, as well as
    of finding evidence to support all of my assumed wrong assertions.

    This mechanism you rely upon, anyone here, regardless of their level of gun knowledge, can understand to be a bogus way to make an argument.

    This is the kind of thing that everyone here knows requires a source. But of course, you say I am wrong, & maybe that it shows my ignorance.



    No, I never said that. I would make the observation that your powers of comprehension leave something to be desired, which, of course, calls into question your interpretations of other material, including Court rulings-- which you expect readers to accept as fact, w/o any linked material-- except that would get you to report me AGAIN, right? I think this post of yours, below, was sent to me by mistake, instead of self-addressed.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2021
  4. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That is a claim that CLEARLY requires examples. I do not believe that you CAN make the case that protecting free speech, or assembly, or practice of religion, or of the press, etc., pose anything like a comparable risk to public safety, as unsecured firearms.

    Additionally, it is an ENORMOUS exaggeration to consider some measure that requires a gun owner a few extra seconds to retrieve their weapon, an ignoring of that Constitutional protection, outright. It is merely a limitation, to which ALL rights ARE subject. There is not an unlimited right to free speech, nor to assembly, nor even to religious practices. But this seems like retreading old ground, with you (or perhaps it was with TOG 6, whose arguments often follow very similar lines, as your own), from a past thread.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2021
  5. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The case could be proposed that removing all firearms from civilians would make society safer. The case could be made that allowing government to completely ignore the 4th Amendment would make society safer - if you have nothing to hide there's no objection right? Would society be safer if Nazis had no free speech rights, or if Trump and his followers had no free speech rights?

    The 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments protect criminals. If the government could ignore those, fewer criminals would be set free and wouldn't that make society safer?


    Just a limitation, eh? Banning AR-15s is just a limitation? Banning semiautomatic firearms is just a limitation?

    What is the time delay to access a gun for self defense where the law crosses from just a limitation to an infringement? 12 seconds? 2 minutes?
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2021
  6. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    STRAWMAN. That is not what we are discussing. And no one said that "safety," was society's, & therefore government's, only, or primary, concern. And on & on. This only
    suggests that you do not have a winning argument, for the proposition that we are discussing.

    STRAWMAN Argument #2:
    That, "the case could be made," for something, is an irrelevant point, because the case could be made for an almost endless variety of things that are not representative of the thinking of those who framed our Constitution. Giving the government unlimited powers of search & seizure was seen by our founders, who were not idiots, as posing its OWN risks. So, as I said to you (or at least in a post which you later quoted) previously, it comes down to a BALANCING of the positive & negative repercussions on rights, which any government action might have. That is our argument here. I am not divining what a future SCOTUS will decide, as you pretend to be able to predict-- that said, up until this last post of yours, I appreciate the higher quality of argument you have put forth, compared to many others with a similar perspective-- I am only contending that it is feasible that the Court might see a very minor delay in the time it takes to access a safely-stored firearm, as an acceptable trade-off, if it is presented with data reasonably showing that this would likely save lives. If you don't accept that, I don't know what more I can do, and I have given you ample opportunity to "prove," your case, that it is beyond rational thought, to conceive of this happening (which I don't feel you have done; but it was a near-impossible task, to begin with).

    Should this restriction ever come to pass, my advice to you, and anyone else who feels that a few seconds' obstacle between themselves & their gun, while one is in one's own home-- which your side of the argument has been claiming is enough of an obstacle, on its own, to safeguard one's firearms, though your current argument seems to contradict that view-- is too great of a threat to your personal safety, is to remind you all that, if you are home, there would be no necessity of locking up the weapon. You could walk around with it on your person, at all times, if that's what you need to feel safe. It is only when you leave your residence, w/out your gun, that the hypothetical law, of our debate, would take effect. Can you really make a case that, coming from outside your home, you might reasonably not have a few additional seconds to get a firearm, & that this would be as likely a scenario to both occur & to take your life, as would not having it locked up, and so possibly stolen & used against others, cost a life? In fact, if you came in to your home, with an intruder already inside, since a great many burglars (I would guess even the majority) do not typically carry a gun, your having your gun locked up, could just as likely be the thing that saves you.

