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 ...
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.
Yep - and then he has this: The vast majority of gun owners are responsible. However, there are too many who are “straw buyers”
Their "overwhelming" support stats are based on incomplete or twisted info when they poll folks. When you have a Vast Majority of folks following the law and being responsible, the "liberal" tactic is to subjugate them as a way of "attacking" the illegals. Net sum is that the law-abiders become enslaved and helpless and the bad guys go on as if nothing happened.
You must have not been told... in leftist La-La Land they only eat $6 cupcakes... iced with a paper knife.
The crucial, unavoidable and unmentioned elephant-in-the-living room difference is the occupant in the White House.
Given his thinking and past behavior, as well as those who he has appointed, no critical-thinking person can deny the distance between national registration and confiscation is about ->||<- that far.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers...
In a similar vein, consider the language used when antis talk about “reasonable” gun control.
If you are in opposition, yours must logically then be an “unreasonable” position. Your opponent has already defined the terms of what is reasonable, so it is impossible to win the debate.
Just by entering the debate on those terms you’ve already lost.
If it is reasonable, let's hear the reasoning, the logic behind it.
Most of their logic can't withstand daylight, so drag it out from under their rock and expose it.
“They just want to register your guns, not take them away.”
That is what was said back in 1964. In 1962, they said “We only want to register your HANDGUNS. Long guns will not be affected”.
Whoever wrote this article is an uniformed idiot.
The movie was made in 2000. If you'll recall, there was a lot of that going around at that time, mainly on TV. Remember the very short-lived TV show. 'Commander in Chief' starring Geena Davis? The 2005 series was about the first female President and her family, and was supposed to set the stage for Hillary in 2008. The show lasted half a season. Guess who the producer was?
That's right - - Rob Lurie.
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.