The Stupidest Anti-Gun Arguments Contest

Tess · Feb 28, 2007

imported post

beatnik wrote:

Tess wrote:

Sometimes I agree that I'd agree with acomplete ban on all firearms, and then ask them how they could ascertain there was not a single firearm left in the world.

Click to expand...

Well, I had to join the board to respond to this one, especially since you're a neighbor (Woodbridge, VA here....)

I realize that this is all hypothetical speaking, but I think you've hit on what I think is the stupidest anti argument out there. I'm sure that they think that the end goal is to be completely rid of all firearms and thus completely rid of firearms violence.

Suppose we do that. We actually go door-to-door and confiscate, we actually imprison or otherwise deal harshly with people who hold back. What's the end result?

How long after that will taxes go up to 90% of all income? How long before police run roughshod over the population? How long before you're told what your job is going to be, how many kids you're going to have, what churches you're allowed to attend, and what houses you're allowed to live in, all in the name of "equality"?

Less than a lifetime. Probably much less. It's human nature that some people seek domination over other people.

It happened in the recent past, it still happens to this day, and it'll continue to happen everywhere the people don't have the right to defend themselves. I'm fortunate enough to work with a former member of the USSR army - the USSR wasn't that long ago - so I get periodic reminders of what things could be like.

And when they say "it could never be like that in America", I usually respond by pointing out that we still have our guns and yet the federal government still figured out how to regulate how much we can poop in a single sitting.

My point exactly.

possumboy · Mar 6, 2007

imported post

Looks like one agruement is over: Police are trained to use their guns...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/UNTRAINED_POLICE?SITE=VAWOO&SECTION=US

LeagueOf1291 · Mar 6, 2007

imported post

The article said in part:

Some states like Tennessee, which allows officers six months to attend a training academy, have considered eliminating the grace period, said Brian Grisham, executive secretary of Tennessee's Peace Officers Standards and Training.

"The days of `Barney Fife, here's your gun and go' are over. You have to be trained first," Grisham said. "There's too much liability."

This is so weird. I think a cop ought to be trained because of his responsibility.

They think a cop ought to be trained because of "liability." And this from one of the chief policymakers of the state in matters of standards and training.

You see the disconnect here? You see why I want the people to keep a tight rein on the government?

Could we get a response from a state policy maker? Could we maybe send a response to this Grisham guy under the organization's letterhead?

possumboy · Mar 9, 2007

imported post

I just heard "the perfect world" speech. I had to agree with him. If I lived in a perfect world, I would not need a gun - or any weapon - to defend myself.

I did tell him that "until I find the perfect world, I'm carrying my gun."

I find this even more ironic, since we are are working for a "prison" agency. In the perfect world, we would not need prisons!

tattedupboy · Mar 20, 2007

imported post

Yes, it is true that 2A does not say"firearms," but nevertheless, looking at it in a purely strict constructionist manner would lead me to believe that the arms to which the founders referred were firearms. And yes, even though they could not possibly have foreseen the development of nuclear arms, if they had, I believe that the wording for2A would have been adjusted accordingly. However, whether I'm right or you guys are right it will be impossible to know simply because trying to get inside theminds of the Founding Fathers, being the intelligent men they were,issimply not possible.

P.S. I think I'm right about arms referring to firearms, though

Tomahawk wrote:

LeagueOf1291 wrote:

tattedupboy wrote:

Here are my favorites:

<snip>
"If the 2nd amendmentcan be used to justify private firearms ownership, then it can also be used to justify private ownership of nuclear weapons." To which I respond that the original intent of 2A was firearms; the writers of the 2nd amendment could not possibly have intended that right to extend to nuclear weapons, which did not exist at the time, and which they certainly would not have included had they did exist.

<snip>

Click to expand...

Well, by this reasoning, the writers of the 2A only intended to protect the right to bear arms of the kind they had in their day.

I think a better argument is that if they want to deny the right of citizens to own nuclear weapons, they need to pass a constitutional amendment doing so. I'd might vote in favor.