    I will lastly point out, while I have steered things back to what has properly been our dispute, that the police do not find it a compromise to their safety, to lock up weapons. At military bases, I'm pretty sure, weapons get locked up. So what is your basis, other than having expectations that might, literally, medically qualify as paranoia, to think that any locked up gun puts its owner, automatically, at risk?

    STRAWMAN Argument #3:
    Again, not the debate that's currently in progress; involves a BALANCING of risks of allowing of the hate-speech, with the risks of giving the government the power to silence free speech, which would undoubtedly be abused. That seems a more substantial threat, than your stowing you guns in a secure way, when you leave them at home, without you.

    STRAWMAN Argument #4:
    The purpose of those Amendments, I imagine-- because I do not know them all by heart, and by number; you did not quote them; and I have already spent too much time, answering your strawman arguments, to now go look them up-- are not specifically meant to "protect criminals," (particularly not at the expense of public safety) but to protect the innocent, who might be accused of a crime. But you know this. Don't you?

    Now that is the only part of your post that actually applies to our debate (which I've indulged your ignoring my several mentions that even our storage debate, is completely off-topic, for this thread). So that issue you raise-- how much of a delay-- I can predict, would/will be a central
    consideration, of the court's. The shorter the delay (& more reasonable, the financial cost) the more likely that it will not be seen as an egregious limitation on the right to bear arms. So technology may well play a role, in this issue.

    I agree that the encumbrance cannot be too great, for the gun owner. But I also believe there is a reasonable amount of inconvenience that can be mandated, beyond 0 seconds. I really have no basis (nor would I guess, would you) to say what amount of time that future Court might find acceptable.

    It is this difference in our views, that even a SLIGHT amount of time, might not break the back of that right, is IMO the difference between a reasonable and an absolutist (which is, almost by definition, unreasonable) view.
    If you would like to stipulate a maximum amount of delay, feel free. Here are two of your fellow debaters, contributing their 2¢. One seems to claim that any impediment, whatsoever, is unconstitutional. The other, while not stating his consent, specifically, seems to suggest he might go as far as 3 seconds.
     
  7. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If guns are stolen in burglaries, which they are, most must wind up on the black market, which caters predominantly to criminals, who will predominantly use the guns I criminal acts. These criminal acts will, inevitably, lead to some loss of life.

    So the question becomes, could something like a safe, for example, deter a burglar? Because, if so, fewer gun burglaries would mean fewer guns in criminals' hands, and ultimately fewer shootings and killings of the innocent, by those criminals, with those stolen guns. Well the proof that safes deter burglars is attested to by the fact that safes are, after hundreds of years, still in use. If they were ineffective, this would certainly no longer be the case.

    Now I ask you: can you demonstrate the necessity of having your guns NOT locked up, when you are not at home, but they are? What, do they need to run around, for exercise, while you're away? Because this is the ONLY time they would be mandated to be securely stored. You could take them all out, the moment you arrived home. So why would you need immediate access-- for a burglary in progress, when you arrived home? While I think, just as if you came home to a fire, it would not be terribly bright to go running in to known danger, let's say you didn't immediately realize the danger. Can you demonstrate the greater likelihood that having your guns not locked up, would aid in your defense, rather than increase the chances that they would have been found, first, by the criminal and so, potentially used, by the intruder, against you? To restate it, from the other side: in the only scenario in which a storage requirement would necessarily have any impact on your access to your guns, if the need arose just as you were arriving home, can you demonstrate the odds of the addition of a few seconds to your access time leading to your harm, being as good as the odds that your guns being safely secured would actually protect you from harm, from a burglar who did not break in with a gun, but who would have had access to yours, had they not been locked up?
     
  8. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,251
    Likes Received:
    18,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    no, I don't. Read that's where I got my knowledge from. It's not our cane it's not mystical you just have to stop being lazy for 5 seconds and seek the knowledge you wish to have. The device you're using to communicate to me has internet access so that's the way I figured it out.

    You don't want to know because it might help you see how wrong your point of view is.
     
  9. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,251
    Likes Received:
    18,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Blaming other people for you not following the rules seems a bit silly.
    You don't have to wonder read the rules I get some of my posts deleted.
     
  10. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Here is the logical problem with that: it's not the way things are done, here. I know that, being a member for only a little over a year, and I realized this much sooner than just now. You, on the other hand, have been a member for TWELVE YEARS, have 35,000 Posts, and yet, somehow, have not yet figured out the drill.

