All right, I was exaggerating. If you guys suddenly cooperated with the common sense gun control laws that we propose and we saw a tremendous decrease in gun violence, we would naturally want stricter laws in order to lower even more the remaining gun violence. Eventually, I and most of the others would conclude that no guns at all in civilian hands is the best way to go.
So, in order to ensure that the three-steps-down-the-line situation never happens, you resist even obvious things like background checks and licensing and registration.
That's why you're in the wrong, not us. You see? If you cooperated and we reneged on our promise, which I admit we probably would, then we would be the wrong ones. But with your never-give-an-inch attitude, you are the wrong ones.
And, due to this fear on your part, a reasonable one I agree, many people are dying each year who needn't.
The right thing for you would be to cooperate on the obvious and immediate things which wouldn't interfere with your lifestyles much, and then take a hard stand. That way everybody wins.
But you can't do it, fearful, paranoid, self-centered, gun nuts that you are, you can't do it.
That's why you're wrong.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Why Pro-Gun Folks Won't Be Reasonable
This is a comment I left for Sebastian, which I have no doubt he posted, it's just that I liked it so much I wanted to post it here as well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
They don't have to do a damn thing because simpley they don't have to. Not now or in the future.
ReplyDeleteOur new Amerika loves the stupid and is proud of it.
So gunnuts are right that you want to ban all guns, but you say they are wrong for opposing the beginning of your plan to ban all guns?
ReplyDeleteYou flat out state you are lying in hoping to get people to agree with you on the first step toward total gun bans. You have claimed for years that it is not your goal to ban all guns and now you admit that in truth you do want to ban all guns. Well at least you have come forward with an honest statement.
You call then paranoid but plainly state that what they claim is your goal is indeed your goal. How is that paranoid? It sounds more like they are vigilant against your attacks on their rights.
Of course our sides have different definitions of “reasonable”, but what you are appear to be saying is that in terms of gun policy there are three different cases:
ReplyDelete1) Something which we both consider reasonable.
2) Something which we consider unreasonable, but you consider reasonable.
3) Something which we both consider unreasonable.
So you are saying we fight #1 because we don’t want to get to #2. An example of #1 in your mind might be background checks at gunshows, right? What do you consider an example of #2- as in something which you could understand why we would consider it to be unreasonable, but you find perfectly reasonable? Do you think your idea of confiscating weapons and permanently taking away the rights of those who miss their yearly re-registration would qualify for #2? What would be an example of #3?
To turn the tables around, do you think the same thing happens in the other direction? Do you think gun control proponents fight #1 just because they don’t want to get to #2? Like say for example screaming bloody murder because we want to be able to check unloaded cased firearms in about a third of Amtrak stations- just like we have always done for airplanes. Surely inaccessible transportation of firearms is something that all sides can agree as reasonable.
@One Fly -- Sir with all due respect and that is saying a lot, why do you think we read this blog. MikeB's is pretty much the short bus of the gun grabber blogs and gosh do you have any idea how hard those are to find (gun grabber blogs that is)?? NewTrajectory isn't bad and heck Baldr does his best considering his prior history of mental health issues (read his entries, the guy tried to drown himself--no stability issues there). Heck at least Joan Petersen is on the doll as a propagandist. She has to serve that stuff up as Brady Bunch board member. Read the responses on Sebastain's blog, Mikeb just looks silly. This is how stupid this whole argument has gotten, the Administration allegedly has to gin up support via Fast and Furious and let slip guns into the hands of drug lords and thugs at the expense of the lives of Mexican citizens and a Border Agent. Clearly there some exceptions to the whole "its all about safety" gun grabber argument, (Mexican citizens, children, Boarder Agents, people in boarder towns...) Then the President allegedly has to tell Sarah and Jim Brady that he's working "under the radar" on gun control. Finally, just as the investigation is heating up, the head of the Brady bunch, Paul Helke goes deep under cover and quits. Heck even MikeB could connect those dots.
ReplyDelete"If you cooperated and we reneged on our promise, which I admit we probably would, then we would be the wrong ones. But with your never-give-an-inch attitude, you are the wrong ones."
ReplyDeleteNever giving the wrong ones the opportunity to be wrong isn't wrong. It's smart.
"The right thing for you would be to cooperate on the obvious and immediate things which wouldn't interfere with your lifestyles much, and then take a hard stand. That way everybody wins."
That's already been done with NICS, the Hughes Act, the GCA of 68, and the NFA. In fact, not only have gun owners cooperated with the gun controllers/banners, we've given you far too much. We need to start taking some ground back.
Relax. You guys w"won" again today. Ohio Governor John Kasich signed common sense gun law reform into law today which closed the restaurant loophole. And I was there in his office to personally witness your "win". Congratulations!
ReplyDeleteI do not want to take all your guns away. I admit I probably would if you cooperated and allowed us to get two or three steps closer to that. But we all know that ain't gonna happen. So, it's on you guys. The first steps in improving a system that is terribly fucked up is up to you. You're responsible for blocking that, at least so far. Later I think you'll be forced to cooperate, and then I'll be faced with a decision about how much stricter gun control I favor.
ReplyDeleteFor now we're still talking about background checks for crying out loud. You guys can't even go along with that and quickly turn it around on me about what I would do if...if...if.
Define reasonable? First you have to come up with a reasonable, intellectually honest argument to support your ideas. I have yet to see an argument that was not riddled with ad hominem attacks and a string of logical fallacies. How about anti-gun folks start being intellectually honest?
ReplyDeleteGEJ, So I accused you of something and you turn around and accuse me of it. Can you be any more infantile?
ReplyDeleteI've come up with any number of "reasonable, intellectually honest arguments" to support my ideas. You just don't agree with them and resent my presenting them in a reasonable and intellectually honest way. So, what do you do? You attack personally by accusing me of not being reasonable and honest.