Why we disagree on guns

Fullauto223cal's picture

Why we disagree on guns

When the facts are so evidently aligned with the NRA’s position, is it wise to play to fears rather than to reverse them? Now more than ever is a well-reasoned, substantive case for gun rights necessary — and this can only be done by turning the most silly and fear-driven ignorance of guns on its head. This is the wiser and more effective path than embodying the caricatures drawn up by metropolitan progressives.

 

Any policy interventions that have any hope of solving gun violence in America require a sober, specific approach directed, not towards gun themselves, but the afflicted behind them. Anything short of that is likely a fear mongering play at characterizing political opposition as soulless monsters who trade lives for blood money.

3.142855
Average: 3.1 (7 votes)

Comments

fasfasfasfas's picture

Only nazi baby killers need nazi babykiller machines.
#banassaultguns
#banassaultknifes
#banassaulttrucks
#banassaultspoons
#banassaulthammers
#bancriminals
Subscribe and like to punch a nazi in his big drumpf face

+1
-3
-1
Vote comment up/down
sato's picture

i agree it's important to keep guns in the hands of responsible owners, and out of the hands of others, which is why i'm for gun owner control - licensing - and against gun control.

the same as anyone can drive a semitrailer when they've proven experience with smaller vehicles, take the necessary courses, get a license, and maintain that license with regular testing, as well as required vehicle maintenance.

in the same vein i think even full-automatic weapons are perfectly safe provided they're only available to experienced and responsible people. you want a gun? sure anyone can have a gun! the window to apply for your license is right there, go line up.

 

so how about gun owner control? yes/no why or why not?

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal's picture

which is why i'm for gun owner control - licensing - and against gun control.

 

Unlike you, I'm not so naive as to actually believe the absurd notion that licenses do anything beyond JACK SHIT to keep firearms away from those who would use them for evil.

Seriously, have you even bothered to put more than a seconds thought into what you wrote?  Doctors issue a "license", also known as a prescription, for people to purchase and use certain highly addictive chemicals.  If your reasoning were sound there ought to be no such thing as an illegal drug trade.

 

the same as anyone can drive a semitrailer when they've proven experience with smaller vehicles,

 

Oh me god, here we go again with this horse shit.  I do not need a license to operate a semi.  A 14 year old can drive a semi on private property all the live long day.  I do not need a license to purchase a semi.

 

I only need a license if and when I decide to operate my semi on a public roadway.  And even then I do not require a CLASS A (Commercial) license so long as I am hauling my own goods.

 

Licenses cannot and do not stop people from driving vehicles as cops routinely cite people for not having one in clear violation of the law.  They cannot and would not stop criminals from carrying guns.

 

Licenses are not intended to STOP people who are unqualified from driving a semi.  I know because I use to drive a semi, the actual driving test is only a small part what you must do to obtain a license.  You obtain a license by demonstrating you know and understand all the rules and regulations with regard to operating a semi on public roadways.  Licenses are not intended and do not stop someone from driving wrecklessly or while intoxicated.  Licenses also do not stop evil people from mowing down infidels.  Lastly, and most importanly, the Constitution does not garuntee me the right to operate a semi on public roadways.  Whereas the Constitution expressly garuntees me the right to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

And what about the few places in America who do exactly what you propose and require licenses in order to own a firearm.  Those places use licensing to enact DEFACTO gun bans.  New York City requires a license, they only issue them to the very wealthy and the politically connected.  Washington DC until recently required a license, they simply refused to issue them to anyone until a Federal Judge overturned their DEFACTO gun ban and forced them to begin issuing them.

 

Every State/City which has enacted licensing has used it to deny anyone except those of the elite political class their rights under the 2nd Amendment.  Every one of them sold the idea as a means to stop CRIMINALS from owning or carrying firearms and LIKE CLOCKWORK once the politicans had the power to license they simply denied everyone except themselves and their buddies.

 

After the Cvil War newly freed slaves were suppose to enjoy all the rights afforded to only white people.  Well that was a problem because that included the 2nd Amendment and it's pretty hard for racist to lynch blacks when they're being shot at.  So what did the old Confederate States do?  You gussed it, they enacted gun licensing schemes.  And what happened?  The local Sheriff's refused licenses to ANY and ALL blacks.

 

Now maybe you are unaware of all of these things and the history behind it.  Maybe that is why you ignorantly believe licensing is a viable solution.  Now you know better and may no longer plead ignorance.  Continuing to advocate licensing of gun owners now just means you're plain dumb.

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
sato's picture

ok your first mistake is black and white. nobody has said licenses stop people from driving. licensing and registration REDUCES the incidence of road injury. "it doesn't completely prevent the problem, therefore it's worthless" is a logical fallacy.

 

next you've made a point against your own case. "cops routinely cite people" - exactly. they get them off the road before they injure anyone. without licensing, a cop would have no cause to remove an incapable driver from the road until after they've caused an accident. why don't more people drive unlicensed? because they don7t want to be arrested for doing so.

 

you've made the same logical fallacy with DUI. DUI laws reduce the number of deaths from driving intoxicated. people don't want to lose their license, so most of the avoid doing so. some people still do it, but fewer than if it wasn't the law.

 

do you have the mental capacity to comprehend that "not 100% effective ≠ ineffective"?

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

FulAutoGal used to be a cop.  He fully understands that his argument is foolish but he's doubling down and sticking his fingers in his ears because that's his M.O.

