Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: Countering The Three Worst Arguments Against Gun Control

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    Countering The Three Worst Arguments Against Gun Control

    Some diptard liberal took three of our roughly dozen best arguments against gun control and attempted to spin them.

    Here's the article.

    Here's the three arguments, along with the author's Argument and my Counterpoint:

    1. Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People

    Argument 1: "...our public policy toward preventing auto injuries is not confined to punishing careless or reckless drivers following a tragedy. We think it equally important to have a licensing system in place to prevent untrained and potentially high-risk people from driving in the first place. Similarly, we should have laws in place to prevent dangerous people from having gunsóat the very least, required background checks for all gun sales."

    Counterpoint 1: Licensing does not prevent anyone from getting into a motor vehicle and using it as a weapon of mass attack. Although the truck driver in Nice, France had a license, it certainly wasn't required, and having a license certainly didn't "prevent ... high-risk people from driving in the first place." Put simply, licensing of any sort of weapon (including a motor vehicle) has absolutely no logical or rational impact on the use of that weapon.

    Argument 2: "Yes, it is true that dangerous people could turn to other weapons if denied access to guns. But this is a false equivalence. Research shows that attacks with guns are five times more likely to be lethal than attacks with knives, for example."

    Counterpoint 2: The Harvard study on guns and suicide concluded otherwise. Specifically, in concluded that when guns were available, people used guns, but when guns were not available, they used other means, and with an equivalent suicide rate.

    2. Criminals Donít Obey Gun Laws, Only Law-Abiding Citizens Do

    Subtext: "This is the futility argument. According to the National Rifle Association and its allies, since gun laws are directed at criminals, who of course pay no attention to any laws (thatís why theyíre called criminals), gun control canít possibly be effective, except in making it harder for law-abiding citizens to have guns to defend themselves."

    Argument 1: "First, the argument is transparently circular. Of course, as to individuals who are willing to disobey gun laws, the laws are futile by definition.

    Counterpoint 1: The argument isn't the least bit circular. By making this fallacious claim, the author reveals he knows absolutely nothing about logical discourse. Furthermore, he admits in this sentence that the laws are futile, then in the next sentence attempts to make a claim that laws are not futile:

    Argument 2: "But what about the possibility that there are potentially violent individuals who are deterred from carrying guns by the illegality of doing so?"

    Counterpoint 2: The author fails by focusing on the carry of guns, not their use. First, he's trying to establish "the illegality of doing so" when the Constitution's Second Amendment specifically states the contrary, that "the right right of the people to keep (own/possess) and bear (carry) arms shall not be infringed." Second, resoundingly solid laws are already on the books which address the proper focus of the situation, namely, the illegal use of firearms. Keeping and bearing arms is no more illegal, immoral, unethical, or wrong than keeping and driving motor vehicles, including trucks like the one used in the Bastille Day attack in Nice, France. The problem isn't the truck itself, nor is it the possession and driving of the truck. The problem rests with the the illegal (murderous) manner in which the truck was used.

    Argument 3: "Surely compliance with a law cannot be determined merely by looking at the instances of when the law is violated. If it could, we would regard all our criminal laws as ultimately futile because all of them are frequently violated. Should we repeal our laws against homicide because murderers donít obey them?"

    Counterpoint 3: Here the author commits several major logical fallacies, including a blatant straw man attack (creating a "straw man" scenario that has no basis in reality then tearing it down in a show of self-righteousness that also has no basis in reality).

    Argument 4: "It turns out that there is substantial evidence that many criminals may refrain from gun carrying because of gun control laws. In one survey, incarcerated felons who had not carried weapons during the commission of their crimes were asked why they decided against being armed. Fifty-nine percent chose the response ďAgainst the law.Ē "

    Counterpoint 4: Non-sequitor. The same applies to applies to laws prohibiting firearms from being used in an unlawful manner, such as in the commission of a crime. Many state laws significantly increase the penalty for using a firearm in the commission of a crime, and if the author's premise holds true, then these laws are equally effective without infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

    3. Any Gun Control Is a Slippery Slope to Confiscation

    Argument: "Even as a historical matter, there is no basis to believe that enacting some gun regulation leads inevitably to broad gun bans."

