Obama prepares order on guns

The Fool said:
See that's how it goes..if you enjoy the use of the emotive chanting of words like hate and bigots to promote you particular political views I will resort to the think of the children act in reply.
Click to expand...
Emotive chanting; that's a good way to skirt the issue. If you provided rational answers as often as you apologized in your posts, they would be more informative.

What is a better word for banning something that is not a threat?

Ranb
 
Ranb said:
Emotive chanting; that's a good way to skirt the issue. If you provided rational answers as often as you apologized in your posts, they would be more informative.

What is a better word for banning something that is not a threat?

Ranb
Click to expand...

Let me guess. You are the one that gets to decide it's not a threat.

Chant on...
 
tyr_13 said:
I'm honestly baffled that it's such a point of contention, but apparently if you use the word 'confiscation' you're using a 'slogan' made by 'gun nuts'.
Click to expand...

I think you are fully aware of why it's a bone of contention. It reminds me a lot of when "Gun grab" Was the preferred chant. I think people using it eventually tired of having to justify grab when things were not being grabbed. The lack of things being confiscated will no doubt see confiscation eventually retired as a FUD slogan. Can,t wait to see what's next.

Reminds me of the wall built in Jerusalem, our members here who were welded on political supporters of the builders of the wall had to refer to this massive concrete structure as a "fence" that caused months of hilarity.

To be honest At least the term "confiscation" used as a slogan is not as offensive as the "hate" and "bigot" slurs ranb likes to apply to people who don,t share his political views on toy guns.
 
The Fool said:
I think you are fully aware of why it's a bone of contention. It reminds me a lot of when "Gun grab" Was the preferred chant. I think people using it eventually tired of having to justify grab when things were not being grabbed. The lack of things being confiscated will no doubt see confiscation eventually retired as a FUD slogan. Can,t wait to see what's next.

Reminds me of the wall built in Jerusalem, our members here who were welded on political supporters of the builders of the wall had to refer to this massive concrete structure as a "fence" that caused months of hilarity.

To be honest At least the term "confiscation" used as a slogan is not as offensive as the "hate" and "bigot" slurs ranb likes to apply to people who don,t share his political views on toy guns.
Click to expand...

Would you feel less offended if we used the term"voluntary turn in under legal mandate"?
I'm getting the feeling that your objection to the words used has more to do with evading answers regarding the efficacy of your proposed solution (a US version of the NFA) than it does with any real effrontery you might have felt towards the term.
So again, just how much did the Australian NFA lower the homicide rate in your country?
 
Chuck Guiteau said:
Would you feel less offended if we used the term"voluntary turn in under legal mandate"?
I'm getting the feeling that your objection to the words used has more to do with evading answers regarding the efficacy of your proposed solution (a US version of the NFA) than it does with any real effrontery you might have felt towards the term.
So again, just how much did the Australian NFA lower the homicide rate in your country?
Click to expand...

Not evading answers chuck I freely admit I am unable to provide an answer you find acceptable.

Many statistical analysis are produced by partisan organisations so there are plenty of cherries to be picked.

Here is some produced by a reputable organisation

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

I don,t believe any single measure in isolation is an answer or can be proven to be responsible for statistical changes. This is a great aid to the nothing can be proven to work so do nothing principle.

The rest of us are moving on, I just hope that the US doesn't,t get caught in a time warp and allow conflict over gun ownership to degenerate into civil unrest.
 
The Fool said:
Not evading answers chuck I freely admit I am unable to provide an answer you find acceptable.

Many statistical analysis are produced by partisan organisations so there are plenty of cherries to be picked.

Here is some produced by a reputable organisation

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

I don,t believe any single measure in isolation is an answer or can be proven to be responsible for statistical changes. This is a great aid to the nothing can be proven to work so do nothing principle.

The rest of us are moving on, I just hope that the US doesn't,t get caught in a time warp and allow conflict over gun ownership to degenerate into civil unrest.
Click to expand...
The information you just provided does nothing to support your position. The rate was decreasing before the NFA, then actually spiked briefly afterwards, then began the same basic decreasing rate as before. That does not prove that it caused the spike, but certainly casts doubt on the efficacy of the law in terms of reduction.
Your assumption that nothing can be proven to work therefore nothing should be done is disingenuous in that it assumes your answer is the only answer.
A better way to look at it would be,"That didn't have much effect, so let's look at something more likely to work".
 
