Mon Jan 28, 2013, 05:48 PM
Flying Squirrel (2,657 posts)
Gun-control debate: True and false equivalencies
MIMBRES, N.M. Ė Every child has a nose for sniffing out hypocrisy and a heart for fairness. Maybe we become more vulnerable to hypocritical arguments as we age. Otherwise, politicians and lobbyists would be exposed as emperors without clothes in a heartbeat. Then they would be shamed and silenced. Or, maybe they continue to believe that if they keep repeating an untruth often and loudly, it will magically become true. And it seems to have become so with a segment of our population that is suspicious of government, any government, but especially government led by a black man.
There are limits to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly. You canít yell fire in a movie theatre, you canít defame, or libel, someoneís reputation with untrue statements, and you canít block traffic. There are seven words you canít say on television. Fighting words are banned. There are other considerations about what is not permitted to be said or done. Why do some people think the second amendment is the only amendment that should have no restrictions? The false ďslippery slopeĒ argument is just about as silly as opposing seat belts.
I grew up in a household with guns. I learned to shoot a gun when I was about seven, a gun with a name, a .22 caliber rifle named Bonnie. I wore deerskin gloves and slippers, ate venison. My father killed these deer. Since becoming an adult I have decided that guns were not necessary in my life, and never owned one. I donít have a problem with hunters, responsible people who want to have reasonable guns as long as they eat what they kill, behave responsibly and keep their guns locked and UNloaded when not in use. Any hunter who needs an assault rifle with a high capacity magazine for deer hunting will not have much deer left after the kill. No venison, no slippers, no gloves.
If more guns could keep us safer, then we would already be safer. When we think about death in general, we think about disease. When unintentional (accidents) and intentional injury (homicide and suicide) are all in the top five causes of death in young people, with guns figuring large in these rates, maybe we need to think about violence as a public health issue. When more U.S. soldiers die from suicide than combat, we should weep. When two highly decorated generals (Colin Powell and Stanley McChrystal) both say ordinary citizens donít need military weapons, we should believe them. When the most conservative member of the Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia, says the second amendment is a right, but not an absolute right without any restriction, we should applaud him.
2 replies, 923 views
Gun-control debate: True and false equivalencies (Original post)
|Flying Squirrel||Jan 2013||OP|
|Flying Squirrel||Jan 2013||#2|
Response to Flying Squirrel (Original post)
Mon Jan 28, 2013, 06:26 PM
madville (3,308 posts)
1. There are already thousands of restrictions on firearms
NFA, open carry laws, concealed carry laws, gun-free zones, import restrictions, minimum ages for possession and purchase, restricted people, transport laws, storage laws, transfer laws, maximum round capacity laws, shooting restrictions, state level bans and restrictions, background checks, licensing, taxes, ammo restrictions, etc, etc, etc.
The argument that the other amendments have restrictions so so should the second doesn't make much sense because it already has tens of thousands of laws and restrictions related to it. But we always need one more right?
Response to madville (Reply #1)
Mon Jan 28, 2013, 08:39 PM
Flying Squirrel (2,657 posts)
2. Apparently we do
Since the mass (and single) shootings continue at a much greater frequency than most other countries... but I see your favorite group is Gun Control & RKBA, so I assume that falls on your deaf ears.