Why are "Guns" a Left/Right issue?

jaeger19 said:

We have been over this already.. 1. The restrictions you support do NOT (so no) ensure that people that own firearms have a background check, and that use them responsible. It only ensures that law abiding responsible citizens.. who don't need these restrictions in the first place.. have a background check and a safety course. Criminals and others that wish to avoid the law will continue to do so.. as they do already.

And 2. the conclusion that you draw from the study are invalid as there are confounding variables that have a much higher likelihood of causation.

Click to expand...

I just said that it helps to ensure. There is no guarantee.

And seriously, your whole premise that law abiding citizens are always going to be law abiding citizens regardless of what the laws are or what they say is extremely and fundamentally flawed. We do not design laws with the intent of altering the behavior of those whose behavior will never be altered - we design laws to influence those individuals who are willing to alter their behavior in order to accomplish a particular goal (fewer gun injuries in this instance).

jaeger19 said:

Plus it played into the hands of some racist whites that feared that guns would end up in the hands of the black men.

I have always thought that the NRA needs to do more.. much more.. to attract minority shooters. I think that would do a lot for our rights.. and curb this anti gun thing.

Click to expand...

white suburban housewives are often big fans of gun control because they worry about being raped or victimized by armed black males. Right after I had written a guest editorial in the local paper damning the lies of the Bannite politicians, I attended a cocktail party in the wealthiest area of SW Ohio. I had two or three 40 something wives of millionaires saying they had no problem with "people like me" owning guns but laws had to be passed keeping blacks from owning guns. I asked one of them if the name of the estate we were at was named "Tara". She didn't get it

but several of those listening did and started snickering. When I told her that most of the crime committed by black street thugs involved guns that they couldn't legally own to start with, she was befuddled.

But you are right, racist whites were the instigators of the first real gun control in this nation-

and like rich Democrats today, its "OTHER PEOPLE" they don't want having guns

MrT said:

I just said that it helps to ensure. There is no guarantee.

And seriously, your whole premise that law abiding citizens are always going to be law abiding citizens regardless of what the laws are or what they say is extremely and fundamentally flawed. We do not design laws with the intent of altering the behavior of those whose behavior will never be altered - we design laws to influence those individuals who are willing to alter their behavior in order to accomplish a particular goal (fewer gun injuries in this instance).

Click to expand...

in other words, the purpose of gun control is to disarm people who don't cause problems with guns in the first place

and why do Democrats do that? easy answer, when legal gun ownership is highly diminished, the NRA won't have near the membership or money to oppose idiots like Clinton

and that is the real reason behind Democrat party inspired gun control

TurtleDude said:

actually the odds are pretty good if Heller is followed

plus there was no evidence supporting the need for such a ban

as long as cops can have them so should other citizens.

there is no rational argument for the Hughes Amendment and it was not even properly passed

Click to expand...

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't Heller explicitly uphold the limitation on certain types of firearms unless they were "in common use at the time?"

TurtleDude said:

in other words, the purpose of gun control is to disarm people who don't cause problems with guns in the first place

and why do Democrats do that? easy answer, when legal gun ownership is highly diminished, the NRA won't have near the membership or money to oppose idiots like Clinton

and that is the real reason behind Democrat party inspired gun control

Click to expand...

Don't make a straw man TD, you are better than that.

MrT said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't Heller explicitly uphold the limitation on certain types of firearms unless they were "in common use at the time?"

Click to expand...

yes, and while that was a flawed approach (some have noted that any new advancement in personal arms could then be banned which was clearly contrary to the purpose of the second amendment) the fact is hand held automatic weapons have been around for 100+ years and are in common use by militia and civilians

that is why some Banoids spend so much time pretending civilian police are not civilians because they understand that automatic hand held weapons have been commonly used by civilian police and that is a damning argument against those idiotic bans

Heller upheld NO bans btw. IN DICTA it suggested that some weapons might be banned and not violate the second amendment if those weapons are both not in common use and are unusually dangerous. (like anti tank weapons or grenade launchers_


I submit (and its almost impossible to refute this) that every FIREARM (i.e. a weapon of 50 caliber or less, firing an INERT projectile) is within the scope of Heller

MrT said:

Don't make a straw man TD, you are better than that.

Click to expand...

that's not a straw man-its the absolute truth about what motivates democrat politicians

that and pandering to low wattage, slow witted voters who demand something BE DONE about violent crime

TurtleDude said:

that's not a straw man-its the absolute truth about what motivates democrat politicians

that and pandering to low wattage, slow witted voters who demand something BE DONE about violent crime

Click to expand...

Ok TD, explain to me how you can turn this quote

We do not design laws with the intent of altering the behavior of those whose behavior will never be altered - we design laws to influence those individuals who are willing to alter their behavior in order to accomplish a particular goal (fewer gun injuries in this instance).

Click to expand...

Into this quote:

the purpose of gun control is to disarm people who don't cause problems with guns in the first place

Click to expand...

Please, help me to understand how you aren't just inventing a new argument on my behalf.

