Posted on 02/16/2013 9:30:15 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
What many Americans consider “common sense” efforts to curb gun violence and ownership of military-style assault rifles and high-capacity magazines is met by much criticism and the claim that it is merely the first step toward confiscation.
The rhetoric sometimes seems to border on hysteria, and the “facts” and “quotes” mere fabrications to bolster an argument. There really should be a rule that if you are going to disseminate information be it a quote, a picture or a fact it should be accompanied by sufficient citation allowing the average reader to verify its veracity. Otherwise people on both sides of the argument are descending into the bowels of a propaganda campaign they claim to be sworn to oppose.
It is doubted that anyone or any side will claim that our current system is functioning. There are claims that hammers kill more than firearms, that the problem is medications do not control behaviors, etc., but there is little acknowledgment that the system is broken. We have had limits on the sale of military assault rifles previously without progressing to confiscation and we can again. Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to bear arms is just that, a right, but please read the entire opinion as it also ruled that restrictions were not without merit.
There is overwhelming support for bans on assault rifles, high-capacity magazines and universal background checks. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible. However, there are too many who are “straw buyers” for non-qualified purchasers; there are too many unlicensed dealers who sell literally hundreds of guns per year without any knowledge of the buyer. There are too many private and gun show sales to whomever appear with cash in hand. It has become true that some “legal” gun owners have indeed become outlaws...
(Excerpt) Read more at gjfreepress.com ...
There really should be a rule that if you are going to disseminate information be it a quote, a picture or a fact it should be accompanied by sufficient citation allowing the average reader to verify its veracity.
If this was the case not one newspaper, including this one, could print anything. And the democrat party would be shut down.
This guy is a clown and his “reasoning” in this piece screams liberal agent provocateur.
I just love how liberals just pull this crap out of their @ss and print it as fact. They seem comfortable that no one will challenge them for any sort of evidence for the claims.
What is distressing is that this is from a Grand Junction paper? That is some fine Colorado country. I lived in CO for six years growing up. What the hell has happened to that fine state?
to = too
they omitted the two words at the beginning of their sentence.
they are “Among liberals,”....
History teaches that the road to gun confiscation is also the road to extermination of a whole people.
This Hoffman is a seig-heiling stooge of the MarxoFascists and needs to be treated as such.
The time for talk is over.
You cannot reason with the unreasonable - so let’s get this inevitable fight and war going and get this over with. We’re waiting for you clowns to make that last mistake.
The author needs to get his med balance checked.
He admits there may be to many criminals but thinks the way to address the issue is to take away the rights and defenses of law abiding citizens.
This guy must be a riot to watch in the kitchen, when a knife is needed.
Does he pick up a butter knife to cut the roast?
Ahh.. he probably orders out so he doesn’t have to get his head in a fuss over thinking about where food comes from and how it is dispatched and prepared.
Perhaps he is a vegan..
Wait! they still use sharp and pointy implements to process that too!
Does this guy quake when he shaves? Those razors are pretty sharp and its right there beside your jugular!
I suppose he doesn’t have that problem, upon further refection, I have realized this fellow doesn’t have a hair!
My goodness Jim, Life is terminal, but stupidity robs you of the brilliant bits along the way.
a barackobama.com poll I guess
Do you even have a working concept of what this issue is?
The "overwhelming majority" of people didn't approve of Dick Cheney, or Halliburton.
But we know that a huge number of people don't know who the current VP even is.
And I'd lay money that not 1 in ten people even knows what Halliburton actually does.
But they don't like it, strongly.
On the assault weapons issue, the first question should be: do you know what an assault weapon is?
Again, I'd wager that you won't get a coherent answer.
The pollee, however will be against them. Strongly.
Assinine "polls" of stupid people who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground should be laughed at. Strongly.
I recall a political cartoon back in the sixties showing a woman berating her husband, who was sitting in a chair hugging an armload of rifles. “They just want to register your guns, not take them away.” she said. I guess this could be verified historically, as I recall there was a big deal about “registration” at that time. I don’t know why I should have remembered this particular cartoon, however inaccurately. I think some kind of BS detector I didn’t even know I had went off.