    You see, whenever someone passes along information that they have read, their understanding of that material is a major issue, since we do not all interpret things the same, nor do we all possess the same level of literacy. This fact becomes an even more pronounced consideration, when the material in question is technical, or of a sort, with which, most are not familiar, as is the case with the sometimes arcane-sounding language of the law (that's the spelling of the term, btw, which you wrote, above, as "our cane").

    So you are expecting people to either believe your legal interpretations, or else spend their time reading Supreme Court opinions, to verify the opinions of someone who hasn't yet caught on that, on this site-- and, in fact, in any debate-- the types of things you assert, are expected to be supported with evidence from the one making the claim (that would be you, fyi). Sorry-- your argument is an epic fail. In your own words:
    But don't let it bother you. If you are too lazy to supply the links that are expected from, & usually provided by, everyone else,

    Or, as you more fully explained it, in the astute way that only you can-- which was frankly, not completely coherent, to my mind, but I'm sure you understand it-- and, not wanting to deprive you of your own brilliance, enjoy:

    Spoken like a true, legal scholar (?).
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2021
  11. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,251
    Likes Received:
    18,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Delete
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2021
  12. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,251
    Likes Received:
    18,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You can call me any name you want I'm just not that interested in proving reality to someone who's in denial of it.

    You don't have to be a scholar you just have to seek information.

    I'm not giving it to you because I don't care if you want to remain in the dark that's your business. I don't need to prove facts to you they are true regardless of whether you know them or not.

    If you want me to provide you with my work I charge by the hour.
     
  13. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I thought you had opened up the discussion to the entire Bill of Rights: "I do not believe that you CAN make the case that protecting free speech, or assembly, or practice of religion, or of the press, etc., pose anything like a comparable risk to public safety, as unsecured firearms."


    You invited the discussion: "I do not believe that you CAN make the case...

    There is no requirement for the police or for military personnel to keep their privately owned weapons locked up in their residences (other than those who live in the barracks). Different scenario.
    Do you feel that allowing government to mandate weapons storage wouldn't also be subject to abuse by those who write the laws? After all, in DC they required the weapon to be completely disassemble.
    Google can be your friend, but these rights do in face protect criminals, too, and allow criminals to go free when they otherwise shouldn't, which does endanger society.
    and we're back to your invitation to extend the range of the discussion: "I do not believe that you CAN make the case that protecting free speech, or assembly, or practice of religion, or of the press, etc., pose anything like a comparable risk to public safety, as unsecured firearms.""
    Democrats who write gun laws don't tend to use science to determine how much of an impediment is too much. We've learned not to trust them.
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2021
  14. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    My statement, you quoted, was in response to this contention of yours:
    And I said I didn't think you could make that case. Did you? Which Constitutional protection did you prove that we wouldn't have at all, if we in any way, "ignored," them, that is, placed any limitations on them?

    Rucker61 said:
    Would society be safer if Nazis had no free speech rights, or if Trump and his followers had no free speech rights?
    <End Snip>

    That does not prove that there are no limitations on free speech, which there certainly are, only that it is not more limited than it could be. That is a very different thing. I was not making, nor ever did I make, the case that gun rights should be as severely limited as any excuse might justify. Did you somehow get the impression that was what I meant, when I said:

    So I will stipulate further, for the sake of actually moving this argument forward, that if the time it would take for the owner to unlock his guns was 10 seconds or less, I would feel that should not be seen as a substantial interference in the right to bear arms, & that there is a good chance the Court would agree. A minute or more delay, to access one's guns, I would imagine to be a no-go. Between 10 and 30 seconds, I'd say there would be some chance, just how much, being dependent on the composition of the Court, at the time. At present, I think gun safety advocates should focus on the no more than 10 second range.

    But, going back to your supposed proofs that any limitation on a right, effectively negates that right.
    You cited

    I would have thought this overly-simplistic, and erroneous, logic was beneath you. Even if you do not recognize the risk of abuse, with unlimited power of search & seizure, in the hands of authorities, our founders did not; they had seen it first hand, from the British troops. But this does not meant that the citizen's right against, "unreasonable search and seizure," is unlimited, either-- the limitation is written right into the AMENDMENT! It is limited by WHAT IS REASONABLE. If a policeman says he heard what sounded like an assault in progress, behind your closed doors, bye-bye to your privacy "right." So this, also, fails to prove your case that limitations on rights are not tolerable.