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft's picture
Beta TesterImage galleryOld fuck

You'll have to forgive FA. He can only think in binary terms.

Left and right. Communism and capitalism. 0 and 1. Black and white. 

Anything in the middle does not exist. In fact, if you told him I was a centrist he would not believe I am a real person

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danmanjones's picture

So long as "good guys" still have the ability to purchase firearms for self-defense I don't see what the objection is.

Over time less "bad guys" would have access to guns if licensing was introduced like in UK/Aus etc. It would also help keep guns out of the hands of minors if stricter laws were around like for instance in NZ you have to have your gun locked away... this would help prevent kids getting their hands on them. I'm sure USA would never have such strict measures because that would impede your ability to defend yourself in the case of a B&E but some kind of similar solution would help cut down school shootings. 

Seems to make sense to me.

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

Let me give you a right winger response:

 

NO, OUR GUNS.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal's picture

in the same vein i think even full-automatic weapons are perfectly safe provided they're only available to experienced and responsible people.

 

I wanted to address this separately.  On the subject of licensing firearms capable of automatic fire.  In 1934 Congress enacted licensing of, among other types of firearms, fully-automatic weapons.  That license consisted of paying a one time "tax" of $200.... which doubled or tripled the cost of such a firearm.

 

Congress did not license full-auto firearms to stop criminals from getting them.  They licensed full-auto firearms so that only the very wealthy could own them.

 

Nonetheless, the tax was not tied to inflation and so $200 soon became an affordable, while annoying, price to pay to own a full-auto firearm.  That was until 1986 when a Democratic scum bag from New Jersey attached an amendment to an otherwise pro-gun law which slammed the door on private citizens obtaining a license to buy full-autos made after that year.

 

So you see Sato, licensing was never about stopping criminals.  It was simply a means to an end, that being a complete ban.  Can I as a private citizen still technically buy a full-auto?  Sure.  I just don't happen to have $10,000 worth of play money to drop on one that was licensed prior to the registry being closed.

 

So if you're baffled why gun owners in the know raise all sorts of hell when someone proposes licensing a right, it's because gun owners in the know are well versed in the history regarding this subject.

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
eh's picture

I don't see why a line has to be drawn at fully automatic weapons. Why not just open it up for people to be able to buy  miniguns, grenade launchers,  anti-tank rockets, battlefield nukes, maybe even a tsar bomba? I'm dead serious. Why limit things?  I know I would get my favorite. A Carl Gustaf recoilless rifle. I fired an older version years ago and I'm not surprised in the least they have brought it into current service in Airborne and Ranger units. Perfect for home defense.

 

 

But then having a tsar bomba should be THE BEST!!!!
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
sato's picture

another good argument. funny how nobody is claiming the ban on cannons is unconstitutional.

the argument really isn't about whether weapons are illegal or not, it's about where the line is. personally i don't think there should be a hard line, but shades of grey, starting at single shot-rifles, with licensing restrictions into the more dangerous weapons.

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
sato's picture

so because an old law was badly considered, there's just no way a better way would work?

why would the new license have to cost $10,000?

"it was badly done in the past therefore it couldn't possibly be done well today" isn't even a logical argument.

 

do you have a concealed carry permit? how much was it? are concealed carry permits unconstitutional?

 

also you talk about licensing a right, but the constitution grants the right to bear "arms", not "any arms" or "all arms". as eh has said above, there re many kinds of arms that are already prohibited or restricted.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Ozmen's picture
Beta Tester

'The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun'. Except in all the rest of the western world.

 

If the people that were for gun-rights in the US weren't also the people responsible for the bad social conditions for their constituents then I'd be fine with the whole thing. But as the people responsible for creating social conditions that lead to criminal people are the same people calling for gun rights then all I can do is call out the elephant in the room.

 

Will the problem of criminality or mass-shootings be removed by gun control in the US? No as it requires major changes in a lot of other things like worker rights, education, social welfare, both mental and physical healthcare, better veteran systems, better vote to results ratio, etc. But gun control is a part of a functioning society along with those other things. However, no progress can be made in any issue in a two-party system. Which is why the other two-party systems in the west, the UK for example, always has multiple visible and active minority parties in the background ready to pounce to the top.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal's picture

Except in all the rest of the western world.

 

Indeed, the citizens in the rest of the western world are forced to die like lambs to the slaughter.

 

+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

"Indeed, the citizens in the rest of the western world are forced to die like lambs to the slaughter."

 

I notice that I only hear this sentiment from American right wingers.  Hmmm, who should I trust more?  A bunch of fucking idiots who willingly voted a fucking clown as their leader, or the literal rest of the world?

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
eh's picture

LOL Fuck it. Machine gun people into heaps and try not to be one of them. Just let me have my guns. From my cold dead hands motherfucker!

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Ozmen's picture
Beta Tester

Daily shootings. You dum dums have daily shootings, we don't. God damn you're a cold hearted bastard. Don't care two shits about other humans as long as you get to have your toys do you?

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Dagambit's picture

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"

 

Full stop: That is correct. Police are an excellent example, as they are armed. 

 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Ozmen's picture
Beta Tester

Yup and are trained and have proper storing methods for their guns and ammo. Atleast in most of the rest of the world. In America they seem to be trained in escalation so.... Just more dead people.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Dagambit's picture

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down