Cruz’s Gun Control Deception

[beevul]

69. You can't help but double down, can you.

Please do not label me as another anti-gunner, I have come here with an open mind to the issue with the objective of trying to draw some consensus to this issue. You show little character as you attach broad labels to anyone outside of your ring.

Show me one place where I've labeled you and you didn't earn it.

The talking points are worn out because their is no solution yet and nor do you seem to want one.

Let me be perfectly crystal clear. I have no problems with solutions which do not interfere with or infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. If you see only solutions that necessarily do that, you are the problem.

You defend owning a gun (which I also support as a RIGHT) yet you want to ignore the 1% of bad people who own a gun for devious purposes.

You claim you support owning a gun as a right, yet you want to attach all kinds of qualifiers to it which would NEVER fly if proposed on speech or voting.

That's not exactly what I'd call "support".

I don't ignore the 1 percent at all. I expect them to be your focus, rather than rifles with grips that protrude.

There are many avoidable firearm deaths in the USA. Which I guess you don't care since its not close to your personal life.

Right from the manual:

#1: ALWAYS FOCUS ON EMOTIONAL AND VALUE-DRIVEN
ARGUMENTS ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023396665

Furthermore, you don't know how many people I have personally lost to gun violence, so that's a huge assumption on your part, and a false one to boot.

So I guess you don't agree its a problem that "other" people kill each other with firearms....... "not my problem bud". (hope your not going to church on Sunday with that thought process)

I never said it isn't a problem. That's you making shit up.

Sooooo, if I joined the NRA and owned multiple guns and went to shooting events then you would listen to my "reduce firearm deaths" talking points?

Nra membership got nothing to do with it. Anti-gun talking points are anti-gun talking points no matter what orgs you belong to.

And I snicker at your label anti-gun, I am not anti-gun, but want to see something done to reduce the firearm deaths.
Sorry that you prefer to make it black v white, but I'm just not that person. (insert your conjecture here....)

Wait, you want to ban so called assault weapons, 50 caliber rifles, want annual training as a qualifier to exercise a constitutionally protected civil right, along with a host of other conditions which would NEVER be accepted on voting or speech rights, but you're not anti-gun. Yeah, right.

Unless your position has changed on those. Has it?

I am thinking the main reason no one wants to add to my list, is that all of you are afraid of appearing to negotiate with the enemy.

Nope. Nobody here is much interested in helping anti-gunners move the football, because we know full well what their goals are. While you may or may not have the best of intentions, they do not, for a fact.

I will not stop trying to reduce unnecessary deaths in the USA.

Hey, great, more power to you. Try ways that don't mess with gun ownership, and you may actually get some support from people not in the gun ban camp.

Firearms are the most dangerous product we can purchase at Walmart at any time by almost anybody.

That's an opinion, not an established empirical fact. Otherwise known as a false premise.

I agree and can see why there is alot of passion behind keeping it the way it is, after reading many posters.
But hopefully we can agree on implementing measures to reduce the death rate.

Then don't propose qualifications on that right that would never be accepted on voting or speech.

Keep your gun but help reduce the firearm death rate......sound like the middle now?

I'm not looking for the middle. In all actuality, if we were in "the middle" we wouldn't even be discussing firearms, we'd be discussing weapons of actual war, because the second amendment doesn't say "firearms" it says "arms. Instead, were here debating firearms, which are but a tiny subset of all arms. Definitely not "the middle"

In any case, I'm looking to stop most new gun control dead in its tracks, and force people like you to go to other non-gun control methods, because the right has been interfered with quite enough for my tastes.

Background Checks at shows.
Although I am not a firearm numbers guy, I would imagine the risk is not that high, but why would we allow a certain group of people to be outside the law?

I'm not in favor of trading a few lawless individuals for a lawless government.

Why did the Brady bill leave that out?

Because of the commerce clause of the constitution. The federal government was granted authority over interstate commerce in the constitution. Interstate commerce is commerce between two or more states. A private sale of a firearm within the same state, whether at a gun show, or newspaper add, garage sale, or internet post, is intra-state commerce, something the federal government was never explicitly given authority over. That is why congress did not add that to the brady bill. That is why its not a "loophole".

I hate to ask a question at the end of an answer, but why do gun show people object to background checks?

It isn't "gun show people" who object. Its "private property" people who don't want to see a federal power grab - which is what a federal private sale background check law would be - that object.

What would I give up in return?

Yes, in order to get what you want.

No bans on any gun?

We already generally have that. You can't offer up something we already have as a bargaining chip.

.50 caliber rifles?

Again, You can't offer up something we already have as a bargaining chip. You want new controls, offer up some restrictions to eliminate.

I really don't know what the pro-gun side wants as a bargaining chip.

I can think of a few things I've seen. Nationwide conceal carry reciprocity. NFA fee reduced to 10 bucks for 5 years. NFA registry re-opened permanently. Elimination of so called gun free zones. Elimination of all executive orders covering import of rifles and ammunition. Elimination of "may issue" concealed carry.

A program similar to the airlines TSA Precheck?

To simply own a gun?

I really don't know what your side would want or accept from the anti-gun side except just leave the guns alone.

No more offending controls, and elimination of some existing controls which are offensive in nature.