But the government must act within its authority. The authority of the government is defined in the constitution, and if they don't like what it says, they need to change it by the allowed process of amendment instead of breaking the law.

Click to expand...

That's a good way to argue it. The 2A does not say "firearms", it says arms. That means weapons, period. In those days, there was no prohibition on owning cannons or explosives; even today gun powder and muzzle-loaded cannons are legal in most places, and you can buy them without using an FFL.

The BATFE prohibitions on machineguns, artillery, explosives, even nuclear weapons, are all unconstitutional by strict interpretation. And in this day and age, machine guns, artillery, and even the odd fighter jet may be useful for deposing tyrants. But as much as I support the abolition of all gun laws, I may be persuaded to support ammending the constitution to restrict the use and handling of nuclear explosives. The use of such devices in future space exploration may be handy someday, but I certainly don't relish the thought of my idiot neighbor having a negligent discharge with one of these!

Tomahawk · Mar 20, 2007

imported post

tattedupboy wrote:

Yes, it is true that 2A does not say"firearms," but nevertheless, looking at it in a purely strict constructionist manner would lead me to believe that the arms to which the founders referred were firearms. And yes, even though they could not possibly have foreseen the development of nuclear arms, if they had, I believe that the wording for2A would have been adjusted accordingly. However, whether I'm right or you guys are right it will be impossible to know simply because trying to get inside theminds of the Founding Fathers, being the intelligent men they were,issimply not possible.

P.S. I think I'm right about arms referring to firearms, though

You are probably correct, but like you said, you can't read the minds of those who wrote, voted on, and signed these documents over 200 years ago.

I don't like to call myself a "strict constructionist", but rather an "original textualist". I don't want to play the game of trying to read the founders' minds, because if I argue that they must have meant "firearms", some anti could just as easily argue that they meant only "flintlocks", and we would have to commence arguing over letters and journals written by the founders, which may have been written to please a constituancy, are not official documents,and do not have the force of law.

Instead, I argue that we should just read the text of the second ammendment and stick to that and only that. If anything about it is confusing, look up the definition of words as used in the year the words were written (eg. meaning of "well regulated" in 1787).

I realize this may be a bit unrealistic, but I like the idea of sticking to the ink on the paper instead of letting some leftist judge decide what he or she thinks was going on inside Madison's brain.

JBTennessee · Mar 20, 2007

imported post

My interpretation of what the 2A means by "arms" is linear descendents of weapons used at the time. This includes all pistols, and long arms alike. It would also include the artillery used today. Nuclear weapons have no linear descendents at the time the constitution was written, and therefore are not included......just my $.02

LeagueOf1291 · Mar 21, 2007

imported post

tattedupboy wrote:

Yes, it is true that 2A does not say"firearms," but nevertheless, looking at it in a purely strict constructionist manner would lead me to believe that the arms to which the founders referred were firearms. And yes, even though they could not possibly have foreseen the development of nuclear arms, if they had, I believe that the wording for2A would have been adjusted accordingly. However, whether I'm right or you guys are right it will be impossible to know simply because trying to get inside theminds of the Founding Fathers, being the intelligent men they were,issimply not possible.

P.S. I think I'm right about arms referring to firearms, though

Isn't it funny how antis can switch to strict constructionism when it suits them?

But the way to figure out what they meant by "arms" is by looking at how they used the term in their day. At the time the Amendment was ratified in 1791, the word "arms" had been used the same way for nearly 6 centuries.

It meant, very simply, "weapons." As a verb it was used as early as 1205 to mean "to furnish with weapons."

Webster's 1828 Amercian Dictionary of the English Language shows that it was still used in that sense, and even more broadly,37 years later: "1. Weapons of offense, and armor for defense and protection of the body." This is not specifically limited to firearms, but certainly includes them.

They used the broader term, in order to avoid ruling out a class of offensive weapons.

