Gun control is one thing, but what about bullets?

[Running Gator]

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

The reason we use that "logic"  is to combat the liberal idea that the way to fight gun violence is to write more laws limiting gun ownership.   If criminals will not obey the existing laws, then writing more laws will not have a meaningful effect on them.  Furthermore, the Left wants to, ultimately, ban guns.  They want to ban semi autos like the AR-15 and other guns of similar ilk. 

And they want make sure that no mentally ill people own guns but then leave it up the government to define what "mentally ill" means.   History recalls that Stalin's government made up an mental illness in order to justify locking up dissidents for "treatment."  The liberal plan only hurts legitimate, law-abiding gun owners. 

 

Faulty logic is still faulty logic, even if it is to stop the great liberal horde from descending on the country

[The_Patriot21]

if criminals followed laws, then there would be no need to have background checks for ammunition. After all, if they followed the laws, they can buy all the ammo they want, but it wont do them any good since they dont have a gun to fire it out of. Gun control laws, are all about control-they have nothing do do with safety, or common sense.

[Running Gator]

12 minutes ago, The_Patriot2016 said:

if criminals followed laws, then there would be no need to have background checks for ammunition. After all, if they followed the laws, they can buy all the ammo they want, but it wont do them any good since they dont have a gun to fire it out of. Gun control laws, are all about control-they have nothing do do with safety, or common sense.

If speeders followed laws, then there would be no need to have speed limits, I guess we can get rid of those.  If heroin users followed laws, there would be no need for drug laws, guess we can get rid of those.   If rapist followed laws, they would not rape, guess we can get rid of those.  If you are going to apply this logic to one, you have to be ready to apply it to all.    Or could it be that those laws are not in place to stop people from doing them, but to punish them after they do. 

[The_Patriot21]

1 minute ago, Out of the Shadows said:

If speeders followed laws, then there would be no need to have speed limits, I guess we can get rid of those.  If heroin users followed laws, there would be no need for drug laws, guess we can get rid of those.   If rapist followed laws, they would not rape, guess we can get rid of those.  If you are going to apply this logic to one, you have to be ready to apply it to all.    Or could it be that those laws are not in place to stop people from doing them, but to punish them after they do. 

your logic is extremely flawed. If there was no speed limit, then everyone would be following the law.....and obviously, at least around here, a lot of people speed. Regardless of the law. But, what the law does, is give the cops legal recourse to get them off the road-and also, if they hurt someone, allows the law to force the speeder to pay for their crimes. If there was no speed limit, and a guy flew down a residential street at 45 mph, and hits a child, well guess what now that guy can argue the kid shouldnt have been in the road. Conversely, if hes doing 45 mph in a residential zone, and the speed limit is 25 mph and hits a kid, he now has no recourse. The "speed limit" does not actually prevent people from speeding, its not a "preventative" measure so to speak. Sure, you can get ticketed for it-but in most places, the amount of cops to the amount of cars on the road, its virtually impossible to properly enforce as a "preventative" law. While enforcing background checks on ammo-(or guns) is actually a "preventative" measure (or at least so the argument goes) so your argument, really does not apply.

Furthermore, owning a car, and driving a car, is not a constitionally protected right. Owning a gun is. And, lets use your example here-lets use it, yes, speeders dont follow laws. You really think criminals will? theyre not going to care if its illegal to have a gun or ammo without a background check-they are going to do it anyway. So, in reality, the only people punished by gun laws are the law abiding gun owner. So you make it hard for them to get ammunition, you are now not only infringing upon their constitional right-but you are also making it hard for them to protect against the criminals.

I mean, lets look at your rape analogy. Your right, people are going to rape people regardless of whether its "illegal" or not. But guess what, nothing says "don't rape me" like a .45 ACP shoved in your nether regions. Only, the liberals in power-want to make sure that innocent girl-cant get that .45 ACP with which to protect her, and making it far easier for the rapist to get away with it. Police response times (assuming 911 even gets called) is between 5-10 minutes most places-a .45 ACP is around 1000 FPS. So, the harder it is for law abiding citizens to get guns-the harder it is for them to defend themselves against criminals. While, speeding, doesnt make it harder to defend yourself at all. They are completly different scenarios. and quite frankly, using "speed limits" as an argument for further gun control measures, is, at best, an extremely weak and shallow, argument.

[Running Gator]

1 minute ago, The_Patriot2016 said:

your logic is extremely flawed. If there was no speed limit, then everyone would be following the law.....and obviously, at least around here, a lot of people speed. Regardless of the law. But, what the law does, is give the cops legal recourse to get them off the road-and also, if they hurt someone, allows the law to force the speeder to pay for their crimes. If there was no speed limit, and a guy flew down a residential street at 45 mph, and hits a child, well guess what now that guy can argue the kid shouldnt have been in the road. Conversely, if hes doing 45 mph in a residential zone, and the speed limit is 25 mph and hits a kid, he now has no recourse. The "speed limit" does not actually prevent people from speeding, its not a "preventative" measure so to speak. Sure, you can get ticketed for it-but in most places, the amount of cops to the amount of cars on the road, its virtually impossible to properly enforce as a "preventative" law. While enforcing background checks on ammo-(or guns) is actually a "preventative" measure (or at least so the argument goes) so your argument, really does not apply.