    I will note, however that, once again, this is not how you are presenting your argument, which is why I flagged you for bringing forth straw-men. You are actually admitting, in your argument, that this right is not as stringent as it possibly could be. This does not prove anything regarding gun rights, because that Amendment does not address storage, in any way. Your interpretation, that this means there can be no regulations attached, has been belied by the Supreme Court itself (I believe it was Justice Scalia, no less!). In the part of the Heller ruling that TOG 6 posted, I've already pointed out that it admits that regulations can be Constitutional, & directs readers to some examples.

    Well I took your suggestion, at least for the first Amendment that you mentioned, the Fifth. Here is the full Amendment:

    Amendment V
    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, EXCEPT in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
    <End Quote>

    And, having it before me, I will make the same statement as I initially had: the purpose of this Amendment is NOT to protect criminals, as you suggested. Even if that is sometimes the result, its main reason for existing is to protect citizen rights, primarily the innocent. The legal summation of this Amendment mentioned 4 things:
    1) insuring that DUE PROCESS OF LAW be part of any proceeding that denies a citizen life, liberty, or property. This is not a right for criminals' sake, so does not support your argument.

    2) Prohibits the government from trying a person on a capital or major offense w/o a grand jury indictment. Again, this is meant to protect citizens from spurious prosecution by government officials; and it could hardly even be said to protect criminals, as it barely protects the innocent; i.e., because there is no rebuttal to the prosecutor, it is extremely easy for the state to get a citizen grand jury to indict, if there is any evidence whatsoever. So, it is once more the citizenry, not the criminals who benefit from this Amendment. To make the argument that we would catch more criminals, w/o these protections, is absurd. For the small, "benefit," to society, what would be the cost, in those who might then be unjustly targeted, by government? In our system, even if you may disagree, it has always been considered the greater wrong to punish to confinement, or even death, an innocent person, than to let a guilty one, go free.

    3) Double jeopardy protection: govt. cannot try a person over & over, for the same crime, until they get a guilty verdict. Meant to safeguard the people, not the criminals-- basically everything I said for #2.

    4) The right of a person against self-incrimination. This is the famous part of this Amendment-- "taking the Fifth." It says we do not have to testify, when being prosecuted. I do not know what the rationale for this idea actually was, but I can imagine that some people, who either get nervous & are not good at public speaking, or are merely a bit slow-witted, so could be easily tied in knots, by a smooth-talking prosecutor, would be the ones put at most risk, without this right. Granted, some of those may be guilty; I redirect you to what I said at the end of #2, about prioritizing our not falsely sentencing the innocent.

    So this ENTIRE Amendment, cited by you, supports MY point, that rights are not all utterly independent of one another; a law affecting one thing, very often can impact other things, as well; therefore, thinking in an absolutist way about any right, is unrealistic. It is always a matter-- and the analogy of taking medicine, or any medical treatment, now comes to mind-- of BALANCING the positives against the negatives.

    I will note that THE WORDING OF THE ACTUAL AMENDMENT, LISTS EXCEPTIONS! (See emboldened part of Amendment). Need I remind you that you named this Amendment, as supposedly supporting your contention that limiting a right meant, in effect, no longer having it? These exceptions, in the actual text-- thanks for encouraging me to Google it-- totally destroys your argument, and proves mine. I had, even before reading it, meant to point out to you that, when national defense/security is at stake, these rights can, & have, been suspended. For that matter, the protection against double-jeopardy is less substantial than it seems, because it does not say that one cannot be tried multiple times over the same events; just not for the same, "offense." But any criminal act can usually be, potentially, called by numerous names. Then, there is also the matter of every jurisdiction having its own, "offenses; i.e., 1st degree murder, as charged by any state, is a different offense than that same charge by the federal government, or by a different state.

