... Democrats are unlikely to talk Republicans out of gun ownership because it comes off as “Put down your gun so I can shoot you.”...
So let’s stop acting as if there is something like “common sense” gun control to be had if we all act reasonably. That’s not an option in this case because we all have different risk profiles when it comes to guns. My gun probably makes me safer, but perhaps yours makes you less safe. You can’t reconcile those interests....
Fear always beats reason. So as long as Democrats are mostly using guns to shoot innocent people (intentionally or accidentally) and Republicans are mostly using guns for sport or self-defense, no compromise can be had.
June 22, 2016
"So it seems to [Scott Adams] that gun control can’t be solved because..."
"Democrats are using guns to kill each other – and want it to stop – whereas Republicans are using guns to defend against Democrats."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
206 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 206 of 206Rhythm and Balls said...
Right now the NRA is trying to convince the 80% of Americans who would expand that to designated terrorists that they agree with them, while talking out the other side of their mouths and paying off Republican Congress Critters to do the exact opposite.
6/22/16, 5:36 PM
I have rarely seen a strawman built so high and so quickly! The NRA organization, like nearly all Americans wants to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists. What they and most of us with IQs over the moron level also want to do is not piss away yet more of our rights because some bureaucratic somewhere, at time time, put someone's name on some secret list that implies that person might have some sort of connection to some type of terrorist activity. HUGE difference.
What you are in favor of (had have made no effort to hide) is taking away everyone's guns and will [it seems] support any and all measures to do that. Those of us that support our God given rights demand that if ANY of those rights are to be restricted, there better be a DAMN good reason. What the Government is currently attempting is not that.
If someone was properly convicted in a legal court of being a terrorist, than find. No rights for you. Off to jail. Deportation with no right to re-enter. This an't that.
As others have noted, would you be as willing to support this secret list / no guns for you proposal if it also covered every other civil right? You on the list than no fly, no gun, no right to oppose discrimination, no legal protections, nothing. Your free speech? Gone. Your right against self incrimination? Gone. Your right to a lawyer? Gone. Still in favor of this plan?
I read all the comments to way down here because I have not seen a new anti-gun argument since the Heller decision was underway, and again I leave disappointed that the same old ignorant anti-gun tropes, lies, evasions, are being trotted out as if they have not been debunked, destroyed, dismantled and disproven since way back when.
If the anti-gun side wants to make any headway in stopping "gun violence" (or even just "criminal violence" with guns, which is 80% or so gang & drug related), making the same failed arguments again and again just needs to stop.
Try finding a way to stop criminals from committing violence (like putting drug dealers in prison for a long time, or not plea dealing on gun crimes that are sure convictions with heavy prison time) or anything else that has been shown to actually work, and then we'll talk. Your old BS yelled louder won't work anymore, just like yelling SEXIST, RACIST, HOMOPHOBE and so on no longer works.
Whether I own a gun or not, I want other people to think I could. I want a would-be robber to think I live in the kind of neighborhood where people would shoot him if he tried to rob them. I want the obnoxious homeless guy on the street to think I could be carrying a concealed weapon. If I have an arrest warrant, I want a police officer to think that it would be much safer to call me and ask me to come to the station than break down my door.
Reasonable gun regulations are the type that leave open the possibility that everyone could be packing, even if they aren't.
Ann - OT but Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser has recently started reporting your site as a phishing threat. It's Blogger and all, but thought you might want to know.
Clarence Thomas discussed at length a true history of the last time the Democrats' vision of gun "control" was instituted by members of the Democratic Party and the governments they controlled, in McDonald v. Chicago.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
Concurring opinion starts at p. 28 of 57 of the pdf; historical discussion at p. 41 of the Thomas concurrence.
Sorry - at p. 67 of 214 of the .pdf or search "concurring in part".
Post a Comment