    Counterpoint: Any student of history knows this is a flat-out lie. Here's a list of such examples.

    And thus we come to the end of my rebuttal.

    If you would, please visit the link and help counter the author's several illogic. The last thing we need are diptard "journalists" who are published in an unchecked manner.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  2. #2
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,735
    The funniest is the driver license argument. Every time someone tries that argument with me I ask them if I can see their driver license. When they hand it to me I put it in my pocket. I tell them now that they don't have a license their car will not start. I tell them to go ahead and try to start their car - it won't start. They tell me I'm crazy - the car will start. And I say exactly. Like not needing a license to operate a car having a license has no bearing on getting and using a gun.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    The funniest is the driver license argument. Every time someone tries that argument with me I ask them if I can see their driver license. When they hand it to me I put it in my pocket. I tell them now that they don't have a license their car will not start. I tell them to go ahead and try to start their car - it won't start. They tell me I'm crazy - the car will start. And I say exactly. Like not needing a license to operate a car having a license has no bearing on getting and using a gun.
    The DL argument? I tell them you don't need one to travel....you have the right to travel. Then ask for their first amendment license.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,157
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    The DL argument? I tell them you don't need one to travel....you have the right to travel.
    Yes dumb bass, one has the First Amendment Right to travel, but you do not have the right to have a car or to drive. Those are privileges that must be earned the old fashioned way.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 07-31-2016 at 10:20 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  5. #5
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,735
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Yes dumb bass, one has the First Amendment Right to travel, but you do not have the right to have a car or to drive. Those are privileges that must be earned the old fashioned way.
    It was made a privilege by the court. The court declared the machine (car) as being dangerous, hence, turning a right into a privilege.

    Teamsters were required to be licensed to operate/drive teams of horses in commerce. Including to licensing their wagons. This was done for two reasons. One, to pay for the roads and second, to track them when they damaged public and private property. Private people were not required to be licensed because of the right to travel.

    My parents did not have a driver license until they were about 25 years old.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Yes dumb bass, one has the First Amendment Right to travel, but you do not have the right to have a car or to drive. Those are privileges that must be earned the old fashioned way.
    Wrong. An argument for another thread though.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Eeyore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    on the move
    Posts
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Some diptard liberal took three of our roughly dozen best arguments against gun control and attempted to spin them.

    Argument 2: "Yes, it is true that dangerous people could turn to other weapons if denied access to guns. But this is a false equivalence. Research shows that attacks with guns are five times more likely to be lethal than attacks with knives, for example."

    Counterpoint 2: The Harvard study on guns and suicide concluded otherwise. Specifically, in concluded that when guns were available, people used guns, but when guns were not available, they used other means, and with an equivalent suicide rate.
    Apples & oranges. He's talking about attacks (homicide), but your rebuttal cites a Harvard study about suicide.
    Guns don't kill people. Drivers on cell phones do.

  8. #8
    Regular Member HeroHog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Shreveport, LA
    Posts
    653
    ANYONE can own all the vehicles of ANY kind they want and drive them on PRIVATE property without government permission. You need permission to drive on PUBLIC roads maintained by the government.
    Speedy: LOCAL League Sec/Treasurer, Information Officer
    AKA: Hero Hog, Dr. Speed, "The Brass Mangler" and "That fat, old, balding, Grey-bearded gimpy guy"

    I don't have NEAR enough ammo on hand. `nuff said.

    NRA Life Member, LSA, USN-DAV

    "Stay safe..." - Paul "Skidmark" Henick, RIP

  9. #9
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by HeroHog View Post
    ANYONE can own all the vehicles of ANY kind they want and drive them on PRIVATE property without government permission. You need permission to drive on PUBLIC roads maintained by the government.
    Cite the law.
    Travel on public roads with your automobile is a right.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  10. #10
    Regular Member HeroHog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Shreveport, LA
    Posts
    653
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Cite the law.
    Travel on public roads with your automobile is a right.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Then how can anyone be ticketed for driving without a license?
    Speedy: LOCAL League Sec/Treasurer, Information Officer
    AKA: Hero Hog, Dr. Speed, "The Brass Mangler" and "That fat, old, balding, Grey-bearded gimpy guy"

    I don't have NEAR enough ammo on hand. `nuff said.

