# Gods, Guns, and Guts **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 8, 2005, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gods-guns-and-guts/298474 "2005-04-08T21:17:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2005, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gods-guns-and-guts/298474/21 "2005-04-10T01:28:41Z")
Bazookas are guns. Rocket launchers are guns. Wanting to ban them is anti-gun. Do you see what nonsense that kind of reductionist argument really is? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2005, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gods-guns-and-guts/298474/22 "2005-04-10T01:32:56Z")
All right, before proceeding I wish to get some definitions straight. Attaching the prefix pro to a noun designates being in favor of that noun, while the prefix anti has the opposite effect. To be “pro gun” means you are in favor of guns being allowed to all people, or at least all law-abiding adults. To be “anti gun” means that you’re opposed to general gun availability, and want guns available only to a very small subset of the population, or no one at all. Thus Republicans are pro gun. Democrats are also pro gun. The platform makes that very clear. Wanting to change the details of how guns are made available to the public does not change the fact that the Democrats are pro gun, just any wanting drivers to be licensed doesn’t make people anti car. Insisting on anti-lock brakes doesn’t make someone anti car. Calling the other side “intellectually dishonest” does not make them intellectually dishonest, especially when your side has people like **Brutus** who intentionally post out of context quotes to misrepresent their opponents’ positions. > [@](#): > > No. Closing the gun show loop hole is a another attempt by the Democrats (some of who are actively engaged in banning guns altogether, which I may address tomorrow) to further their gun control agenda. So you’re basically saying that you know the Democrats have a “gun control agenda”, from which you conclude that the desire to close the gun show loophole is part of that. Until you provide some proof that the agenda exists to begin with, yawn. As for your vow to address to active attempts to ban guns, please feel free. Many posters on this board have promised me that they would deliver solid proof that the Democrats are currently trying to ban guns. None have ever delivered. I will assume by the qualifier “some” that you’ve given up on trying to prove that banning guns is a position widely held in the Democratic Party, which is at least one small step towards sanity. > [@CandidGamera](#): > > It’s true that there haven’t been concerted efforts on the part of the Democratic party to ban guns outright. My suggestion of “laying off guns” is directed to those things like the Assault Weapons Ban and the gunshow loopholes. Don’t worry about them. The Republicans can just use the resultant votes to show evidence that the Democrats want to take guns away from people - as the NRA and half the population of my state seem to believe. Well, I presumed that you wouldn’t tell us that we had “no chance in hell of banning guns in this country” unless you thought that we were trying to do so, but now you’ve been more clear. Now, how many serious pushes have Congressoinal Democrats made for increased gun control in, say, the last five years? I don’t think it would be good for the party to completly zap anything related to guns from all their publications. It’s a reminder to many constituents, particularly the poor blacks who suffer from crime the most, the the Democratic Party still has them in mind. ---
**Author:** ![Unregistered\_Bull](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3da27b/32.png) [@Unregistered\_Bull](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unregistered_Bull)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2005, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gods-guns-and-guts/298474/23 "2005-04-10T01:41:57Z")
:rolleyes: Trying to make illegal or to more heavily regulate small arms that are currently legal is an anti-gun or a “gun grabbing” behaviour. Agreeing with that behaviour doesn’t change the type of behaviour that is. Jeez, Louise! ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2005, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gods-guns-and-guts/298474/24 "2005-04-10T01:42:50Z")
> [@ITR champion](#): > > …especially when your side has people like **Brutus** who intentionally post out of context quotes to misrepresent their opponents’ positions. This is how pretty much all of these threads go: What does the DNC need to change to win elections? Well, the DNC needs to do this or address that… No! The DNC is without flaw, and the OMFGHALIBUSHCOBLOODFOROILICANS!!@#! are only winning because they use lame cheatz! Best of luck with that ‘The DNC doesn’t have to change a thing’ attitude in '06… ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2005, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gods-guns-and-guts/298474/25 "2005-04-10T01:50:26Z")
All the way through the looking glass now. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2005, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gods-guns-and-guts/298474/26 "2005-04-10T01:55:12Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > All the way through the looking glass now. I hear ya’, man, I hear ya’. Without bothering responding to the latest blathering from our friend **Brutus** , I will make one prediction. If anybody does bother to post “proof” of the Democrats working to ban guns, it will be: 1: Out of date by several years at least. 2: Involve someone who’s a nobody within the party. and/or 3: Not accurately represent the person’s political position. Wait and see whether my amazing psychic powers come through once again. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2005, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gods-guns-and-guts/298474/27 "2005-04-10T02:05:05Z")
> [@Unregistered Bull](#): > > :rolleyes: Trying to make illegal or to more heavily regulate small arms that are currently legal is an anti-gun or a “gun grabbing” behaviour. Agreeing with that behaviour doesn’t change the type of behaviour that is. Jeez, Louise! Nope. Repeating the same fallacious argument won’t make it any more valid. ---
**Author:** ![Unregistered\_Bull](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3da27b/32.png) [@Unregistered\_Bull](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unregistered_Bull)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2005, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gods-guns-and-guts/298474/28 "2005-04-10T02:19:32Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Nope. Repeating the same fallacious argument won’t make it any more valid. I know. That is why you are so incredibly wrong. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2005, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gods-guns-and-guts/298474/29 "2005-04-10T02:27:53Z")
> [@Unregistered Bull](#): > > I know. That is why you are so incredibly wrong. Gee, **Diogenes**. I think that we’re totally helpless against this great sardonic wit. We’ll just have to give up. Good night, everybody. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2005, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gods-guns-and-guts/298474/30 "2005-04-10T02:49:59Z")
> [@Unregistered Bull](#): > > I know. That is why you are so incredibly wrong. I know you are but what am I? Yeesh. The gun argument cannot be reduced to “pro” and “anti” based on an absolute standard of either favoriing anarchic freedom with no controls at all, or being called “anti-gun” for favoring any sort of regulations whatsoever. Should there be any rules at all? Should people be allowed to have nukes? How about missiles armed with chemical warheads? Obviously, there has to be _some_ line, the question is only about where. Screaming “gun grabber” at people is just reactionary, inaccurate, unconstructive and frankly childish. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2005, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gods-guns-and-guts/298474/31 "2005-04-10T02:52:56Z")
:smack: Gah. When I said that it sounded interesting, I was trying to show support for the part about religion. Now that I read this again, I see the part about guns. I know this isn’t quite on topic, but just for the record, I think democrats are doing a fine job on gun laws. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2005, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gods-guns-and-guts/298474/32 "2005-04-10T03:22:09Z")
> [@ITR champion](#): > > I hear ya’, man, I hear ya’. > > Without bothering responding to the latest blathering from our friend **Brutus** , I will make one prediction. If anybody does bother to post “proof” of the Democrats working to ban guns, it will be: > > 1: Out of date by several years at least. > > 2: Involve someone who’s a nobody within the party. > > and/or > > 3: Not accurately represent the person’s political position. > > Wait and see whether my amazing psychic powers come through once again. Do you mean other than the Democrats that supported the extension of the BAN on assault weapons last year? Which is that 1,2, or 3? 1. Within the last year, (8 months or so…) 2. Ted Kennedy, John Kerrry, Edwards all supported it, should I go on? 3. I think their support for the Assault Weapon BAN sums up their political positions accurately. Is that enough proof? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2005, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gods-guns-and-guts/298474/33 "2005-04-10T03:27:13Z")
The assault weapons ban is not a general gun ban any more than banning hand grenades. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2005, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gods-guns-and-guts/298474/34 "2005-04-10T03:38:02Z")
OK, so now it is support of a general gun ban that makes one a gun grabber? Before that logic was introduced, I would have added [THIS](http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C200502%5CPOL20050209a.html) link where Joesph Kennedy, son of Ted Kennedy, is mentioned as stating this gem: “U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy implied Tuesday that congressional colleagues who do not share his support for a failed gun ban being reintroduced in the House are mentally ill.” This legislation is in regards to the .50 calibre rifles that have become the gun grab target du jour, but I will admit that the legislation mentioned is specifically meant to BAN a certain class of rifles, and not all weapons. If kennedy is not a gun grabber because of this, what is he? A friend of the Second Amendment? I’m trying to keeping score… ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2005, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gods-guns-and-guts/298474/35 "2005-04-10T03:39:12Z")
Whoops, make that PATRICK Kennedy, so many of them its hard to keep track sometimes 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Balle\_M](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/13edae/32.png) [@Balle\_M](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balle_M)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2005, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gods-guns-and-guts/298474/36 "2005-04-10T03:45:33Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Bazookas are guns. Rocket launchers are guns. Wanting to ban them is anti-gun. > > Do you see what nonsense that kind of reductionist argument really is? Well, no they aren’t, according to the [BATFE](http://www.atf.treas.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/part47.pdf) (Warning:PDF) > [@](#): > > Firearms. A weapon, and all components and parts therefor, > not over .50 caliber which will or is designed to or may be > readily converted to expel a projectile **by the action of an > explosive**, but shall not include BB and pellet guns, and muzzle > loading (black powder) firearms (including any firearm with a > matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of > ignition system) or firearms covered by Category I(a) > established to have been manufactured in or before 1898. (Bolding Mine) Bazookas are considered “[Destructive Devices](http://www.atf.treas.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/guncoact.pdf)” Of course I know you won’t let facts get in the way of a good rant. > [@ITR champion](#): > > I hear ya’, man, I hear ya’. > > Without bothering responding to the latest blathering from our friend **Brutus** , I will make one prediction. If anybody does bother to post “proof” of the Democrats working to ban guns, it will be: > > 1: Out of date by several years at least. > > 2: Involve someone who’s a nobody within the party. > > and/or > > 3: Not accurately represent the person’s political position. > > Wait and see whether my amazing psychic powers come through once again. How about [Barak Obama?](http://www.issues2000.org/Domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm) > [@](#): > > ``` > Barak Obama > Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions > Principles that Obama supports on gun issues: > > ``` > > · \*\*Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons. \*\* > · Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms. > · Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms. Again, bolding mine. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2005, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gods-guns-and-guts/298474/37 "2005-04-10T03:48:09Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > OK, so now it is support of a general gun ban that makes one a gun grabber? Yes. > [@](#): > > Before that logic was introduced, I would have added [THIS](http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C200502%5CPOL20050209a.html) link where Joesph Kennedy, son of Ted Kennedy, is mentioned as stating this gem: > > “U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy implied Tuesday that congressional colleagues who do not share his support for a failed gun ban being reintroduced in the House are mentally ill.” > > This legislation is in regards to the .50 calibre rifles that have become the gun grab target du jour, but I will admit that the legislation mentioned is specifically meant to BAN a certain class of rifles, and not all weapons. If kennedy is not a gun grabber because of this, what is he? A friend of the Second Amendment? I’m trying to keeping score… An assault weapons ban does not contradict the second amendment. The second amendment has never been definitively interpreted as applying to individuals anyway. Do you think there should be any restrictions at all on what kinds of weopons a citizen may own? Should people be allowed to own tanks? Yes or no? How about nukes? ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2005, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gods-guns-and-guts/298474/38 "2005-04-10T04:07:01Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Yes. > > An assault weapons ban does not contradict the second amendment. The second amendment has never been definitively interpreted as applying to individuals anyway. But it does BAN certain weapons from future production and sales, and it was sponsored by high ranking Democrats. Its standing regarding the Second Amendment is irrelevant to this discussion isn’t it? > [@](#): > > Do you think there should be any restrictions at all on what kinds of weopons a citizen may own? Should people be allowed to own tanks? Yes or no? How about nukes? It always comes down to that question, turn the tables against the pro gun guy and see where his/her lines are drawn. I’ll proceed to tell you the difference between destructive devices, arms, and ordinance and then we can circle jerk it some more before one of us loses interest and moves on. I have no problem with the govt. keeping destructive devices or ordinance registered and limited access. Is that the answer you are looking for? When it comes to individual owned firearms, semi auto, single shot, pump, 12 guage, .22 cal, 50 cal, they are are all fine with me. Regardless of my opinions on the subject, Kennedy is still a gun grabber who supports the banning of firearms. Now was your reply a non sequitor or a strawman? I have trouble from time to time remembering the difference. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2005, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gods-guns-and-guts/298474/39 "2005-04-10T04:46:18Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > But it does BAN certain weapons from future production and sales, and it was sponsored by high ranking Democrats. EVERYBODY i is in favor of banning certain weapons. It’s just a question of which ones. > [@](#): > > Its standing regarding the Second Amendment is irrelevant to this discussion isn’t it? That’s correct. It’s irrelevant. I’m glad we agree. > [@](#): > > It always comes down to that question, turn the tables against the pro gun guy and see where his/her lines are drawn. I’ll proceed to tell you the difference between destructive devices, arms, and ordinance I’m well aware of the differences. They’re all still weapons. > [@](#): > > and then we can circle jerk it some more before one of us loses interest and moves on. I have no problem with the govt. keeping destructive devices or ordinance registered and limited access. Is that the answer you are looking for? When it comes to individual owned firearms, semi auto, single shot, pump, 12 guage, .22 cal, 50 cal, they are are all fine with me. So you’re drawing an arbitrary, artificial difference between firearms and ordinance. That’s fine. The 2nd Amendment draws no such distinction but whatever. Would you be ok with any ballistic weapon whatsoever? How about a rapid fire cannon? Why is a ballistic weapon different than ordinance. If the 2nd amendment allows you to bear arms, why should you be limited to small arms only. Why NOT a tank? > [@](#): > > Regardless of my opinions on the subject, Kennedy is still a gun grabber who supports the banning of firearms. Kennedy has professed no desire to ban all guns. “Gun grabber,” as I said before, is nothing but cheap, childish name-calling which is of no utility in a mature discussion. > [@](#): > > Now was your reply a non sequitor or a strawman? I have trouble from time to time remembering the difference. It was an on point rebuttal. And you spelled sequitur wrong. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2005, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gods-guns-and-guts/298474/40 "2005-04-10T05:27:15Z")
The Orwellian twists of grammar and logic necessary for **ITR** and **DtC** to conclude that the Democratic party hasn’t been the impetus behind every major gun control scheme proposed and passed in the last 20 years leads me to conclude that I am not now (nor likely to be anytime soon) ready to vote for a Democrat. It would be laughable if they weren’t in earnest. Oceana is at war with Eurasia, and has always been at war with Eurasia! :dubious: The bugaboo strawman **DtC** raises with his bazookas, hand grenades, tanks, and nuclear weapons :rolleyes: in relation to anything dealing with the 2nd Amendment further proves that **DtC** is not mentally or emotionally competent to even discuss the issue on any sort of rational basis. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gods-guns-and-guts/298474.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gods-guns-and-guts/298474.md?page=3)