Chuck Guiteau said:
"That didn't have much effect, so let's look at something more likely to work".
Click to expand...

Such as? The NRA line is the motherhood statement "stricter enforcement of existing laws" I assume this would be your suggestion too? Maybe more guns in circulation would help? Ban crime? Or have a nice long talk about it followed by an immediate large scale program of do nothing.
 
I was at a committee hearing in Olympia on Thursday. The NRA was on record as willing to support a gun control measure that would hold people accountable for failure to properly secure their guns if a child got a hold of them and committed a crime; provided that the bill did not limit itself to guns and included other weapons.

This is not a new position. I actually discussed a previous version of this bill with the sponsor. They know what the NRA and other groups/people want to see in bills, but they keep writing bills that single out guns and attempt to demonize them. This is how they alienate gun owners.

When the WAGR wrote the bkgd check initiative I tried to give them input, but it was ignored. Even though I-594 passed, it has been subject to legal challenges and there is a good chance it will be overturned in the next few years. Instead of writing a bill/initiative that would require reasonable checks, they went all out and made it a crime to simply hold a gun that doesn't belong to you. All their work may be for naught unless they are willing to actually have a dialog with people who are gun owners and actively engage in recreational shooting/competitions. Instead they say "we have the opinions of gun owners", even though I've never seen any of them at the range or with a gun in their hands.
 
Ranb said:
I was at a committee hearing in Olympia on Thursday. The NRA was on record as willing to support a gun control measure that would hold people accountable for failure to properly secure their guns if a child got a hold of them and committed a crime; provided that the bill did not limit itself to guns and included other weapons.

This is not a new position. I actually discussed a previous version of this bill with the sponsor. They know what the NRA and other groups/people want to see in bills, but they keep writing bills that single out guns and attempt to demonize them. This is how they alienate gun owners.

When the WAGR wrote the bkgd check initiative I tried to give them input, but it was ignored. Even though I-594 passed, it has been subject to legal challenges and there is a good chance it will be overturned in the next few years. Instead of writing a bill/initiative that would require reasonable checks, they went all out and made it a crime to simply hold a gun that doesn't belong to you. All their work may be for naught unless they are willing to actually have a dialog with people who are gun owners and actively engage in recreational shooting/competitions. Instead they say "we have the opinions of gun owners", even though I've never seen any of them at the range or with a gun in their hands.
Click to expand...

The NRA does not support any gun control measure. They may talk about thinking about it or think about talking about it but their support will always have a catch in the form of an amendment that render the amendment unworkable. like the one you mention where they would agree to allow gun law reform as long as some stupid unworkable amendment is added.

So wake me up if the NRA ever moves from a blanket refusal to consider any gun law reform.
 
Last edited:
The Fool said:
I think you are fully aware of why it's a bone of contention. It reminds me a lot of when "Gun grab" Was the preferred chant. I think people using it eventually tired of having to justify grab when things were not being grabbed. The lack of things being confiscated will no doubt see confiscation eventually retired as a FUD slogan. Can,t wait to see what's next.

Reminds me of the wall built in Jerusalem, our members here who were welded on political supporters of the builders of the wall had to refer to this massive concrete structure as a "fence" that caused months of hilarity.

To be honest At least the term "confiscation" used as a slogan is not as offensive as the "hate" and "bigot" slurs ranb likes to apply to people who don,t share his political views on toy guns.
Click to expand...


:rolleyes:

Your objection is that your opponents use it as an objection. Too damn bad, it's still accurate.

The Australian gun control efforts include confiscation. Keep up your own slogan of 'no confiscation', but you're actually on the other side of your wall/fence example than you think you are.

I am now fully aware of what the contention is. You're too focused on opposing all the criticisms of the Australian gun control efforts that you've stopped thinking them through. It included confiscation and you should support it based on your position on those efforts. If you want to argue against the 'slogan' use of the word, dissect the unthinking use of that and how confiscation is part of many, many laws including current US gun laws.

This is fully ridiculous but does provide a lot of use in illustrating just how 'tribal' this debate can be. Gun control opponents call it confiscation, and object to it based on that, must be a lie! Gun control measures by necessity include elements of confiscation, it's slavery/anti-freedom! The other side says X so I must oppose X and mock people who say X!