    NRA Life Member, LSA, USN-DAV

    "Stay safe..." - Paul "Skidmark" Henick, RIP

  11. #11
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    Anybody can buy a car without background check, without training, without license. A license, and insurance may, or may not be needed to register the vehicle to use on public roads. Nothing stops an unlicensed, uninsured driver from getting behind the wheel.

    Since I do not operate my firearm on public roads I do not need to register my firearm, nor do I need gov mandated training, or insurance.
    Last edited by WalkingWolf; 08-01-2016 at 02:29 PM.
    It is well that war is so terrible Ė otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  12. #12
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,735
    Quote Originally Posted by HeroHog View Post
    Then how can anyone be ticketed for driving without a license?
    A few years ago I was cited for driving without a license. Then they said my license was suspended. The judge dismissed the case.

    I drove for years without a driver license. I have one now just so I don't have to keep going to court to get the charges dismissed.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Whitney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    449

    ???

    You cant counter someone who has their mind made up. To that end I like to use the following:


    In response to the terminally ignorant,
    I'd like to explore the idea that we regulate cars like we do guns.

    To buy or operate a standard car, one will have to be 18 years old. Under that age, adult supervision will be mandatory. This means the adult must be in the vehicle with the underage driver.

    To buy a sports car, you will have to be 21. A "Sports car" will be
    defined as any combination of any two of the following: 2 doors instead of 4, spoked rims not requiring hubcaps, aerodynamic effects such as spoilers or air dams, a wheelbase under 100 inches, a manual transmission, a curb weight under 3000 lbs, fiberglass or other non-metal construction, or painted logos.

    For every purchase, you will have to fill out a questionnaire confirming you're a US citizen, do not use drugs or abuse alcohol, have never had a conviction for alcohol related incidents or reckless driving. Lying on this form will be punishable by 10 years in prison and/or a $10,000 fine.

    New cars will only be purchased from Federal Automobile Licensees who must provide fingerprints, proof of character, secure storage for all vehicles, and who must call the Federal Bureau of Motor Vehicles to verify your information before purchase. They may approve or decline or delay the sale. If they decline, you may appeal the decision in writing to a review board. If they delay, it becomes an approval automatically after 10 days. However, the dealer may decline to complete such a sale in case of later problems.

    Some vehicle law convictions will result in loss of your driving privileges forever. This includes reckless operation, drunk driving, an incorrect bumper height or attachment, or the wrong type of exhaust. Collisions may also result in permanent loss of driving,
    if injury occurs and negligence is proven. In addition, any felony conviction of any kind--even tax evasion--will mean permanent loss of your driving privileges. In these cases, it will even be illegal to ride or sit in a friend's car.

    There is also discussion of prohibiting brightly colored vehicles. Vehicles are transportation, not toys, and should not be marketed in a way that suggests they are intended for casual use. It is important that everyone be aware of the dangerous nature of cars.

    In the future, we may have to consider large displacement engines (anything over 2.5 liters) and transmissions with more than three speeds as being High Performance Items to be added to the federal registry. There will be a window during which you can register your items for $2000 each, provided you meet the background check. Otherwise, you will have to immediately surrender them to an FAL/SOT to dispose of on your behalf. Operating an unlicensed HPV after this date will result in confiscation and destruction of the vehicle, and the 10/$10,000 punishment.

    Eventually, we need to move away from the notion that owning and operating a vehicle is a right and entitlement, and limit it to people with a proven, bona fide professional need. There are plenty of trains and buses for normal people. This is how most civilized nations are moving and is not a violation of your right to travel.





    ~Whitney
    The problem with America is stupidity.
    I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

  14. #14
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by HeroHog View Post
    Then how can anyone be ticketed for driving without a license?
    18USC.... (Don't remember the section)
    Defines driving as a commercial activity.
    You need permission to engage in commercial transport on the government roads.


    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,157
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    18USC.... (Don't remember the section)
    Defines driving as a commercial activity.
    You need permission to engage in commercial transport on the government roads.
    18USC31(a)(6), but Title 18 of the United States Code is the criminal and penal code of the federal government of the United States. It deals with federal crimes and criminal procedure. The definitions apply only to this chapter.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  16. #16
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Argument 3: "Surely compliance with a law cannot be determined merely by looking at the instances of when the law is violated. If it could, we would regard all our criminal laws as ultimately futile because all of them are frequently violated. Should we repeal our laws against homicide because murderers donít obey them?"
    This is a common misunderstanding of the argument.