TurtleDude said:

yes, and while that was a flawed approach (some have noted that any new advancement in personal arms could then be banned which was clearly contrary to the purpose of the second amendment) the fact is hand held automatic weapons have been around for 100+ years and are in common use by militia and civilians

that is why some Banoids spend so much time pretending civilian police are not civilians because they understand that automatic hand held weapons have been commonly used by civilian police and that is a damning argument against those idiotic bans

Heller upheld NO bans btw. IN DICTA it suggested that some weapons might be banned and not violate the second amendment if those weapons are both not in common use and are unusually dangerous. (like anti tank weapons or grenade launchers_

I submit (and its almost impossible to refute this) that every FIREARM (i.e. a weapon of 50 caliber or less, firing an INERT projectile) is within the scope of Heller

Click to expand...

First off, language from the Supreme Court - even if made in Dicta - will be very persuasive on any future cases. Secondly, you aren't using Heller to make your argument. If anything, you are distancing yourself from the Heller decision and the (still valid) Miller decision. What language, from the Heller decision or perhaps the McDonald decision, are you suggesting disallows restrictions on the sale of certain firearms.

MrT said:

Ok TD, explain to me how you can turn this quote



Into this quote:



Please, help me to understand how you aren't just inventing a new argument on my behalf.

Click to expand...

easy-gun control is not about less gun injuries

its about getting rid of the NRA's power.

MrT said:

I just said that it helps to ensure. There is no guarantee.

And seriously, your whole premise that law abiding citizens are always going to be law abiding citizens regardless of what the laws are or what they say is extremely and fundamentally flawed. We do not design laws with the intent of altering the behavior of those whose behavior will never be altered - we design laws to influence those individuals who are willing to alter their behavior in order to accomplish a particular goal (fewer gun injuries in this instance).

Click to expand...

"helps to ensure"... how? You just said it has zero effect on anyone that has firearm before the law takes effect. And obviously it has no effect on those that are willing to break the law.

And no.. my premise is not that law abiding citizens are always going to be law abiding citizens regardless of what the laws are.

You certainly can make a law abiding citizen.. into a criminal with laws. Pretty much what you are going to do with your regulations.

My premise is that people that are willing to follow the law in the first place.. are people that you don;t need laws for. You are not preventing crime because people are "whoa.. I would murder dave.. but I found out that buying a handgun is illegal"

That's why your regulations won't work.

Now you say.. well.. what about murder.. then we don;t need a law for murder. Well the reality is that for the vast majority of the population.. you Don't need a law against murder.. because they don't believe murder is right. The reason that a law against murder only works because when the small minority of people that are willing to murder, murder someone. then they go to jail and that removes them from society....

The idea that we design laws to influence those that are willing to alter their behavior is absurd. If they are willing to alter their behavior.. then they were not a problem in the first place. The only reason to do such a law is to 1. Earn money 2. restrict a persons rights 3. Make people feel good.

jaeger19 said:

Actually the second amendment was written so that the individual could be part of an "insurrection". in order to overthrow a tyrannical government. Its why there is a first amendment.. so you can speak out against the government. The second allows you to back that up with more than words.

The 3rd amendment was so that the government could not put down unrest by boarding soldiers in peoples homes.

so on.

the bill of rights was to limit governments power and to allow the citizens the power to overthrow a tyrannical government.

Click to expand...

Uh, you may wish to check your history a bit more.

Empirica said:

I don't think anyone will argue the accuracy of the thread's Title!

Click to expand...

I will. Not a fan of false global generalizations myself.

Mark F said:

I will. Not a fan of false global generalizations myself.

Click to expand...

how many of the gun banners on this board are what you would call conservative or libertarian?

TurtleDude said:

how many of the gun banners on this board are what you would call conservative or libertarian?

Click to expand...

Well, I suppose none, because no matter their professed lean, as soon as you label someone a "gun banner," the "liberal" label ain't far behind.

Kobie said:

Well, I suppose none, because no matter their professed lean, as soon as you label someone a "gun banner," the "liberal" label ain't far behind.

Click to expand...

that's far less honest than I expect from you.

Not all liberals are gun banners. but almost every gun banner is leftwing

Empirica said:

I don't think anyone will argue the accuracy of the thread's Title!

The world has long been ideo-politically divided on the right of private citizens to own guns_

Marxists, Socialists, Communists, Progressives and 20th Century Democrats all believe that citizens should be disarmed! (for the good of society they say)

Except of course for Bernie Sanders; although I highly suspect he had to tweak his ideo-politic-ology to make himself palatable to the Vermont electorate_

Which I also believe he would quickly un-tweak should he actually get himself elected POTUS or maybe even just nominated as the Democrat Party's Candidate_

Well known Utopian Revolutionaries such as Lenin, Mao Tse-Tung, Ho Chi Min and Castro, etc; all disarmed their people immediately after their respective revolutions_

And Western Nations such as Canada, Australia and the European Union have all been actively disarming their populations since they began their transformation to Socialism_

And here in our own backyard, the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution has for decades been at the top of the agenda for the far-left Progressive Democrat Party_

For some reason the Leftist Elites, Politicians and Revolutionaries appear to fear guns in the hands of the populous which is obvious by the fact they have always made a point to disarm them_

While Rightwing Politicians and Capitalists don't seem to have the least bit of fear of law-abiding citizens having the right to keep and bear arms_

Anyone have any theories as to why such a distinct ideo-political contrast has always been drawn on Gun Rights?