    I will reiterate my objection to the way you tried to make your argument, without specifics, just rattling off Amendment numbers, and contending that their protection of criminals somehow showed that rights can't be limited, or whatever you thought it proved. What you should have done is picked out specific parts of these Amendments, and explained how they made your case. Since just the first of the 3 Amendments you listed required all this writing from me-- to cover it, in full-- but was a complete bust, as far as offering any of the substance that you alleged, I am not going to go through all of that for the other two Amendments, as well. I'm pretty confident, they would show the same as the Fifth, which is what I had said, prior to looking up the exact text of this one. If I am wrong, and you can cite an Amendment that backs up your contention, the onus is on you to quote that Amendment. You know what is the proper way to present an argument.

    But just to put a fine point on the idea that no right is unlimited, let's take a quick look at 3 of the most basic, named by the founders. If your pursuit of happiness requires the breaking of any law, guess what? That inalienable right, is limited to just the legal ways. If you break the law, get caught, & are sentenced to prison-- reduced liberty for you. And as far as the right to life, I'm guessing you may have heard of the American citizen that was killed by a drone attack, under Obama? And the Prez got Justice Dept. opinions, stating it was legal, I would certainly think, before ordering it. So, apparently, the right to life can become a bit tenuous, once you have left our country's borders. There is no such thing as an UNLIMITED RIGHT, to ANYTHING, even FIREARMS. I had believed that this was a well-understood concept, among those with any acquaintance with the law, which you certainly appear to have.

    I was talking about, on their base.

    This is why the Court will certainly rule on any that are challenged, which it is guaranteed all gun regulatory laws will be. Therefore, if you trust the Court, there's no reason for all your worry. The disassembly requirement which you cite, was struck down! So relax, a little bit. (Unless you leave the country: then, best to be cautious, in choosing those, with whom you associate).
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2021
  15. Well Bonded

    Well Bonded Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2018
    Messages:
    9,049
    Likes Received:
    4,354
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't play that game, what I stated is a well known fact if you think I am incorrect then prove it.
     
  16. Well Bonded

    Well Bonded Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2018
    Messages:
    9,049
    Likes Received:
    4,354
    Trophy Points:
    113
    there is the heart of your disagreement with me, and with most people, in a nutshell: most people, if it will mean fewer accidental shootings by children, and fewer stolen guns in the hands of criminals, i.e. greater safety for society at large, that it takes a gun owner 3 extra seconds to access his weapon, the majority of us do not see this as an onerous burden, over which it is worth sacrificing greater public safety.[/QUOTE]

    And what about the innocent people, you know those who get injured or killed because they could not access their self defense firearm to defend themselves?

    I have a better idea, keep the criminals locked up, not the guns and educate children so they know how to safely handle a gun and be able to defend themselves and their family.

    And don't give me that old worn out just call 911 and you will not need a gun, because that's a false notion, when seconds count the police are only minutes or even hours away.

    A criminal can kill an unarmed innocent in just a few seconds, which is long before the call taker can relay the ticket over to the dispatcher to get a unit en-route.
     
    Joe knows likes this.
  17. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A GAME, is EXACTLY what you are playing. I don't ask for verification of, "well known fact(s)." Nor do I go chasing after proof, which the claimant fails to supply. That is standard debate protocol. And this is a debate forum. I will let you do the math, for yourself.

    This was your claim, BTW:

    Well Bonded said:
    That is a false assumption, once explained what is involved to implement UBC's, support for them drops to almost zero.


    It is a ludicrous claim that the results of some poll (or polls?) is, "a well known fact." Or, rather, to take your statement as sincere, would make it ludicrous. Because the implication of those words, from someone not trying to be deceitful, would be that it is COMMON KNOWLEDGE-- which it most certainly is not. But to the specious debater, playing word games, what constitutes a fact being, "well-known?" About the same number of posts, for something online to be considered, "trending," for half a day? Well most people are not aware of all those, "well-known," hashtags, either. It might make it well-known among a very specific minority, but not GENERALLY, which would be the legitimate cut-off, for removing the need for documentation, in a debate. If you can't hack an actual debate, there's no point in your wasting both of our time, with bogus claims that you can't back up.
     
  18. Well Bonded

    Well Bonded Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2018
    Messages:
    9,049
    Likes Received:
    4,354
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Likewise if you cannot prove what you are claiming to begin with, there is no reason for me to do anything else, you already gave up by not posting facts to back your ludicrous falsehoods.

    You lose, I win.

    Too bad.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2021

Share This Page