This aired a week or so ago. It was the first time I saw that old clip of Wayne La Pierre supporting universal background checks. Since then it's been used several times. At one of them, Orlin said Wayne's not guilty of flip-flopping, like I'd said, but rather this shows an evolution in his thinking and he's just being honest about it.
What do you think?
Also, what do you think about the foolishness of claiming that criminals will not obey laws? Jon Stewart put that one down with a joke better than all our efforts to argue against its stupidity. Oftentimes the pro-gun folks say that one as a straw-man argument pretending that gun control folks are so naive that we believe it. In the Senate hearing, La Pierre seemed to be saying it seriously, hence Jon Stewart's joke.
How can anyone take the NRA seriously with leadership like that?
I'm trying to think of how you could be more intellectually dishonest in your representation of what I actually said.
ReplyDeleteProhibition was tried for about 13 years too, after they figured out it didn't work they abandoned that failed policy. Is that what you call a flip-flop?
orlin sellers
Why don't you clarify what you really said?
DeleteI just did. I've noticed you have a difficulty with common sense.
DeleteDo you think that schools who were once happy with 'gun free zones' but are now pursuing having armed guards are flip-flopping? You think Newtown is flip-flopping?
orlin sellers
Stewart jokes, but he misses the point. The law exists, properly speaking, to declare what harmful behavior won't be tolerated. It does not prevent bad people from doing harm, but it lays out what will happen when they're caught and convicted. What the law should never do is make a crime out of behavior that is not fundamentally harmful. Buying and selling guns between private citizens is not a harm in itself.
ReplyDeleteIf every single buyer ever was a qualified and fit person, you might have a point. But, they're no and you don't.
DeleteMike,
DeleteWe don't limit sales of smart phones, pads or computers because someone might buy them and then engage in defamation, incitement to riot or the use of "fighting words". Nor do we require that the owners of such items keep them secured so as to prevent theft. Instead, we declare those things to be reasonable exceptions to the First Amendment, regardless of how or with what tool they are committed. Likewise, crimes committed with a firearm lack Second Amendment protection, not because they are committed with a firearm but because they are crimes regardless of the tool used.
You mean, they're not qualified according to you. But the key point is this: Criminals will sell guns to each other without reference to any law. People will know if they'll qualify or not. Only a few will try to buy a gun from a licensed dealer if they know that they'll be rejected. Unqualified people will go to the black market.
DeleteThe goal of all of this is to control good people, not criminals. It's designed to condition us to accept registration and licensing. Ultimately, the purpose is to collect all guns held by good citizens. The problem is that your side has gone too far. We're not going along any more. We'll remain good citizens, but good citizens do at times tell their government "no."
Speaking solely for myself, I make the observation that criminals do not obey laws for a reason. It helps to focus the discussion as to why the gun control advocate with whom I'm speaking wants a law aimed at those who are not criminals.
ReplyDeleteThat's why, you said it. Since criminals can't be expected to obey, whom else should we aim laws at? The reason it works is because almost all guns that end up being used in crime were once the lawful property of someone. Laws about background checks, safe storage can really help that.
DeleteAh, now I understand. I disagree with the idea of applying that sort of logic to civil liberties. Even if I grant that your assertion of benefit is correct, and I do not, it sounds suspiciously like saying "I can't control him (a criminal)directly, so to control him indirectly, I'll control you (a law abiding citizen) directly".
DeleteBut you're pushing too much. We've reached the point where we won't comply. So you're left with a question: Do you want to turn good citizens into criminals, or do you want to back off?
DeleteThere you go again, mister personal responsibility. New gun control laws will not turn anybody into anything. You are the captain of your own ship.
DeleteIf I own something that is presently legal, but is made illegal in the future and I retain possession of that thing, I would then be a criminal. So-called assault weapons and standard capacity magazines are not evil in themselves. Making them illegal only serves to burden good citizens. But listen carefully: We are right at the point where good citizens will stop caring which side of the line they find themselves, with regard to the firearms that they own. If your side keeps pushing, you're going to get us to accept the idea of being criminals. You're going to get us to make concrete the idea that some laws are unjust and have no moral authority.
DeleteMikeb, you don't listen well to my side. You act as though you hold the moral high ground. But you should pay attention to what I'm saying. There are limits to what the law can demand. Prohibition demonstrated this. Laws against drugs demonstrate this. Pass your gun control proposals, and a whole lot of people who have followed the law their entire lives will question that behavior.
Is that what you want? If you look at the evidence objectively, you'll see that the vast majority of us do no wrong. Are you really determined to press millions of gun owners into questioning the value and morality of the law?
When it comes to civil liberties, there are few arguments more chilling than those that amount to "the end justifies the means". My fear is that many gun control advocates are willing to make criminals out of those who have, up to this point, obeyed they law. I suspect their justification will be that the loss of liberty by a large number is "worth it".
DeleteWhere the hell is your concept of individual responsibility? No one can make a criminal out of another.
Delete