Click to expand...

I will start by arguing the point that you doubted anyone would argue, just to be a pain in the ass. Actually, not really to be a pain in the ass because I think things are swinging to bi-partisan support for gun rights. More people back gun rights than the left wants to admit and it costs them to push for gun control. What is amazing is that they recognized that fact once but they have forgotten that they lost the Senate and the House over gun control.

roughdraft274 said:

Pretty much by definition, "reasonable" is a subjective measure and will change depending on who's being asked. But it doesn't negate his entire point which I'm not sure you grasped. The original post is a lot of just blanket assertions that aren't backed up by any evidence.

Click to expand...

The history of the posts from in this area akrunner would indicate that his definition of reasonable isn't reasonable.

MrT said:

This notion appears to largely be the result of a conservative blog echo chamber. The closest I found to any actual statement was a very small blurb from an interview wherein he stated that he believed there should be a ban on guns used exclusively to kill other people. All of his other actions and statements make it fairly clear that this statement is a reference to assault rifles, and not towards hand guns - although I have made the argument that hand guns really do not serve any other purpose. I just don't see any evidence to suggest that Bernie feels the same on that particular type of firearm.

Click to expand...

The 2nd is about putting down a tyrannical govt. That usually would require killing of someone. I don't think anyone wants to go there but if necessary the people have the tools to take that course of action.

There isn't a gun in the whole wide world that could only be used exclusively to kill other people. That argument is tiresome.

Empirica said:

I don't think anyone will argue the accuracy of the thread's Title!

The world has long been ideo-politically divided on the right of private citizens to own guns_

Marxists, Socialists, Communists, Progressives and 20th Century Democrats all believe that citizens should be disarmed! (for the good of society they say)

Except of course for Bernie Sanders; although I highly suspect he had to tweak his ideo-politic-ology to make himself palatable to the Vermont electorate_

Which I also believe he would quickly un-tweak should he actually get himself elected POTUS or maybe even just nominated as the Democrat Party's Candidate_

Well known Utopian Revolutionaries such as Lenin, Mao Tse-Tung, Ho Chi Min and Castro, etc; all disarmed their people immediately after their respective revolutions_

And Western Nations such as Canada, Australia and the European Union have all been actively disarming their populations since they began their transformation to Socialism_

And here in our own backyard, the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution has for decades been at the top of the agenda for the far-left Progressive Democrat Party_

For some reason the Leftist Elites, Politicians and Revolutionaries appear to fear guns in the hands of the populous which is obvious by the fact they have always made a point to disarm them_

While Rightwing Politicians and Capitalists don't seem to have the least bit of fear of law-abiding citizens having the right to keep and bear arms_

Anyone have any theories as to why such a distinct ideo-political contrast has always been drawn on Gun Rights?

Click to expand...

Not true.
I'm as liberal as all get-out, and Canadian to boot. I own guns, two rifles, and one is kept at hand by the back door in case of predators harassing our animals. I sure don't worry about anyone from the government wanting to take my guns away. That's just words that conservatives say to each other to make themselves feel smarter than everyone who they don't like and call 'liberals'.
I don't know why you think gun ownership is a conservative thing. Where I live nearly everyone is a liberal and nearly every house has a gun in it.

NonoBadDog said:

The 2nd is about putting down a tyrannical govt. That usually would require killing of someone. I don't think anyone wants to go there but if necessary the people have the tools to take that course of action.

There isn't a gun in the whole wide world that could only be used exclusively to kill other people. That argument is tiresome.

Click to expand...

It's also a parsing of a minor aspect of a larger quote from sanders statement that was being used to support the assertion that Sanders wants to ban all guns that aren't hunting rifles. It is simply not his stance and thus, the argument on whether a gun can be used for something other than hunting is largely moot.

Kobie said:

Well, I suppose none, because no matter their professed lean, as soon as you label someone a "gun banner," the "liberal" label ain't far behind.

Click to expand...

If you want a real hoot you should ask him about Ronald Reagan and his love of gun control.

TurtleDude said:

how many of the gun banners on this board are what you would call conservative or libertarian?

Click to expand...

I am not interested in artificially limiting myself to the handful of people who contribute to this forum.

TurtleDude said:

actually the odds are pretty good if Heller is followed

plus there was no evidence supporting the need for such a ban

as long as cops can have them so should other citizens.

there is no rational argument for the Hughes Amendment and it was not even properly passed

Click to expand...

I agree, and do hope somewhere along the line the nonsense is ended. It was not as if people were running out to buy any of them but if someone wants something that go through their stock of ammo in minutes that is their business. Would be nice to at least have the option.

jet57 said:

Uh, you may wish to check your history a bit more.

Click to expand...

I have.. you might want to check history a bit more.

The only way your premise works Jet.. is if you completely disregard why the Bill of Rights was written into the constitution.

The first amendment is not a "collective" right. The second amendment is not a "collective right".. the third amendment is not a "collective right". and so on.