Hi, I99!
Goose and gander doesn’t apply when it involves messing with the law of the land, be it for repealing the 2nd amendment or for any of the reasons listed above. A couple days ago I replied in this thread but didn’t see a response. Could be that I just missed it in this very busy thread. 
Here it is again for your perusal.
In light of your above statement, I’m curious about what you think.
EZ
I disagree. I believe that I have offered adequate evidence plus logic. You are free to disagree <shrug>. You may as well stop harping on this point because, I don’t really care.
There has been an increase in murders, injuries and accidents directly related to guns, as they proliferate throughout our society. But why should any increase be proportional? Accidents are by definition unplanned. It is fallacious to extrapolate on accidents. But regardless of the absolute number or trend of these statistics, the bottom-line fact is that there are too many problems with guns. If we eliminated all guns, then I think you would have to agree that there would not be any more murders, injuries or accidents that were caused by guns. Problem solved!
I believe I stated what I think in previous posts. Like GWB, I don’t see the Constitution as written in stone. It defies all logic to contend that a document written over 200 years ago, might cover all contingencies today. Therefore, I have no problem with removing and or modifying the 2nd amendment. However, you can rest in peace. Given how politics work in this country and the power of the special interests, such as the NRA, the probability of this happening in the current environment is close to zero.
Incorrect. Proved a cite, or retract your lie.
Actually, unless the Gestapo… excuse me, the police, come looking for them, the odds are that they would never know.
See, he’s a gun owner. This does not make him a criminal… and if you make this absurd law, millions of people would suddenly become very quiet law abiding criminals.
Of course, in your view, when the Gestap… uh… Police come knocking and find a gun, no matter what, they should be executed. At once.
Man, I’m in awe that you haven’t gotten pitted on this one yet.
I hear ya’ brother. This is the closest I’ve ever come to wanting to do just that. If I wasn’t so sore and tired from re-authorizing in spear, sword & board and pole-arm this past weekend I’d be seriously tempted.
Weird.
Prove me wrong.
Excuse me? You are the one putting forth the totally unsubstantiated statement. The burden of proof lies on you.
You might want to go review that list of debate errors I noted in a previous post. 
I’m sure that UncleBeer will be along with a better cite, but Here is one to start with. There’s a pretty picture and everything. Also this quote:
*“About half of the time gun stock increases have been accompanied by violence decreases, and about half the time accompanied by violence increases, just what one would expect if gun levels had no net impact on violence rates. The rate of gun suicide is correlated with trends in the size of the gun or handgun stock, but the rate of total suicide is not, supporting a substitution argument–when guns are scarce, suicide attempters substitute other methods, with no effect on the total number who die. Trends in the size of the cumulated gun or handgun stock have no consistent correlation with crime rates.” *
I’m continueally astounded with some people’s lack of ability to read and understand with comprehension. Show me exactly where I made the statements attributed to me in your 4th and 5th sentences!
If you take the time to read carefully, instead of just posting the first thing that comes into your mind, you’ll find that I referred to making some examples of CRIMINALS who refused to follow the proposed law that bans ownership of guns by private individuals. Now, if the [previously] law-abiding citizen wants to shoot it out with the authorities who demand that they follow this new law and give up their guns, then they would become criminals. And they may then very well suffer the consequences. More reading on your part would also show that I feel that current penalties against gun use are not strong enough and/or are not enforced strictly enough.
Sorry, I disagree.
So I can say things like “John Kerry has carnal knowledge of pigs.” Or “Martha Stewart does heroin.” Or “Iamme is a retard.”
I can say any of the above without being called on it? I don’t have to provide a cite, or any evidence to back up my bald assertion? Wow. I totally misunderstood the rules to the game! I always thought that a debate involved those things. Silly me. :rolleyes:
Actually, I believe one of the above examples. You guess which one!
Is it wrong of me to vote for the one with the pigs? 
But what are they going to do? Raid my home? I’m looking for details!
Don’t know. We’'l cross that bridge, if and when we get there. Relax till then.
Since you refuse to answer most questions with anything other than “I disagree”…
and in the interest of fighting ignorance…
I did not take any courses in logic while I was in college. Would you please take a moment and outline some of the basic elements of logic, as you understand them, so that I could perhaps better understand why you keep going back to that point.
The point being that a logical society would ban private gun ownership.
I just don’t get it.
Maybe if you helped me, and I’m serious here, I might change my stance on some of these issues. I do not own any guns myself. So right there I show that I am noy a “rabid gun-owner” I have no personal stake, at this time, in gun ownership by private individuals.
So again, please explain, briefly, how logic works, what is logic?
No. Prove yourself correct; it’s your turn. You asked me for a cite to substantiate a claim I made previously in this thread, and I promptly complied. This makes it vividly apparent that you understand the rules of engagement here. Your refusal to follow them in this instance would then seem to indicate that you are making statements of fact which you know to be false; in other words, lying.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4786689&postcount=115
My goodness!! Shades of Aldebaran, my post is my cite?!? Here, I’ll do some of your work for you. Sorry that it doesn’t support your assertion. Just a snippet:
Actually, the figures show that there has been a decrease in violent crime in America over the past few years, a decrease that coincides with an increase in the number of States (34 at last count) that have enacted new, permissive concealed carry laws. Law-abiding citizens in those states cannot be refused permits to carry weapons (guns) concealed on their person. Now the criminals don’t know who’s armed!
As far as eliminating guns reducing crime? Read “The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales." Published by The Fraser Institute, Simon Fraser University. It shows that places with strict prohibitive gun control (California, New York City, Washington D.C.) have seen crime increasing. Gun control (read confiscation) in England, Canada, Wales and Australia has caused the crime rate to climb there.
In the 1930’s there was a man that believed as iamme99 does. He announced to the country he led that for the first time in history a civilized country would totally eliminate private ownership of guns, as a step toward world peace. The country was Germany, and the man was Adolph Hitler.
That’s where “common sense” and “logic” get us.
I really wish this would happen. Then I could walk around with a plain, ordiunary longsword and have ultimate fights against all the stupid teenybopper swho think a katana makes them cool and all cuz’ its a “ninja sword”. I’d be making them all look like fools, alogn with those idiots who think a green belt in kung fu makes them Bruce Lee with a pair of Nunchuks.
So prove your trust is correct. In any event, you assume off the start that people are stupid and that they may therefore not be trusted with firearms.
No. It means they have no obligation to protect you beforehand. They have no obligation to protect you, only to pick up the peices afterword, and you may not legally claim any duty to protect you.
You, sir, are a fool. I’ll make a deal with you. If you think you are so great, I’ll meet you sometime and practice pulling a gun on you. It won’t even be a real gun, just a plastic toy. And if you can disarm me or render me unconcious one time out of ten before I say “bang!”, I’ll never speak ill of you again.
No, criminals don’t want big guns. They want small ones, easily concealed. The ban on big “assault rifles” is quite pointless because the vast majority of criminals don’t want them and those that do are mentally disturbed and, if they are at all bright, quite capable of remodeling old guns or obtaining one sthat break those laws.