In short, the antis can't get any help from messing around with the definition of "arms."

UTOC-45-44 · Mar 21, 2007

imported post

LeagueOf1291 wrote:

I read someone post in response to an article about a mass murderer who was shot by an armed citizen.

Someone argued that if there was a law against having guns, there wouldn't have been any deaths to start with.

This is incomprehensibly stupid. The law against murder didn't stop the killer, but a law against gun possession would have?? :banghead:

I thought I'd ask you all -- what is the stupidest anti-gun argument you've ever heard?

Let's have ALL knifes in a household confiscated,Silverware, chairs,TireIrons...Pretty Much Everything in a house and also around us..., By the way Let's have all the Vehicles destroyed and the ONLY way to work and Store and etc, would be public transportation controlled by the Government:what::cuss:. If that doesn't work...Put ALL People behind Bars so that we can't be around ANYBODY. THAT"S WHAT I WOULD CALL PREVENTIVE :banghead:.

Either the PEOPLE has Constitutional Rights or not

possumboy · Mar 30, 2007

imported post

Found this video today, it is about ghost at the OC Corral.

http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=C5C85D6B-2813-4EAD-8264-B5934BFD7B20,258AB831-ED3F-4DB9-A162-A78E56A103E1,3DB4C0AC-CB19-4E04-8BDB-0874E22E5364&t=c3100&f=06/64&p=Source_AETN_history&fg=&GT1=9145

The history of the OK corral is lawman, tangled with criminals. So why do they relate that people carrying gun legally? If I was a stealing cattle (or car jacking would be a more modern equalivant), I don't think I would be worrying about gun laws anyway.

AlreadyThere · Mar 30, 2007

imported post

'Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then
beat you with experience.'

ProguninTN · Mar 31, 2007

imported post

AlreadyThere wrote:

'Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then
beat you with experience.'

You can say that again. :banghead:

Progun

Basic Guy · Apr 1, 2007

imported post

While the second amendment states that we have a right to keep and bear arms the US Code which was put down by pretty much the same group of people stated that ‘arms’ did not extend to crew served weapons. This did not mean that we were prescribed from ownership of crew served weapons, only that we did not have a right to own them.

So when an anti brings up the BS argument about nuclear weapons tell them that those are not covered by the second amendment so they have nothing to worry about.

The problem with most anti’s is that once the subject of violence, guns, or crime is brought up they become overly emotional and can no longer think straight – if they ever had that capacity in the first place.

One time I was having a discussion with a couple anti’s while visiting Washington DC. I basically stopped them in their tracks when I said that if we banned all guns they would be just as hard to get as a vial of crack cocaine – which has been illegal for a lot longer – and mostly available to the same market. There really wasn’t much they could say to that.

teknoid · Apr 13, 2007

imported post

The nuclear weapon argument is forgeting one important fact. Posession of nuclear material is against the law. Kind of hard to make a weapon without one.

glocknroll · Apr 13, 2007

imported post

Basic Guy wrote:

While the second amendment states that we have a right to keep and bear arms the US Code which was put down by pretty much the same group of people stated that ‘arms’ did not extend to crew served weapons. This did not mean that we were prescribed from ownership of crew served weapons, only that we did not have a right to own them.

So when an anti brings up the BS argument about nuclear weapons tell them that those are not covered by the second amendment so they have nothing to worry about.

The problem with most anti’s is that once the subject of violence, guns, or crime is brought up they become overly emotional and can no longer think straight – if they ever had that capacity in the first place.