Furthermore, owning a car, and driving a car, is not a constitionally protected right. Owning a gun is. And, lets use your example here-lets use it, yes, speeders dont follow laws. You really think criminals will? theyre not going to care if its illegal to have a gun or ammo without a background check-they are going to do it anyway. So, in reality, the only people punished by gun laws are the law abiding gun owner. So you make it hard for them to get ammunition, you are now not only infringing upon their constitional right-but you are also making it hard for them to protect against the criminals.

I mean, lets look at your rape analogy. Your right, people are going to rape people regardless of whether its "illegal" or not. But guess what, nothing says "don't rape me" like a .45 ACP shoved in your nether regions. Only, the liberals in power-want to make sure that innocent girl-cant get that .45 ACP with which to protect her, and making it far easier for the rapist to get away with it. Police response times (assuming 911 even gets called) is between 5-10 minutes most places-a .45 ACP is around 1000 FPS. So, the harder it is for law abiding citizens to get guns-the harder it is for them to defend themselves against criminals. While, speeding, doesnt make it harder to defend yourself at all. They are completly different scenarios. and quite frankly, using "speed limits" as an argument for further gun control measures, is, at best, an extremely weak and shallow, argument.

Despite all your rantings and false accusations of me supporting further gun control laws, you did hit upon the purpose of all laws.  They are to give the legal system as recourse when someone breaks them.  

[other one]

29 minutes ago, Out of the Shadows said:

If speeders followed laws, then there would be no need to have speed limits, I guess we can get rid of those.  If heroin users followed laws, there would be no need for drug laws, guess we can get rid of those.   If rapist followed laws, they would not rape, guess we can get rid of those.  If you are going to apply this logic to one, you have to be ready to apply it to all.    Or could it be that those laws are not in place to stop people from doing them, but to punish them after they do. 

I hope it's ok for me to think that is ridiculous.   We do have gun laws and if those were really used, we really don't need any others.

If you really want to compare it you would have to say that because speeders are going to break the law then no one can drive...    if criminals are not going to stop doing drugs then we have to stop the use of all drugs for even the legal ones can be abused.     The comparison to rape would be to stop all people from having sex.

That's why I think it's a bit ridiculous. 

[Running Gator]

2 minutes ago, other one said:

I hope it's ok for me to think that is ridiculous

If you really want to compare it you would have to say that because speeders are going to break the law then no one can drive...    if criminals are not going to stop doing drugs then we have to stop the use of all drugs for even the legal ones can be abused.     The comparison to rape would be to stop all people from having sex.

That's why I think it's a bit rediculous. 

Except that the only place that anyone wants to take away all guns from everyone is in the collective paranoid mind of the far right.  Nobody is coming for your guns or mine, that is just a scare tactic used by people to get you to vote for them.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Out of the Shadows

[The_Patriot21]

10 minutes ago, Out of the Shadows said:

Despite all your rantings and false accusations of me supporting further gun control laws, you did hit upon the purpose of all laws.  They are to give the legal system as recourse when someone breaks them.  

Actually I did, if you had read it. I even acknowledged that was the purpose of speeding laws, which i explained it to you in the very first paragraph. 

 

I then went on and explained why you logic does not apply. Making it difficult to buy ammunition does not in any way give the legal system recourse. It just makes it difficult for law abiding citizens to purchase weapons.

 

On top of that we already have tons of gun laws on the books, which does give law enforcement recourse. You hold up a store with a gun? That's assault with a deadly weapon. You shoot someone, while holding up said store, that is now murder. So, they already have recourse. Do it with an illegally obtained weapon? Even more charges. so as you can see law enforcement already has recourse, and background checks doesn't give law enforcement any more recourse-it just makes it harder for that concerned citizen in that store to protect himself from that robber.

 

You know, we had a conversation earlier about being confrontational and pushing buttons. You see here, I provided an answer to your argument. Instead of reading it (which you did not, or you would have seen I brought up your point of legal recourse) you instead accused me of ranting and raving. This does not lead to a productive conversation, or debate. So please in the future please take the time to read through the entire post before making accusations.

[ayin jade]

The only purpose for laws against ammunition is to limit people having guns. Since they cant attack guns via laws readily, they are going after ammunition which is not constitutionally protected. 

They do want to take away our guns. There are draconian gun laws that various liberal states are trying to enact. Bit by bit, each one erodes our rights. 

 

[ayin jade]

2 minutes ago, The_Patriot2016 said:

Actually I did, if you had read it. I even acknowledged that was the purpose of speeding laws, which i explained it to you in the very first paragraph. 

 

I then went on and explained why you logic does not apply. Making it difficult to buy ammunition does not in any way give the legal system recourse. It just makes it difficult for law abiding citizens to purchase weapons.

 

On top of that we already have tons of gun laws on the books, which does give law enforcement recourse. You hold up a store with a gun? That's assault with a deadly weapon. You shoot someone, while holding up said store, that is now murder. So, they already have recourse. Do it with an illegally obtained weapon? Even more charges. so as you can see law enforcement already has recourse, and background checks doesn't give law enforcement any more recourse-it just makes it harder for that concerned citizen in that store to protect himself from that robber.

 

You know, we had a conversation earlier about being confrontational and pushing buttons. You see here, I provided an answer to your argument. Instead of reading it (which you did not, or you would have seen I brought up your point of legal recourse) you instead accused me of ranting and raving. This does not lead to a productive conversation, or debate. So please in the future please take the time to read through the entire post before making accusations.

The snide comment about far right paranoia also is confrontational.