Why not? No system is perfect but ours works pretty well (in spite of the demonetization that the left attempts). Punishing law-abiding people because of the actions of law-breaking people is unacceptable and I reject it.
So what? That "overwhelming support" may very well be the fictitious creation of statist pollsters and media.
Even if were a true measure of public sentiment, so what? It would be shallow, uninformed sentiment ginned up by the lies of the statist media, and therefore an unsuitable basis for policy.
Even if it is a true measure of public sentiment AND were based on reasons those holding those opinions have considered carefully and could articulate, as opposed to being based on the lies of the statist media, so what?
Are we now in the business of abrogating civil rights based on a plurality of public opinion? Would it be OK to bring back slavery if a majority of the public wanted it? No, there's a Constitutional amendment prohibiting it. Would it be OK to bring back segregation if a majority of the public wanted it? No, SCOTUS has said it violates the Constitution.
Why are liberals so stupid, and why do the factors they'd never accept as justifying policies they disagree with ample support for ones they like?
Yep. This guy laments the fact that people making arguments on either side of the issue need to provide citations for their arguments...then he just throws this out there and hopes it is taken as fact.
He also thinks that if it were true, it would mean something. Our laws aren't supposed to be based on "overwhelming support", we have a Constitution.
If there were "overwhelming support" for outlawing the Press, would this guy be on board?
All of them are now centered on those three, so the word is out to them to stick with these three and get them through the Senate and the House.
“If this was the case not one newspaper, including this one, could print anything. And the democrat party would be shut down.”
That’s a fact.
“I lived in CO for six years growing up. What the hell has happened to that fine state?”
California happened to that fine state.
“I lived in CO for six years growing up. What the hell has happened to that fine state?”
California happened to that fine state.
Re: Your Post #9.
Yup.
That's exactly what the left will say, but they're disingenuous. Oh, maybe some of them really believe it will stop at registration, but have no doubt. A good number of them really want to confiscate guns. That's their end game, and registration makes confiscation extremely easy.
Let's say you happen to be on the government's list of people who had a background check. As I understand it, this isn't simply comparing your name against a list of people who aren't authorized to buy guns. When you get a background check, they get all sorts of information from you, including what you purchased. That information just doesn't simply disappear.
So let's say one of the weapons you purchased is now illegal to own, and you're given 30 days to turn it in. They know you purchased one. If you don't own it now, they'll want to know what happened to it. Most people will comply. If you're one of the holdouts, you're going to be under even more scrutiny. Maybe the guys in black will even do a midnight raid on you.
It's far, far easier to confiscate guns in stages than to take them all at once. The left is very good at this. It's exactly how they're working the gay rights crap. It starts with tolerance, then gay marriage, then equal treatment rules, then bans on “hate speech,” etc. Gun background checks are simply the first step toward eventual confiscation.
Personally? I'm not really opposed to background checks if it stops there, but the left clearly wants far more controls on guns. That's the problem.
“Why are liberals so stupid, and why do the factors they’d never accept as justifying policies they disagree with ample support for ones they like?”
Because liberals emote, not think.
Saying your position has overwhelming support is a logical fallacy called the bandwagon appeal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
It’s actually an effective propaganda technique. Anyone who disagrees with the author is painted as out of touch with the majority. The same technique is being used to increase support for sodomite “marriage.” Polls clearly show most people are in favor of it, so you’re abnormal if you don’t agree. It makes people shift their opinion to the perceived majority’s, which makes it even easier to sell as the majority opinion.
I prefer to hand in the ammo first at 1500fps.
The “media” needs a good whippin’.
They misquote, they mis-spell, they make-up stuff- they LIE.
It’s about time THEY are dragged into the light and ridiculed.
The Tea Party protested CNN in 2010-in Atlanta-(of course, it was never COVERED by CNN), but, as small as the protest was (about 200), it was extremely satisfying to be a part of it.
