Talking with liberals about the 2nd amendment

Good list. Answer is still "no".

 

There's no sound argument for us to give up any of those things.

 

Williams: trigger locks yawn

 

Except it will save lives and it really won't stop most people from carrying arms and those it does shouldn't. It will change the culture, I know. As a shooter for 50 years I saw the changes that occurred. Little things like people being more careful of guns, more respectful of them. Sometimes it is not what you do that changes things, it is your willingness to make the changes that changes things.

 

<Reply to Deleted> I actually think there is no problems with children over 12 being licensed to use a gun with a licensed over 21 supervising. Hunting, target practice etc until they are 16. At 16 you are responsible enough to drive a car, you can use a gun. Not concealed carry though. There should be the ability to breath test gun owners, same as cars.

Very similar to cars. Registered, licensed, driving ability tested, restrictions, regulations, cars must meet certain standards and regulations.

 

Dad bought me an air rifle when I was 12 and grandfather bought me a .22 when I was 15. He kept it though, I only used it when I was with him or dad.

 

No compromise? Hell, dude - if there were "no compromise" then Obama would have banned all guns when he came to power with Democrats in charge of Congress in 2008.
He made no such effort. No Democratic bill came to his desk. None even made it to the floor for a vote. So the compromise WAS no gun grabs. They let gun owners have 100% of what they wanted. So I'm going to call bull **** on your claim.

 

I actually think there is no problems with children over 12 being licensed to use a gun with a licensed over 21 supervising. Hunting, target practice etc until they are 16. At 16 you are responsible enough to drive a car, you can use a gun. Not concealed carry though. There should be a limited capacity, power, action etc until they are 21. There should be the ability to breath test gun owners, same as cars.

Very similar to cars. Registered, licensed, driving ability tested, restrictions, regulations, cars must meet certain standards and regulations.

 

How many children choked on McDonald's Happy Meal toys - Hint - under 25.
How quickly were they pulled of the market - Hint - ****ing real quick.

And that was what I was getting at. Fear rules the day for both conservatives and liberals.
My argument wan't that guns should be banned - my argument was that conservatives need to realize
that it isn't just a desire to take your guns that motivates people. It's a fear for their children's lives.

If the NRA and gun enthusiasts don't start to realize this - then they are going to get painted as the bad guy - it doesn't
matter how many stats you present or how many logical arguments.

 

Fact: Mandatory securiement violates the Constitution.

 

Fallacious appeal to emotion. Thank you for proving my point.

 

2009.
I'm not sure how you think not trying to ban all guns is an example of compromise on the part of the Dems, or a meaningful response to anything I typed.

 

Nice appeal to emotion fallacy you have there.
Fortunately, appeals to emotion do not create a sound argument for violating rights.

 

This made me smile. The NRA doesn't need logic (indeed it has none). It just needs to buy politician.

 

PLEASE spare me this nonsense.

When government agents - who have sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution - act to contravene or even outright defy that Constitution then they become legitimate targets of insurgency. Or do you not think the honest citizens being dragged away for daring to try and protect their rights aren't fathers and husbands and mothers and wives trying to protect their children's right to live in a free society as defined by that Constitution the government agents are defying?? Sorry, a government agent tries to strip me of my Constitutional rights and/or drag me away from my family for simply exercising those rights and I won't hesitate to shoot him in the face, his familial status or lack thereof utterly notwithstanding.

 

I want some 100 Round Magazines, where or where do I get them ???

 

Except for the fact that there is not so much as a single piece of evidence that has been presented, in this discussion or any other, that whatever is being proposed will actually save even one life. It is nothing more than baseless, politically motivated speculation.

 

Not by me it's not, absolutely not. In Australia the laws were introduced by the conservatives and was about the only thing they have ever done I like.

It was a totally bipartisan decision and by far one of the most successful pieces of legislation.

Not only has there been zero mass shootings in the 20 years since.

The government still operates like it did beforehand ... Poorly
We are still free citizens, we haven't had the evil liberals take all our guns plunging us into slavery.
They may have tweeked some of the regulations, but they are for all intents and purposes as original proposed.
I am a shooter/gun owner and I don't know anyone who wanted to own a gun and should be allowed to own one that couldn't.
The number of actual guns in civilian hands, the per capita rate of gun ownership have increased since the laws were introduced.

The laws promoted a shift in attitudes and culture around guns. A look at just what we had, what we wanted and where we wanted to go in the 21st century convinced most people that the government was making the right decision.

This was one of the very few times when party politics did not play a role. Australians of both persuasions stood firmly behind the legislation, it had nearly as bipartisan support as bills to increase politicians pay does.

Most Australians, we do have a few conspiracy theorists that latch on to US scams but in general, I would say that the decision to legislate gun ownership is thought to be by 90% of Australians as one of the greatest, most significant, and successful acts.

There are of course those that argue about it being an infringement on our liberty but to those I say immigrate to the USA. Life is cheap there.

 

No. Please remain calm. It is only a discussion.

 

It is only a Form / Forum.

 

So why fight American Gun laws or make efforts to convince Americans that
Australian Gun Laws are so great that America should consider implementing
them ?

Is it because of a fear Australians might want a repeal of those very same laws ?

 

Definitely not, just a few weeks ago we had an amnesty and over 57000 weapons were handed in.

We don't have the paranoia you apparently have.

It's because we have seen that it works

 

The above merely demonstrate that the nation of Australia never possessed a culture that viewed firearms as actually being important. It does not go to prove anything in comparison to the united states, which has the exact opposite culture. The united states holds that firearms are significant to its very culture because they were so vital for the founding and development of the country. It is a concept that has been entrenched into its culture from the very start, and cannot simply be undone, especially not by those from foreign nations screaming at them and calling them ignorant.

Such is among the reasons no such attempts have ever been made on the part of myself, because it is actually understood what would be up against. It is not firearms that are being discussed so much as it is cultural identity.

 

Why did it take 22 years for the paranoia of the owners of those 57k weapons to wear off sufficiently to turn them in? This wasn't your first amnesty offer.