    The argument is not that any laws which are ineffective should be repealed, as he is presenting it to be here. Rather, laws like licensing or other such restrictions are given with the consequentialistic justification that they are effective and bring a widespread positive result. If it can be shown that they are not effective, then that proposed justification is completely undermined, and the restriction is left justificationless. Prohibitions on homicide, on the contrary, are solidly derived from deontological grounds where futility is irrelevant - the justification for the prohibition stands even if the prohibition isn't effective.

    The argument that gun control laws aren't effective doesn't concede that the consequentialistic justification is sound, but rather it shows that even if we took for granted that it could be a sound foundation, it still isn't valid justification because the law isn't effective, effectiveness being necessary for use of consequentialistic justification.

    I think this is one area where conservatism tends to be hands-down superior to liberalism - I think conservatives tend to have a much better grasp of deontological ethics while liberals tend to adopt consequentialist nonsense instead. This author was unable to realize the difference or which sort of laws are based on which ethics foundations.
    Advocate freedom please

  17. #17
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,735
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    18USC.... (Don't remember the section)
    Defines driving as a commercial activity.
    You need permission to engage in commercial transport on the government roads.


    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    18 USC 31(6)Motor vehicle.—
    The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.
    Anything else you need?
    Last edited by color of law; 08-01-2016 at 04:47 PM. Reason: OOPS already answered

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    This is a common misunderstanding of the argument.

    The argument is not that any laws which are ineffective should be repealed, as he is presenting it to be here. Rather, laws like licensing or other such restrictions are given with the consequentialistic justification that they are effective and bring a widespread positive result. If it can be shown that they are not effective, then that proposed justification is completely undermined, and the restriction is left justificationless. Prohibitions on homicide, on the contrary, are solidly derived from deontological grounds where futility is irrelevant - the justification for the prohibition stands even if the prohibition isn't effective.

    The argument that gun control laws aren't effective doesn't concede that the consequentialistic justification is sound, but rather it shows that even if we took for granted that it could be a sound foundation, it still isn't valid justification because the law isn't effective, effectiveness being necessary for use of consequentialistic justification.

    I think this is one area where conservatism tends to be hands-down superior to liberalism - I think conservatives tend to have a much better grasp of deontological ethics while liberals tend to adopt consequentialist nonsense instead. This author was unable to realize the difference or which sort of laws are based on which ethics foundations.
    What he said. +1

  19. #19
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    My common response to anyone claiming that cars are more heavily regulated than guns is to offer to have my guns treated just like cars even though RKBA is a right while driving is a privilege. I then go on to give examples.

    Treat RKBA like cars and anyone can buy and sell as many guns as they like, across State lines without any need for any license or background check.

    Anyone can work on cars, or even build custom cars without any restrictions on features, horsepower, gas mileage, passenger capacity, etc. Let's do likewise for guns.

    Anyone can operate any car he likes on private property without needing any license or registration at all. Look at what gets operated on the Salt Flats most years, or many weekends at NASCAR or other races. Let's do likewise for guns.

    Most anyone who can pass a laughably easy vision and skills test and is 16 years old (as young as 14 in some areas, no older than 18 anywhere in the nation of which I'm aware) gets a license to drive on public roads that allows him to operate any street legal car in all 50 States and DC and the territories and possessions. The license is typically good for several years, covers any street legal vehicle, and renewal is generally trivial. Would that my State issued carry permit gave me these benefits.

    Cars operated in public are required to have a muffler, which is considered standard equipment. Let's remove licensing and registration fees for suppressors.

    Only cars operated on public roads require registration. Give me everything above, and I might just be willing to register the one or two guns I carry on public roads. Rest assured, however, I will insist on not registering any of the guns used only for hunting, target shooting, or collecting.

