HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » X, Y, and Z: Anti-gun-con...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:26 AM

X, Y, and Z: Anti-gun-control arguments make sense to me now.

In particular, the recurring "Legislation X is pure window dressing, it fixes tiny problem X but doesn't address bigger problem Y -- and you'll never solve the problem of Z."

If you're against new gun control laws, you're going to have to be against the "window dressing" ones, too -- and convince the "other side" they should be against them, too. It's very, very important to do so.

Why?

Because if Legislation X, the "window dressing" gets passed, the gate is open. Legislation Y will have a much better chance of passing on its heels. Legislation Z, too.

And Legislation Z, if you're against gun control, terrifies you.

18 replies, 1529 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to Robb (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:33 AM

1. The problem is after X everybody moves on

So in 1994 we regulated what semi-automatic rifles could look like and didn't do anything else because the base was misled into thinking semi-automatic rifles were banned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:38 AM

2. And then..

...the NRA comes along and says "See!! See!!!! Gun control doesn't work!!!!"

Which prevents serious gun control from even being put in place at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:38 AM

3. Just like the 1965 Voting Right Act.

Everybody moved on. No further legislation ever came.

The sense seems to come from many that the only time a law was ever passed was in 1994, and because it did not end all problems we should not pass another.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:48 AM

5. The trouble is

going back to something that didn't work.
Example NY, as our local Bloomie cheerleader shows us- if a ban using two cosmetic features didn't work, let's go with ONE cosmetic feature!!... but it still does not address a single quality of the firearm. So next ban the color black because brown rifles will be less deadly?
Also from NY- we already had 10 magazine limits so we will reduce that to 7. And gun owners are supposed to trust all those pushing control that 'we don't want to disarm anyone, there is no slippery slope'?

We are setting up a Republican sweep in 2014
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" Reason in Common Sense-George Santayana

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:19 PM

14. Exactly and then measures

that would prevent the 60 percent of gun deaths from suicide are not addressed. We could fund huge suicide prevention programs and provide access to care for those who need it. We could fund psa after psa to destigmatize getting care. But that would cost money and it is easier to pass something to make people feel like they are doing something. This is my beef.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:40 AM

4. Seems obvious to me. Especially when the new laws don't accomplish much.

 

Once you start limiting one feature and another shooting occurs, you need to limit the next feature, and the next occurs, then the next and the next. Because in the end even the most pathetic pea shooter isn't "safe".

If you want safety and could care less about rights, it's the logical end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #4)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:48 AM

6. And I should be able to vote whenever and wherever I like

It's my right.

Not one person, one vote. Not if it's one person, 2500 guns apiece. A RIGHT is now apparently license for a fucking fre-for-all with weapons.

I should be able to run to the local courthouse and start blabbing all my thoughts to the judge while he's holding court. I haz a RIGHT to free speech.

I should be able to call 1500 of my closest friends and go hang out in the high school parking lot or over at the jailhouse parking lot with no permit. The Constitution sez I haz a right to PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY whenever, wherever, however I personally interpret that right.

No rules, no restrictions on any RIGHTS is only something a child or childish person would endorse.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tsiyu (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:56 AM

7. You are right...thinking we have rights is a joke.

 

All of them are curtailed for the convenience of the government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:00 PM

8. Then why all the outrage over gun control?



If we accept infringement on our other rights, why no acceptance of controls on the right to "keep and bear arms?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tsiyu (Reply #8)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:17 PM

9. But people let their rights be curtailed. If you want to keep them you need to fight for them.

 

Therefore people who give a damn need to do what they can to keep what they have.

It's human nature to want to tell and even force others to live as you think they ought to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #9)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:31 PM

10. Tell it to the judge



Of course I can't just vote whenever I want. It would not be fair.

Of course I can't disrupt court proceedings, or we'd never see any court cases adjudicated. I accept that curtailment of my rights.

I disagree with "Free Speech Zones" etc, but I understand the need to obtain permits for large assemblies so that local law enforcement can plan for road blockages, traffic disruption and possible violent anti-protesters.

The fact that some choose only this 2nd Amendment right to flaunt and turn into an endess entitlement, and the fact that most of them absolutely excoriate OWS protesters for example - who are merely exercising THEIR 1st Amendment rights - tells me that gun-humpers believe life and our Constitution begins and ends with firearms. Their only solution is a bullet and then more and bigger guns. Our other rights can go to hell.

The rights of 20 children to LIVE was cut short by a gun-humper's weapons. And we should trust ALL the other gun humpers regardless?

They are narcissists, pure and simple.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tsiyu (Reply #10)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:54 PM

11. It's not endless.

 

You can't own a bazooka or a nuclear weapon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #11)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:05 PM

13. Oh, well then it's all good then



NOT.

You can kill only 30 people at a time now, vs. thousands.

Yip the fuck ee

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tsiyu (Reply #13)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 02:15 PM

15. Oh so killing 10 people is okay? Can you have 3 guns with 10?

 

I guess if you only want the capability to get one person you need one of those old time rifles that need to be filled with gunpowder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #15)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 02:20 PM

16. I have a six shot pump action 12 gauge

and two other low capacity guns.

I don't need the capacity to spray bullets hither and yon to feel protected. I don't fear the gubbmint, or libbruls, or teh gays, or anyone else for that matter. Except those who feel they need to own enough arsenals to take out the nearest small town.

Anyone outside of the military or LEOs who feel they need to have the abilty to spray bullets like a maniac is a paranoid, delusional freak. They should be locked up for the good of all of us.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tsiyu (Reply #16)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:13 PM

17. Maybe not now but is life always going to be this easy and organized?

 

An economic collapse isn't so unthinkable, nor famine from global warming, or other natural disaster.

God forbid we do need something with that capacity to protect ourselves and our supplies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #17)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:45 PM

18. So you think you'll soon need to start



spraying bullets at the hordes of kids coming for your canned beets? Is that the kind of world you envision?

If it gets to that point, no, I won't be doing anything to "protect my supplies." I will be sharing what i have and do the best I can.

I do not fear most of my fellow humans, and I think if we worked as hard on AVOIDING financial collapse as some "work" standing in line for hours to buy their killing machines - immediately after 20 children are gunned down mercilessly ( because the only thing their deaths meant for those people is MOAR GUNZ FER ME!!!! ) - we might get somewhere.

If the only thing you can manufacture is abject fear and the plan to kill off mass numbers of people to defend your tuna fish, you've already lost all perspective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #4)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:55 PM

12. We need more of the bush Patriot Act and TSA

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread