The fuck?
Why is gun control so difficult in the US?
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
Voting never killed anyone.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
OK, how about a smaller caliber, such as an AR15 (308) or (338)
Do you see a trend developing here? And all just for fun?!
Remember, the Second Amendment does not address where the right to own or bear certain weapons stops, but it does specifically allow for "well regulated" control over all weapons. Which is why it is against the law to carry a fully automatic weapon and strangely, also sawed-off shotguns loaded with BBs.
My argument is not a strawman, but not because you cannot buy a fully automatic .50 . But because it's against the law to buy such a weapon of war.
What strawman argument was used to prohibit ownership of such weapons?
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
It seems that you insist upon viewing "well regulated" from a modern perspective.
I seriously doubt that George Mason of James Madison would have had the same perspective.
anecdote:
George Washington did not like commanding the militia. He found them an unruly bunch who often went home between battles.
(perhaps always reactionary?)
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Of course not, they had no idea of what was to come in development of deadlier weapons.
This is no anecdote;
https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/build-an-ar-15-ar-calibers/
True, it meant "well equipped". Which we are now, thanks to the military, which secures our free state. Perhaps the founders would have viewed that institution as contrary to a free state, just like lack of weapons in the hands of the people would be.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
Well regulated meant "well trained". We ... borrowed ... the King's Regulations for the Army and Navy to use as the standard for that training. Didn't work out very well, drilling was low priority for the private citizens who were to be the first-responders. Saved the government a boat load of money on a standing army, however.
Perhaps your memory is short:
"Well, spidergoat seemed to be worried about "People with guns can just as easily establish a tyranny as prevent one." An armed left would at least equal the odds, and I encourage it.
Sounds like you agree with me, then. I guess it was just more OOK! OOK! OOK!
==========
01/17/2018 05:06 pm ET Updated Jan 18, 2018
Murders By U.S. White Supremacists More Than Doubled In 2017, New Report Shows
And right-wing extremists killed more than twice as many people as Islamic extremists.
White supremacists in the United States killed more than twice as many people in 2017 as they did the year before, and were responsible for far more murders than domestic Islamic extremists, helping make 2017 the fifth deadliest year on record for extremist violence in America, a new report states.
The report, “Murder and Extremism in the United States in 2017,” published Tuesday by the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism, said extremists killed 34 people last year. Twenty of those victims — or 59 percent — were killed by right-wing extremists, a designation that includes white supremacists, members of the so-called “alt-right” and “alt-lite,” and members of the anti-government militia movement.
===========
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
The problem is always in the extreme viewpoints. The point is not to take guns away from individuals, but to regulate their use and purpose.
https://web.stanford.edu/group/progressive/cgi-bin/?p=559
Here in Idaho, it is against the law to shoot at wildlife from your car. In other states you can drive up to a pen with a buffalo herd, put your gun over the window and kill yourself a buffalo, to stick it's head on your wall.
Each State has its own gun regulations and laws and what is legal in one State may land you in jail in another. And all based on a Federal Law which is unclear as it stands. I believe a review of the Second Amendment and a few minor foot-notes, would clear up a lot of confusion, which is obviously necessary for these times.
A strawman argument need not reference a given and specific poster immediately present. It can also reference an entire side or case, categorize an entire "side" by assigning it positions it need not possess and does not possess in the immediate discussion, and attack them as if they were present and the "side" as if they were presenting them.
It's a standard tactic in the media wars.
Attacking the "defense against government oppression" position - the whole thing, mind, every claim of needing guns to protect against a government gone rogue - as if it required "can defeat an army in open combat", as if that were central to the claim and the basis of the claim, is a strawman argument: a textbook example of one.
The arguer has set up a false and fictional representation of the argument of their opponent, and attacked that rather than the actual argument. Textbook.
Last edited:
If you can persuade the fraction of the population that does not trust "liberals" that such is indeed the limits of gun control, proposed in good faith, you can get it in week. You have 90% of the citizenry backing you.
And you wouldn't have to touch the 2nd Amendment, a long and uncertain project.
Which you are ill advised to threaten anyway, if you want people to trust you - so why do it?
It does not "specifically allow for" anything, and contains no requirement that anyone or anything actually be "well-regulated" - or even exist. Nothing in the Bill of Rights describes appropriate mandates or restrictions or preconditions on individual citizens. That's kind of important.
When you misrepresent the Bill of Rights like that, and then push to change it, you create mistrust.
Last edited:
It says it's there because we sometimes have to have a military, and they expected the people to be well equipped enough to get one together. Isn't this obsolete?
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
Again, I guessed that may be why lefties are afraid. Try to read what's written occasionally. I know that a carry permit usually requires training and that most adults respect the gravity of handling a gun.
So a gun meant to be completely undetected until needed is a vanity thing?
I guess that's why people gold plate molars. Wait, people don't do that.
How do you know? Do you run a metal detector over everyone you meet?
Just more of your paranoid ravings.
Completely beside the point. Democrats just think some rights only apply to those with money.
Where does that say anything about it being a "solution to a political problem?" It was suggested as a solution to spidergoat's worries (a personal problem).
I do. Spidergoat's fear of tyranny from armed citizens does sound pathological.
Straw man derived from ignoring the rest of my reply. People who use guns don't tend to be the one most afraid of guns.
Or are you making the argument that the leftist fears are justified?
If so, why shouldn't they arm themselves?
Exactly.
And then you recommended arming them in the schools.
Not my point (although often true).
Not joining that crowd - the amateur carry folks - is partly a vanity thing.
How do I know what? What actual percentage of amateur carry folks the truly embarrassing represent? I don't.
I do know that the conceal part is not actually all that easy, for the normally dressed - the main way it works is by other people's inattention. Or carrying a purse, pack, or other theft target.
Hilarious!
The echo chamber is strong in this one.
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
Straw man. One had nothing to do with the other.
Like gold plated molars.
Parser failed. Word salad detected.
Thanks for admitting your ignorance.
I see no refute of the cited facts in that article. Just noise. Oo, oo, oo!
Oh no! And you were so close to changing your mind, I could tell.
assault weapons and high-capacity magazines
"While this is an extraordinary procedural move, the shooting at Parkland demands extraordinary action," said Rep. Kionne McGhee, D-Miami, before the move was rejected.
http://www.tampabay.com/florida-pol...-assault-weapons-and-high-capacity-magazines/
"While this is an extraordinary procedural move, the shooting at Parkland demands extraordinary action," said Rep. Kionne McGhee, D-Miami, before the move was rejected.
http://www.tampabay.com/florida-pol...-assault-weapons-and-high-capacity-magazines/