The MEDIA is the enemy, 2nd only to Bath-House Barry Soetoro, Soros and “The Iranian of the Day”-Valerie Jarrett.
If I need to get nasty, I shall.
I'd have no objection to background checks if it were done without the government ever coming into possession of the names of those exercising their rights under the Constitution (and it could be, easily). Since it could easily be done anonymously, and they've chosen a method that's NOT anonymous, that tells me all I need to know about their intentions.
Well, if the majority are idiots that actually doesn't reflect badly on the outliers.
“Jim Hoffman is a local Realtor...”
Little known fact; The National Association of Realtors leans HEAVILY liberal.
HEAVILY liberal.
I love their commercials that imply that membership in their association is a prerequisite to calling yourself a “realtor”, the dictionary definition of the term be damned.
Good luck with that.
No leftist survivors.
That’s the key.
Have you ever seen this? It is a clip (less than 2 minutes) from a television movie called, 'The Contender' (2000). It is about a woman, Senator Laine Hanson, (played nicely by actress Joan Allen) who has been appointed by the President to replace his Vice President who had passed away a few weeks earlier. In this clip, Hanson is testifying before the Senate during her confirmation hearing.
The movie is a liberal Hollywood producer's wet dream of the way big government should operate, and it is a dead-on window into the mind of today's typical liberal Democrat. In this brief speech, the nominee lays out exactly what liberal Democrats lust for in their hearts but can never say out loud. (By the way, notice also that Senator Laine Hanson stops twice to take a drink of water):
“There really should be a rule that if you are going to disseminate information be it a quote, a picture or a fact it should be accompanied by sufficient citation allowing the average reader to verify its veracity. (...snip...) There is overwhelming support for bans on assault rifles, high-capacity magazines and universal background checks.” (No citation provided)
LOL! Now THAT’S rich.
Metastatization of Califonianoma
Known here. One fifth of the funds used to defeat the measure which would have abolished the property tax in ND came from the National Association of Realtors. The NEA kicked in another fifth, AARP even weighed in against getting rid of the property tax with 20K. That was nearly half the budget used to defeat the measure.
The easiest way to blow that out of the water is to just say:
“OK, you can have your registration, with the ONE caveat that ANY further sponsorship or writing of ANY further firearms regulations or laws, other than REDUCTIONS in existing restrictions, results in that/those politician[s] immediately being sentenced to death and summarily executed”.
While they say that’s all they want for any given iteration of regulation, they’re ALWAYS lying, and the fact that not one single one would sign onto the death penalty provision would prove it...
And that’s not being facetious either, you can probably replace the death penalty with 25 years in prison, or immediate loss of office and lifetime ban from political office, and they’d still balk.
The 2nd Amendment gives us the right to match the firepower our oppressors. That’s all the writer needs to know.
Should be “of our oppressors”.
That just about made me puke. I suspect that Hillary Clinton was who they had in mind when they wrote the script for that character and cast it.
Isn’t Obama a straw buyer? With his operation of gun running into Mexico? What penalties are recommended for buyers such as Obama?
“who sell literally hundreds of guns per year without any knowledge of the buyer.”
I guess the universe for those stats only included those in the Fast and Furious program orchestrated by this infernal government.
A grand example of the hypocrisy of the left... First we find this in the article: “There really should be a rule that if you are going to disseminate information be it a quote, a picture or a fact it should be accompanied by sufficient citation allowing the average reader to verify its veracity.”
And, then, just a few lines later, we find this: “There is overwhelming support for bans on assault rifles, high-capacity magazines and universal background checks.”
Now, while I can get behind the ban on background checks (stupid writer), I don’t see any citation on the source of this ‘fact’.
The arrogance and hypocrisy of the left know no bounds.
The Second Amendment is clear in its words, and clear in its meaning. There is no room for ‘interpretation’, and there is no reason for America to accept the socialists’ plans, pogroms, or anti-Constitutional legislation.
Thanks for that interesting link on argumentum ad populum. I see the article also calls it the “bandwagon fallacy” among other names. This approach is used often and it should be countered by calling it what it is as you’ve done.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.