Reasons to question gun control

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

*** They don't know what they're talking about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_de_Le%C3%B3n

"In January of 2014, de Léon was ridiculed by opponents of gun control for his lack of gun knowledge after he incorrectly described the rate of fire, barrel length, type of magazine, caliber, and the insistence of calling it a "ghost gun" of a semiautomatic rifle in a press conference speech about gun control."

"...shoulder thing that goes up..."

*** They claim to not have the objective of banning guns:
...but apparently when they can only block members and ban discussion:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1262
Does the blocking of 47 DU members speak to the acceptance of using "banning" as a tool?
Perhaps there's a justification for a few but 47? Really?

[Duckhunter935]

1. That is so true

You do not need to be an expert but you should at least try and understand the basics. I had to remind another one yesterday that said the Sandy Hook weapon was an assault weapon and was available due to the expiration of the 94 ban. I think they were genuinely surprised it was not a an assault weapon as defined by the law due to its lack of certain cosmetic features. I think they were also surprised it functioned the same and had the same rate of fire as ones that were banned.

[krispos42]

2. CT's AWB was in place before the Federal ban

The Federal ban and the Connecticut ban adopted basically the same language as California's. However, the Connecticut ban didn't have a sunset provision. So that means that, effectively, the Federal ban was in effect from 1993 until 2013 in Connecticut... 9 years after the Federal ban expired.

[Duckhunter935]

3. Yep

Something some people do not realize and the controllers will not point out or advertise. For them keeping people ignorant of the facts is good.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

6. I look at legislation and law enforcement as fundamentally requiring...

...logic, justice and truth. I've seen many pro-control arguments and infobits that are sorely lacking in one or more of those.

There are no good excuses for that kind of activity.

My advice for pro-control, "If you don't know, say so. Find some information and use it rather than relishing ignorance."

[Shamash]

4. But it's all about "character"

Not knowing anything about the thing you are criticizing shows how seriously you oppose it. Sadly, this is not exaggeration:

It's a matter of character, I have no interest in gun details. Why on earth would anyone be interested in learning more about guns?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. It's not even the lack of technical knowledge that upsets me the most.

I can accept that good people can have good ideas even if they are not versed in the nuances and minutiae. Yet what we see from the Controllers is not only an absolute disdain for the right to self-defense (bordering on the most vile aspects of misogyny) but a general lack of respect for some many other rights, i.e. political speech, due process, private property, safety from unreasonable search and seizure, victim's rights, rights against self incrimination, respect for the Constitution and the branches of government.

The authoritarian streak that attends the bulk of gun control advocacy is chilling. When I first arrived at DU I was pro-control but I was anti-controlling. I wanted access to guns as limited as possible but as a -- oh, what's the word -- LIBERAL. I wanted, still want, people to be as free as possible. Yet, as time went on and I personally learned about guns my fear of them diminished. I came to see them as a tool of self-defense as well as the sports and hunting I grudgingly accepted.

But it was the Controllers who made me realize their zealotry was toxic to our freedoms. The name calling, the bannings, the disregard for personal rights, the fantasies of violence against gun owners makes them dangerous. They're as dangerous as drug gangs fighting over turf. Only a fool would trust their personal safety to people with such overpowering contempt for neighbors who would never do them harm yet harbor such dark, malicious ideations.

Controllers have generations to go before they can prove they desire to shed their baser fantasies and can be trusted with a monopoly on force.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

7. But it is the nuances and minutiae...

...by virtue of the various proposed and existing bans and restrictions by which pro-control demonstrates that exact rejection of rights and disrespect for persons.

"Only a fool would trust their personal safety to people with such overpowering contempt for neighbors who would never do them harm yet harbor such dark, malicious ideations."

^^^ Well, exactly! ^^^

Thanks