Open Carry Texas founder running for Texas State Senate.

[Farmer Br0wn]

Can one be a gun owner and gun control advocate?

I own a firearm, and yeah...I advocate laws that make it difficult for dangerous people to acquire firearms.

would you object to laws that would prohibit violent felons to acquire firearms?

If you are a danger to yourself and/or others, you should be locked up, plain and simple. If you have initiated force against no one, the government should have no right to infringe, impede, or prevent any action you choose to take and should leave you otherwise unmolested.

My standard is the Non-Aggression Principal. Violate it, and you should be removed from society.

 

[7437]

Because those are weapons of mass destruction, not firearms.

HOw about grenades? I thin, those should be allowed. Not a WMD.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

If you are a danger to yourself and/or others, you should be locked up, plain and simple. If you have initiated force against no one, the government should have no right to infringe, impede, or prevent any action you choose to take and should leave you otherwise unmolested.

My standard is the Non-Aggression Principal. Violate it, and you should be removed from society.

that's all well and good, and in a more perfect world I'd agree with you. Violent individuals should be removed from society.

the fact is, our prisons are overflowing, many get reduced sentences, paroled earlier, some even get probation...

for these individuals, our government should make it as difficult as possible to acquire firearms.

 

[7437]

I can agree with the part you decided to edit. At least we can admit that the ultimate liberal goal is not "keeping guns out of the wrong hands" but the real goal is "keeping guns out of ALL civilian hands". This is why it can be so hard to debate with a gun control advocate. Gun control advocates don't debate in good faith, they will never argue in good faith, they won't be honest with their ultimate goals (they know civilian disarmament is extremely unpopular in the US, so they avoid saying that at all cost).

Weird, I am a liberal, and own a gun. In favor of more gun control too.

 

[7437]

If you are a danger to yourself and/or others, you should be locked up, plain and simple. If you have initiated force against no one, the government should have no right to infringe, impede, or prevent any action you choose to take and should leave you otherwise unmolested.

My standard is the Non-Aggression Principal. Violate it, and you should be removed from society.

6.7% of the population has depression, locking them all up is a pretty stupid idea. The majority of gun related deaths are not homicides/accidents/self defense. They are suicides.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

the fact is, our prisons are overflowing, many get reduced sentences, paroled earlier, some even get probation...

If we didn't fill the prisons with people who have NOT violated the Non-Aggression Principal (non violent drug offenders for example). Locking up the dangerous for as long as it takes would be very easy.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

6.7% of the population has depression, locking them all up is a pretty stupid idea. The majority of gun related deaths are not homicides/accidents/self defense. They are suicides.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm

Being depressed =\= Being suicidal.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

If we didn't fill the prisons with people who have NOT violated the Non-Aggression Principal (non violent drug offenders for example). Locking up the dangerous for as long as it takes would be very easy.

yeah, I agree...and it sucks...many people in prison don't belong there.

but that's not the reality we live in...the reality we live in is that we have countless violent ex felons on the street...

and they should not be legally capable of purchasing firearms.

 

[7437]

Being depressed =\= Being suicidal.

It sure doesnt. It is certainly a factor though. My point is that you can not just lock someone up who is a danger to themselves for the rest of their lives. That is not how mental healthcare works.

edit: how about someone with the cognitive abilities of a 5 year old? Should they have a gun?

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Weird, I am a liberal, and own a gun. In favor of more gun control too.

One out of three ain't bad :icon_chee

In all honesty though, I'm really curious as to your perspective here. Because you seem to be straddling the fence so-to-speak.

My standard is the Non-Aggression Principal. Inregards to gun rights it would more less state that, so long as you initiate force against no one, than their is no reason that your rights should be infringed in anyway. This is the only rational and moral way to run any society, agreed?

 

[Uchi Mata]

I can agree with the part you decided to edit. At least we can admit that the ultimate liberal goal is not "keeping guns out of the wrong hands" but the real goal is "keeping guns out of ALL civilian hands". This is why it can be so hard to debate with a gun control advocate. Gun control advocates don't debate in good faith, they will never argue in good faith, they won't be honest with their ultimate goals (they know civilian disarmament is extremely unpopular in the US, so they avoid saying that at all cost).

So when you make a statement like that, you realize you're basically making any discussion impossible since you're presuming a sinister motive that precludes discussion, right?

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

One out of three ain't bad :icon_chee

In all honesty though, I'm really curious as to your perspective here. Because you seem to be straddling the fence so-to-speak.

My standard is the Non-Aggression Principal. Inregards to gun rights it would more less state that, so long as you initiate force against no one, than their is no reason that your rights should be infringed in anyway. This is the only rational and moral way to run any society, agreed?

This opens a whole new can of worms...

how do you employ this "non aggression" principal?

what is your definition of it? What makes one person less aggressive than other?

These seem incredibly arbitrary.

 

[7437]

One out of three ain't bad :icon_chee

In all honesty though, I'm really curious as to your perspective here. Because you seem to be straddling the fence so-to-speak.

My standard is the Non-Aggression Principal. Inregards to gun rights it would more less state that, so long as you initiate force against no one, than their is no reason that your rights should be infringed in anyway. This is the only rational and moral way to run any society, agreed?

Im not straddling the fence. I believe that someone who for whatever reason is incapable of being a responsible gun owner should not be allowed to have guns. Whether that be because they are previously violent offenders, mentally disabled, a child, blind, whatever.

 

[quatin]

Generalized classifications?

So what about repeat violent offenders with extensive criminal histories? would you object to them purchasing a firearm upon being released from prison, or...is this too much of a "generalized classification?"

So let me get this straight. We're talking about offenders, who are violent, who also repeat those violent offenses AND have an extensive criminal history? Yeah, I'd say that's a specific enough classification to warrant the removal of all constitutional rights and not just one of them.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

So let me get this straight. We're talking about offenders, who are violent, who also repeat those violent offenses AND have an extensive criminal history? Yeah, I'd say that's a specific enough classification to warrant the removal of all constitutional rights and not just one of them.

Good, so we agree on this. cheers.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

This opens a whole new can of worms...

how do you employ this "non aggression" principal?

what is your definition of it? What makes one person less aggressive than other?

These seem incredibly arbitrary.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

Their are certainly other sources on the implementation of the Non-Aggression Principal, but this is a start at least.

 

[Juventud]

Texas is a sh*thole. They voted for Bush, Perry & put Cruz in power. They also let illegal immigrants in. They can't be trusted to make laws.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Whether that be because they are previously violent offenders, mentally disabled, a child, blind, whatever.

Violent offenders: Any violation of the NAP (Non-Aggression Principal) should bring swift punishment, it should call into question one's very existence within society/civilization. I suspect we agree for different reasons.

Mentally Disabled: That needs to be determined by a system of due process. A doctor Checking a box on a forum is NOT due process. We have a right to face our accusers in the carrying out of justice.

Children: Children are always an interesting discussion when human rights are concerned. They lack the full capacity for informed consent, yet they are not considered "rightless" under any legal, or even moral law. In regards to gun rights, that should be for the parents to decide when/if their offspring can posses/carry a weapon. In the big city, it might make sence to not give a weapon to your teenager. If you live in Alaskan Bear country, you may want your 15 year old to carry a rifle when they go out. One uniform standard doesn't work for everyone. Some people are able to drive by 13, others should never get behind the wheel.

Blind: I have no problem with blind people owning firearms. Checking a chamber for clear can be done without sight if you know the weapon. If something should happen with the gun, the same brandishing and negligence charges that would befall you or I should apply. Due to their condition, they will need to hold themselves to the highest standards of safety (I.e. avoid unnecessary gun handling whenever possible).

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

So when you make a statement like that, you realize you're basically making any discussion impossible since you're presuming a sinister motive that precludes discussion, right?

Hard to have an honest debate with those who won't be honest about their intentions.

Who am I referring to? The Bloomberg shills and their ilk. (Also "researchers" like Cliff Schecter)

 

[Possum Jenkins]

So the deciding factor when determining legality should be numbers I can kill with my weapon? What is the cutoff number between what should be legal and what should be illegal?

I'm thinking it's about three.

A single bullet can potentially kill up to three people. A single grenade probably more than that.

Then there's also the mess factor. Killing machines like handguns can carry out their purpose (killing) with relatively little mess. Some blood will spurt, yeah, but it won't be too bad.

While killing machines such as grenades will leave gruesome scenes.