No wonder most people quickly leave these threads.
 
WildCat said:
You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. And this "fact" is simply not true.
Click to expand...

Name one single new measure they support. I hope I have not complicated things by saying "new measure" as they are unlikely to object to homicide being illegal are they?

Sometimes their self appointed spokespersons will infer that they might support one but alas it always turns out it means their support is conditional on the measure being changed to something stupid.

So go ahead and give me a list, gun control initiatives supported by the NRA .....should be interesting.
 
tyr_13 said:
:rolleyes:

Your objection is that your opponents use it as an objection. Too damn bad, it's still accurate.

The Australian gun control efforts include confiscation. Keep up your own slogan of 'no confiscation', but you're actually on the other side of your wall/fence example than you think you are.

I am now fully aware of what the contention is. You're too focused on opposing all the criticisms of the Australian gun control efforts that you've stopped thinking them through. It included confiscation and you should support it based on your position on those efforts. If you want to argue against the 'slogan' use of the word, dissect the unthinking use of that and how confiscation is part of many, many laws including current US gun laws.

This is fully ridiculous but does provide a lot of use in illustrating just how 'tribal' this debate can be. Gun control opponents call it confiscation, and object to it based on that, must be a lie! Gun control measures by necessity include elements of confiscation, it's slavery/anti-freedom! The other side says X so I must oppose X and mock people who say X!

No wonder most people quickly leave these threads.
Click to expand...

It's the lack of confiscation that makes calling it confiscation a lie. Just like calling it a whale cull would be problematic due to the absence of whale culling. Claiming the only objection is because gun control opponents use the term is rather ironic from someone who likes to lecture about honesty.

We could end all this with a simple example of an Australian who had guns confiscated do you have one or is faith still required to hold the belief?

Just wanted to point out that you actually can get guns confiscated in Australia but it has nothing to do with gun control. If you kill someone or commit domestic violence offences you can have your guns confiscated, maybe you could use this to continue the FUD campaign against gun control?
 
The Fool said:
It's the lack of confiscation that makes calling it confiscation a lie. Just like calling it a whale cull would be problematic due to the absence of whale culling. Claiming the only objection is because gun control opponents use the term is rather ironic from someone who likes to lecture about honesty.

We could end all this with a simple example of an Australian who had guns confiscated do you have one or is faith still required to hold the belief?

Just wanted to point out that you actually can get guns confiscated in Australia but it has nothing to do with gun control. If you kill someone or commit domestic violence offences you can have your guns confiscated, maybe you could use this to continue the FUD campaign against gun control?
Click to expand...


This is doublespeak. Absolute nonsense. Keeping guns from violent offenders is a kind of gun control! It's almost the most basic kind of gun control.

And you continue to ad hom in such a plain manner that it's laughable. I'm not going for a FUD campaign, and as I said before, I disagree with Wildcat on this point anyway. Your flailing misrepresentation against 'opponents' really makes a farce of this discussion. It isn't simply those opposed to Australia's gun control efforts that call parts of it confiscation, but also the proponents! Are they part of the FUD campaign?

We don't need one, there were thousands. It wasn't all, and I don't even think it was most, but come on, that's not even a dodge.
 
The Fool said:
It's the lack of confiscation that makes calling it confiscation a lie. Just like calling it a whale cull would be problematic due to the absence of whale culling. Claiming the only objection is because gun control opponents use the term is rather ironic from someone who likes to lecture about honesty.

We could end all this with a simple example of an Australian who had guns confiscated do you have one or is faith still required to hold the belief?

Just wanted to point out that you actually can get guns confiscated in Australia but it has nothing to do with gun control. If you kill someone or commit domestic violence offences you can have your guns confiscated, maybe you could use this to continue the FUD campaign against gun control?
Click to expand...

I feel like the word confiscation woud flow more freely if this was about some other object such as books.
 
The Fool said:
The NRA does not support any gun control measure.
Click to expand...
They supported SB5956, the registration of short barreled rifles and did not oppose HB1840 which placed additional controls on people with restraining orders. Both bills passed in 2014 in WA. They supported the Manchin-Toomey background check bill S.649 in 2013. They also backed the Gun Control Act and supported the bill which ended civilian ownership of machine guns registered after May 1986.

Ranb
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom