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?
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.
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.
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.
: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!
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…
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.
Nope. Repeating the same fallacious argument won’t make it any more valid.
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.
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.
: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.
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?
- Within the last year, (8 months or so…)
- Ted Kennedy, John Kerrry, Edwards all supported it, should I go on?
- I think their support for the Assault Weapon BAN sums up their political positions accurately.
Is that enough proof?
The assault weapons ban is not a general gun ban any more than banning hand grenades.
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 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…
Whoops, make that PATRICK Kennedy, so many of them its hard to keep track sometimes 
Well, no they aren’t, according to the BATFE (Warning:PDF)
(Bolding Mine)
Bazookas are considered “Destructive Devices”
Of course I know you won’t let facts get in the way of a good rant.
How about Barak Obama?
Again, bolding mine.
Yes.
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?
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?
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.
EVERYBODY i is in favor of banning certain weapons. It’s just a question of which ones.
That’s correct. It’s irrelevant. I’m glad we agree.
I’m well aware of the differences. They’re all still weapons.
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?
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.
It was an on point rebuttal. And you spelled sequitur wrong.
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.