One time I was having a discussion with a couple anti’s while visiting Washington DC. I basically stopped them in their tracks when I said that if we banned all guns they would be just as hard to get as a vial of crack cocaine – which has been illegal for a lot longer – and mostly available to the same market. There really wasn’t much they could say to that.

sorry basicguy, but crew served weapons are not illegal. They are heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (James Madison was long dead). Congress knew they couldn't ban weapons, because of the 2nd amendment. So they made certain types of weapons hard to get :sawed off shotguns (barrel less than 18 inches), short barreled rifles (less than 16 inches), and automatic weapons, both shoulder fired and crew served. Mortars and breech loading cannon, are, to my knowledge, classified as "destructive devices". They are legal, just expensive. And you have to pay a tax of $200 on automatic weapons, a princely sum in 1934. Tax on a sawed off shotgun is $5. When an anti tells me that only the militia should have weapons, I point out that every able bodied male between 17&45, and 17&65 if you have prior military service, is in the federal militia. In Switzerland, everybody is in the reserves. Everybody has a gov't issued semi-automatic handgun, assault rifle, or sub-machine gun. Guess what? No crime.

glocknroll · Apr 13, 2007

imported post

If you ever get a chance, read John Ross's "Unintended Consequences". It will really open your eyes. I remember when you could get a MAC-10 for $175, plus the $200 tax. Then they passed that dumbass law in 1986 (I honestly don't remember what it is called, only know I hate it) and drove the price of ClassIII weapons sky high.

Basic Guy · Apr 13, 2007

imported post

glocknroll wrote:

Basic Guy wrote:

While the second amendment states that we have a right to keep and bear arms the US Code which was put down by pretty much the same group of people stated that ‘arms’ did not extend to crew served weapons. This did not mean that we were prescribed from ownership of crew served weapons, only that we did not have a right to own them.

Click to expand...

sorry basicguy, but crew served weapons are not illegal.

Hi glocknroll,

As you see I did not say that crew served weapons are, were, or should be ilegal. I stated that the ownership of cfew served weapons was not meant to be covered by the second amendment. Heck, I happen to own one myself - a class 3 1919A4.

Oh. and the transfer tax for a registered short barrel shotgun is $200. The transfer tax on an Any Other Weapon is $5.

glocknroll · Apr 13, 2007

imported post

Basic Guy wrote:

glocknroll wrote:

Basic Guy wrote:

While the second amendment states that we have a right to keep and bear arms the US Code which was put down by pretty much the same group of people stated that ‘arms’ did not extend to crew served weapons. This did not mean that we were prescribed from ownership of crew served weapons, only that we did not have a right to own them.

Click to expand...

sorry basicguy, but crew served weapons are not illegal.

Click to expand...

Hi glocknroll,

As you see I did not say that crew served weapons are, were, or should be ilegal. I stated that the ownership of cfew served weapons was not meant to be covered by the second amendment. Heck, I happen to own one myself - a class 3 1919A4.

Oh. and the transfer tax for a registered short barrel shotgun is $200. The transfer tax on an Any Other Weapon is $5.

You're right. I was thinking of short barreled shotguns that are concealable (www.atf.treas.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/nfa.htm) which are classified as "any other weapon". I have to disagree with you about the 2nd. If the Bill of Rights only applied to things that were only available in the 18th century, then the 1st wouldn't apply to computers, radio, or TV. If you start saying that only certain firearms are covered by the 2nd amendment, you are playing right into the anti's hands. "Shall not be infringed," means just that to me. I think any restriction on any new development of firearms is an infringement.

Basic Guy · Apr 13, 2007

imported post

Crew served weapons - think muzzle loaded cannon - were available in the 18th century. The founding fathers actually stated that they were not considered to be covered by the second amendment -to restate - not illegal, just not a right to possess crew served weapons.

glocknroll · Apr 13, 2007

imported post

Basic Guy wrote:

Crew served weapons - think muzzle loaded cannon - were available in the 18th century. The founding fathers actually stated that they were not considered to be covered by the second amendment -to restate - not illegal, just not a right to possess crew served weapons.

That is, honestly, the first time I have ever heard that. Not calling you a liar, just the first time I heard it. It's also won't be the first time that I've been wrong, if that is the case. Could you find that for me? I would like to see it for myself. If I am going to quote something, I want to be able to back it up.

The Stupidest Anti-Gun Arguments Contest

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member