    I've never had a gun grabber even pretend that he was willing to agree to treat my guns like my car once I point out how cars are really treated.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  20. #20
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,882
    mate, move to New York STATE and now your firearms are regulated worse than your vehicle since, at the cite points out it takes 4-6 months to be awarded an license to purchase.

    quote:
    New York's hand gun laws A permit is required to purchase handguns
    Registration is necessary under handgun laws
    Licensing of ownership is required
    A permit to carry is required

    To further elaborate the state's rigorous handgun laws ,one must have an understanding of how meticulous the procedures are. The application for a handgun license begins at the local police department where a background check and fingerprinting will be administered. Once approved, the application will then get passed to the New York State Police Department where personal references are mandatory for consideration. These references will include family members and close friends who can attest to the applicant's good moral character. New York handgun laws are filled with legislative red tape to delay such procedures; a license will be awarded within 4-6 months of the application's filing date.


    According to New York's handgun laws, a license is also necessary to possess a handgun in one's home or place of business. Applications are made to the licensing officer of the city or county where the applicant resides or works. Unlike most licenses, the right to possess is completely up to the discretion of the licensing officer. Aliens who are not of proper citizenship can receive a license to possess if such basic requirements are met: Applicant must be of good moral character, at least 21 years of age, clean criminal record, and no history or evidence of mental illness or addiction to drugs/alcohol.
    After the information is gathered, it is sent to the FBI for a full background check. The licensing officer can request further documentation, but the entire process will take 6 months in total. It is considered unlawful for any individual to carry, possess, or transport a handgun without a valid New York driver's license.
    unquote
    http://gun.laws.com/state-gun-laws/new-york-gun-laws

    ipse
    Last edited by solus; 08-02-2016 at 10:47 PM.
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  21. #21
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Motor vehicles are severely "regulated" as to the safety functions/devices. Should we regulate firearms in such a fashion? Should you get a ticket for not having your gats safety on? What about those gats without a manual safety? How do we know that the gat is safe? Yearly safety inspection? Yearly "emissions" test to be sure it operates safely?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  22. #22
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Motor vehicles are severely "regulated" as to the safety functions/devices. Should we regulate firearms in such a fashion? Should you get a ticket for not having your gats safety on? What about those gats without a manual safety? How do we know that the gat is safe? Yearly safety inspection? Yearly "emissions" test to be sure it operates safely?
    Who wants to catch the "emissions" from my sidearm?

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Who wants to catch the "emissions" from my sidearm?

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Too easy ... too easy....

  24. #24
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Motor vehicles are severely "regulated" as to the safety functions/devices. Should we regulate firearms in such a fashion? Should you get a ticket for not having your gats safety on? What about those gats without a manual safety? How do we know that the gat is safe? Yearly safety inspection? Yearly "emissions" test to be sure it operates safely?
    First of all, the mature and honest reader would immediately recognize my post as a rhetorical device for countering the inanity of the gun grabbers who suggest that guns should be regulated like cars. It is not an actual suggestion to treat guns just like cars.

    Still, I think my overarching point remains. In many regards guns and RKBA are subjected to far more restrictive laws than are cars. The contrary claim from gun grabbers is just wrong.

    You might note that guns are among the safest devices we own. In a nation of 320 million persons and probably that many privately owned firearms, how many are injured by a firearm actually malfunctioning (as opposed to user error)? What true safety measures could be imposed that are not already standard features on modern guns? So-called "smart gun" technology doesn't count as true safety as its clear intent and effect is to render guns less reliable, or to reduce user errors, not to prevent malfunctions. Guns don't malfunction, and when they do, their most common failure mode is to fail to fire rather than to fire when they shouldn't.

    Also note that motor vehicles are subjected to annual inspections only if they are to be operated on public roads. Nobody (in government) gets to inspect my cars that are used only on private race tracks, or my private property, or even on public lands that are not public roads (eg ATVs or OHVs).

    I don't actually own any Gattling guns or Thompson Subguns. But if using "gat" rather than firearm or gun makes you feel better, continue doing so.

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gat

    Old slang, meaning gun. Came from shortening Gattling gun to just gat. Was used during the prohibition era to name any gun, but specifically the thompson submachine gun, aka The Tommy Gun.
    Charles
    Last edited by utbagpiper; 08-03-2016 at 10:20 PM.
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  25. #25
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    First of all, the mature and honest reader ...

    Charles
    OK
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •