Sunday, May 29, 2011

The Gun Control Argument Made Simple


Is there a rational person among us who wants convicted felons, terrorists, purveyors of domestic violence and individuals who have serious mental health issues to have direct and easy access to firearms? The answer in any civilized society must be an unhesitating “No.”

And, in such a civilized society, it should be a simple matter to enact legislation that would produce such results in the name of sane and rational public safety.

Do we have such legislation in the United States? No. Why not? The simple answer is that the National Rifle Association and its followers oppose these measures — often through their omnipresent “slippery slope” argument: If we enact any restrictive legislation, where will it all stop — a Nazi-like confiscation of all weapons and ultimate subjugation of the populace?

The more complex answer is that the NRA and many of its members have bamboozled an entire generation of legislators into believing that support for any restriction on the availability of firearms is a third-rail issue: Touch it and your re-election possibilities are history. But, acceptance of this political “wisdom” shows a serious lack of responsible leadership and a distressing disregard of public safety.
What do you think? Please leave a comment.

9 comments:

  1. "Is there a rational person among us who wants convicted felons, terrorists, purveyors of domestic violence and individuals who have serious mental health issues to have direct and easy access to firearms?

    Do we have such legislation in the United States? No. "


    Uh, wrong. We already do have such legislation in place. The GCA of '68 and the Lautenberg amendment already prohibit all of those from owning firearms.

    Gary Sackett is at best ill informed but more probably just a liar.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yep, this is the typical gun control argument in a nutshell. As FWM said, illinformed, or lies.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "The simple answer is that the National Rifle Association and its followers oppose these measures....."

    Its always easier to blame the NRA than to admit that your views are not accepted by most Americans. This is a perfect example of the underlying theme in so much commentary from writers promoting gun control; that all kinds of "reasonable" laws would be on the books if not for the evil NRA, the shill for the gun industry.

    They can never admit that the power of the NRA comes from its members, Americans from all walks of life, who give of their time, money, and VOTES, to support gun rights.

    The deciding factor on firearms in America is US. Gun control advocates rarely admit that fact to themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anon wrote:
    Its always easier to blame the NRA than to admit that your views are not accepted by most Americans. This is a perfect example of the underlying theme in so much commentary from writers promoting gun control; that all kinds of "reasonable" laws would be on the books if not for the evil NRA, the shill for the gun industry.

    That the NRA has suckered in a lot of people doesn't mean the NRA is truthful, or that they are correct.
    Although I would vigorously contest you point that the NRA represents the views of either a majority OR reasonable people.

    It was the NRA that made participation in the NCIS data base voluntary and optional, through their lobbying efforts, and the political pressure they brought to bear with a lot of money.

    Very few people seem to be cognizant of quite a lot of what the NRA does, including a good number of their own members. Evidence of that is how few of you gun nuts are aware of the lack of participation in the NCIS, and how ineffectual that makes it for any kind of EFFECTIVE restriction on those who are prohibited from owning guns being stopped from legally getting them.

    And yes, they do shill for the gun industry, and that does appear to be the sole interest they REALLY serve, as opposed to APPEAR to serve.

    ReplyDelete
  5. FatWhiteMan and TS are right. We do have such legislation in the United States. The only problem is it's too easily circumvented. So-called private sales at gun shows and on the internet make a mockery of the background check requirement.

    So yes, we do have such legislation. And yes, in spite of that, convicted felons, terrorists, purveyors of domestic violence and individuals who have serious mental health issues [to] have direct and easy access to firearms?

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Although I would vigorously contest you point that the NRA represents the views of either a majority OR reasonable people.

    Yet Gallup polls over the years consistently show that people support the secondment and even recent polls do not support increasing regulations. Gun control is even less supported today then ever before. Remember, the NRA is the moderate gun rights group, not the extreme. Just shows how far out there you might be.

    "And yes, they do shill for the gun industry.....

    Unlike the VPC and Brady bunch, the NRA derives over 85% of its funding from individual members. The gun industry has its own organization for lobbying efforts, the NSSF. If there's a connection to be made, its a loose one at best. Generally, its made because a few board members are also industry leaders. Yet the same assertion could be made with 'any' board in any industry.

    "So-called private sales at gun shows and on the internet make a mockery of the background check requirement."

    Aren't you just grabbing at straws here? Mandating every sale between private individuals go through a FFL wouldn't have passed the last Congress (which was progun). Unlikely to get out of committee in the current Congress.

    Perhaps if VPS and BC were open to allowing conscientious sellers access to NCIS via a phone call, they might find a middle ground. Why are they against that?

    Besides, unless every firearm is registered, any such law would be met with huge non-compliance. Even in CA where every transaction IS mandated, people regularly do not comply with it. Too much of a hassle and unneeded expense.

    If you want such things, you need an incentive for those of us who don't consider guns any more dangerous then chainsaws or any other tool.

    ReplyDelete
  7. MikeB: "So yes, we do have such legislation. And yes, in spite of that, convicted felons, terrorists, purveyors of domestic violence and individuals who have serious mental health issues [to] have direct and easy access to firearms?"

    Of course that is NOT what the author said. Do you think he is one of the ignorant ones, or one of the liars?

    Dog gone: "It was the NRA that made participation in the NCIS data base voluntary and optional, through their lobbying efforts, and the political pressure they brought to bear with a lot of money."

    How do you expalin their support of the 2007 NICS fix legislation?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous, this is total bullshit, which you probably heard from Wayne La Pierre.

    Gun control is even less supported today then ever before.

    TS, I didn't say the author said that. I was responding to you and FWM. That was me talking.

    What the author said is you guys are brutes and savages (The answer in any civilized society must be an unhesitating “No.”)

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Anonymous, this is total bullshit, which you probably heard from Wayne La Pierre.

    I have no need to listen you La Pierre or the NRA. I'm capable of doing my own research and fact finding.

    "Gun control is even less supported today then ever before.

    Fact.

    The general trend over the last 20 years has been for less gun control (not more). Also reflected nationally state to state with the expansion of CCW, castle doctrine, and a host of other pro-gun legislation. You ought to look it up. The pulse of the country is not with you. Gallup polls (among others) ought to be easy to find.

    ReplyDelete