The Gun Control Argument in a Nutshell; Accurate?

I've long since given up on responsible gun regulation in the U.S.

The gun lobby is simply too powerful, and politicians of all stripes too wimpy to take them on.

IMO, no one needs to assemble stockpiles of assault-style weapons (and please don't chime in with the NRA semantics b.s. about what constitutes as "assault" weapon) and ammo.

If you want to carry a pistol or keep one in your bedside drawer, I'm fine with that as long as you are licensed and trained. The licensing process you go through to carry and use a gun should be at least as rigorous as the one you go through to drive. Training should be required. So should an eye test.

A state rep in Missouri has just proposed a bill that would require gun owners in her state to jump the same hurdles as women seeking abortions--a waiting period, watch a video of people dying of gunshot wounds, etc. It won't pass, but it makes several valid points, one of which is a lot of the same people who huff and puff about their freedom to buy and use any gun modern technology can produce and either overtly or tactily view a high suicide rate and periodic mass shootings as acceptable collateral damage (or deny that lax gun regulation has anything to do with mass shootings and/or higher suicide rates) are the same people who want to eliminate the power of any woman who becomes pregnant to have the freedom to choose to end that pregnancy.

If you support gun rights at the expense of responsible restrictions, including universal background checks, required training and licensing, and also oppose abortion, be honest enough to admit you are pro-birth rather than pro-life, because you are fine with a society where mass shootings and gun fatalities are situation normal.

Katz said:

I've long since given up on responsible gun regulation in the U.S.

The gun lobby is simply too powerful, and politicians of all stripes too wimpy to take them on.

IMO, no one needs to assemble stockpiles of assault-style weapons (and please don't chime in with the NRA semantics b.s. about what constitutes as "assault" weapon) and ammo.

If you want to carry a pistol, I'm fine with that as long as you are licensed and trained. The licensing process you go through to carry and use a gun should be at least as rigorous as the one you go through to drive. Training should be required.

A state rep in Missouri has just proposed a bill that would require gun owners in her state to jump the same hurdles as women seeking abortions--a waiting period, watch a video of people dying of gunshot wounds, etc. It won't pass, but it makes several valid points, one of which is a lot of the same people who huff and puff about their freedom to buy and use any gun modern technology can produce and either overtly or tactily view a high suicide rate and periodic mass shootings as acceptable collateral damage (or deny that lax gun regulation has anything to do with mass shootings and/or higher suicide rates) are the same people who want to eliminate the power of any woman who becomes pregnant to have the freedom to choose to end that pregnancy.

Click to expand...

what does need have to do with anything.

do you think the court created right to an abortion should be subject to such stupid impediments?

See if you recognize this line of reasoning, especially as it relates to gun control:

Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals (AKA the rule book for our current president)

Here is the complete list from Alinsky.

* RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
* RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
* RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
* RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
* RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
* RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
* RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
* RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

haymarket said:

Society has a right to pass reasonable laws regulating certain details of firearms ownership and use. Society has a right to use laws and regulations to create the type of environment that most people want to live in.

Click to expand...

No, society has a right to live in a free environment. Not a regulated to death one.

haymarket said:

Applying that to firearms it means that the peoples government can pass reasonable laws regarding firearms providing that one can still exercise the right to keep and bear arms.

That would include things such as universal background checks on ALL firearms acquisitions for ALL people, registration programs, limits on magazine size, limits on certain weapons such as automatic weapons or those which can easily be modified to automatic weapons.

Click to expand...

What exactly is reasonable about any of those? What do they accomplish in reality and not in peoples perceived beliefs of what they would accomplish?

We already have reasonable laws against using guns in a harmful way. And those types of laws have been around far longer than guns.

Manc Skipper said:

On the third anniversary of Sandy Hook massacre..

Click to expand...

that's really stupid because you are making the silly assumption that lawful gun owners (the ones Banite schemes try to disarm) are the same as homicidal maniacs. If the Banite schemes only targeted those who use firearms illegally, that blurb of yours might have some merit

Kal'Stang said:

No, society has a right to live in a free environment. Not a regulated to death one.

Click to expand...

There are from time to time islands available for sale not owned or governed by any nation. I suggest you look into that because your idea of a free environment is not what is provided in the USA.

haymarket said:

There are from time to time islands available for sale not owned or governed by any nation. I suggest you look into that because your idea of a free environment is not what is provided in the USA.

Click to expand...

So you want every little thing regulated? Tell you when to eat, what to eat, when to take a crap? Thanks. But no thanks.

I do find it interesting that you completely ignored the rest of my post though. Not really. I understand why you did.

Ta ta.

Riveroaks said:

What is this ?? A buzz-word vocabulary test ??

There are simply 2 kinds of people in the world -- those who love guns and those who hate them.

Their demographic composition goes through phases with time.

The original patriots and founding Freemasons in America loved their guns and put them into the Bill Of Rights.

After the US Civil War white folks in the Northern cities began to fear freed slaves from having guns so a plethora of court cases evolved infringing the 2nd Amendment for blacks.

As country folk became city folk they found for a while they had less and less need of their guns. They did not need swords either.

This trend has continued until today only about 30% of the US households contains a firearm.

The trend appears to be changing as youth grow up and arrive at college. These are kids who lived through the terror of school shootings in the news. 50% of them have become gun loving.

Times change.

Buzz words mean little.

History says it all.

Click to expand...

Bullcrap. And that's buzz words, that what I bolded.
2 kinds, love or hate? Can your world really be so simple?

Grand Mal said:

Bullcrap. And that's buzz words, that what I bolded.
2 kinds, love or hate? Can your world really be so simple?

Click to expand...

true you have many types

1) people like me who use and appreciate guns and want others to be able to do the same

2) those who don't want to own guns for various reasons but have no problem with others owning/enjoying the use of guns

3) those who own guns but don't want others to be able to do that-especially those who are of a different political mindset, race, ethnic background etc

4) those who really don't care one way or the other but are willing to ban guns to pander to those who dislike or are afraid of guns

5) those who are terrified of guns and don't want to ever be reminded that such things exist

TurtleDude said:

true you have many types

1) people like me who use and appreciate guns and want others to be able to do the same

2) those who don't want to own guns for various reasons but have no problem with others owning/enjoying the use of guns

3) those who own guns but don't want others to be able to do that-especially those who are of a different political mindset, race, ethnic background etc

4) those who really don't care one way or the other but are willing to ban guns to pander to those who dislike or are afraid of guns

5) those who are terrified of guns and don't want to ever be reminded that such things exist

Click to expand...

Yeah, and then there's those who don't give it much thought because owning a gun is like owning a screwdriver.
Hey, did you know that you have the most liberal gun laws in the Western world?

Kal'Stang said:

So you want every little thing regulated? Tell you when to eat, what to eat, when to take a crap? Thanks. But no thanks.

I do find it interesting that you completely ignored the rest of my post though. Not really. I understand why you did.

Ta ta.

Click to expand...

Nope - never said that. You seem to have trotted yet another straw man out of the barn.

As to the rest of that post - lets look at it

What exactly is reasonable about any of those? What do they accomplish in reality and not in peoples perceived beliefs of what they would accomplish?

We already have reasonable laws against using guns in a harmful way. And those types of laws have been around far longer than guns.

Click to expand...

We have registration laws in some states and they are reasonable. We simply need it on a national level.

And we have already had laws prohibiting certain weapons. So that precedent is already set.

The American people have a right to live in the environment they want to live in and their elected representatives have every right to pass reasonable laws in that effort.

haymarket said:

Nope - never said that. You seem to have trotted yet another straw man out of the barn.

Click to expand...

Point to me where I said that you said that.

haymarket said:

As to the rest of that post - lets look at it

Click to expand...

Yes, lets.

haymarket said:

We have registration laws in some states and they are reasonable. We simply need it on a national level.

Click to expand...

Did not answer my questions. Your statement does not explain why registration is reasonable like I asked and it does not explain what it would accomplish in reality and not just wishful thinking.

haymarket said:

And we have already had laws prohibiting certain weapons. So that precedent is already set.

Click to expand...

Did not answer my questions. Your statement does not explain why registration is reasonable like I asked and it does not explain what it would accomplish in reality and not just wishful thinking.

haymarket said:

The American people have a right to live in the environment they want to live in and their elected representatives have every right to pass reasonable laws in that effort.

Click to expand...

The American People have a right to freedom. I don't recall however any passage in the Constitution, BoR, or any other historical document that states that people have the right to live in the environment they want to live in. Mind pointing something out to me that states that? Because if there is such a "Right" then I want to live in a tax free society. How much you want to bet that most of The People want that to?

Kal'Stang said:

Point to me where I said that you said that.

Click to expand...

This is what you wrote as a response to me:

So you want every little thing regulated? Tell you when to eat, what to eat, when to take a crap? Thanks. But no thanks.

Click to expand...

Again, I never said that. You made it up. You jumped to those conclusions. You took something that was a molehill and tried to make it a mountain.

Your statement does not explain why registration is reasonable like I asked and it does not explain what it would accomplish in reality and not just wishful thinking.

Click to expand...

It is a tool for law enforcement. When Canada had it, the overwhelming majority of police who used it found it useful and helpful in the performance of their job to serve and protect the public.

The American People have a right to freedom. I don't recall however any passage in the Constitution, BoR, or any other historical document that states that people have the right to live in the environment they want to live in. Mind pointing something out to me that states that?

Click to expand...

Yes, they do. But not absolute freedom without any controls or laws or regulations over it. We both agree on that so we are only disputing the margins of the issue.

The very start of the US Constitution tells us why it was written and what we hope the government established by it will do for us. That would answer your question.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Because if there is such a "Right" then I want to live in a tax free society. How much you want to bet that most of The People want that to?

Click to expand...

And if enough people agree with you and the duly elected representatives of the people agree with you, then you can have that accomplished.

Grand Mal said:

Yeah, and then there's those who don't give it much thought because owning a gun is like owning a screwdriver.
Hey, did you know that you have the most liberal gun laws in the Western world?

Click to expand...

if you are using liberal in the correct sense you are right

and that is what the USA was intended to be

Personally, I tend to think that we could do with some training requirements for gun ownership - to reduce accidents, hopefully.
Along with mental health requirements - to reduce the likely-hood of person with mental issues shooting a bunch of people.

The key problem area/possibility I see with that are how we define what "training requirements" and "mental health requirements" are.
Because I could see such a system being abused to remove any right to own/carry firearms.

I'm less inclined to agree that we need weapon type and capacity limits - mag size limits, "assault weapons ban", etc.
I can see how limiting access to weapons with higher capability might seem a good idea, but to me the benefits are not outweighed by the negatives.