Marley: Gun Grabber is not restricted to the Pit.

[Irishman]

@pkbites

It wouldn’t help reduce any crimes at all except for the one that the anti-gun rights crowd considers the ultimate crime: owning a gun!

Those people don’t give a rats behind about reducing crime, or safety, or anything even remotely related. They want a completely disarmed populace. They don’t want you to have any firearms what-so-ever. Not for self defense, not for the security of a free state, not for hunting, not even for target practice. NOTHING! And they are using incrementalism tactics to achieve this goal. Registration would be a powerful tool towards their goal.

The gun owner who buys into the ridiculous arguments that background checks, licensing, waiting periods, bans, etc. will somehow make us safer is a damn fool and not worthy of the freedom he is surrendering.

Imagine we woke up tomorrow and all privately held firearms had vanished into thin air, and after that all we were allowed to own were single shot Muskets from 1776. The minute someone committed a crime with one (and in a country of 300+ million it wouldn’t take real long) the anti-gunner would be screaming to ban those.

Unless it’s an admission that they want us completely disarmed, do not buy into anything these people say. It’s a lie!

@Marley23

Nobody in the thread had proposed confiscating any guns. They did discuss the concept of registration, and Oakminster responded by calling them “gun grabbers” and saying they wanted to punish gun owners instead of killers. It was entirely useless.

@Marley23

I accused you of saying what you said. If you want me to defend my interpretation of the comment (which is why I moderated it), I will: I thought you deliberately made an overly broad and rather ludicrous comment about people who support gun registration because you wanted to accuse them of supporting even more draconian measures despite the inconvenient fact that they hadn’t said they supported those measures, and because you wanted to accuse them of having the wrong priorities even though none of them had advocated punishing any group of people instead of any other group. No one had said gun owners should be punished if crimes were committed with weapons stolen from their homes. So your post didn’t bear much relationship to anything that was being discussed. You accused people of supporting some things based on some other, barely-related or unrelated things. If you had made the point the way you made it in post #151 of this thread, maybe I would have thought you believed your comment was pertinent to the subject. Based on what I read, I didn’t think that.

This is pretty ridiculous. I think these comments by pkbites prior to Oakminster and Ludovic were more inflammatory that Oak’s “gun grabber” label and Ludovic’s dismissal of pk’s remarks as stupid.

@pkbites

It wouldn’t help reduce any crimes at all except for the one that the anti-gun rights crowd considers the ultimate crime: owning a gun!

Those people don’t give a rats behind about reducing crime, or safety, or anything even remotely related. They want a completely disarmed populace. They don’t want you to have any firearms what-so-ever. Not for self defense, not for the security of a free state, not for hunting, not even for target practice. NOTHING! And they are using incrementalism tactics to achieve this goal. Registration would be a powerful tool towards their goal.

The gun owner who buys into the ridiculous arguments that background checks, licensing, waiting periods, bans, etc. will somehow make us safer is a damn fool and not worthy of the freedom he is surrendering.

Imagine we woke up tomorrow and all privately held firearms had vanished into thin air, and after that all we were allowed to own were single shot Muskets from 1776. The minute someone committed a crime with one (and in a country of 300+ million it wouldn’t take real long) the anti-gunner would be screaming to ban those.

Unless it’s an admission that they want us completely disarmed, do not buy into anything these people say. It’s a lie!

Those are also “overly broad ludicrous comments” that are not advocated by anyone in the thread. Yet he gets a pass on his assertions about the motivations of his opponents.

I understand you trying to preemptively save the tone of the thread. I’m not sure how reasonable it was to hit those labels so early, when similar comments abound in GD and nothing is done about them. But your stated rationale for addressing Oakminster’s comments just doesn’t match reality. Both because pkbites did the same thing and got nothing from you, and because the topic of holding gun owners responsible for crimes committed by people who steal their weapons has been advocated on this board. I was just reading the thread on threadspotting about “my guns fell through the ice” where that was seriously proposed. So Oak didn’t pull that out of thin air, if he did post it in a different thread on the same topic (gun control, which is where that MPSIMS thread went).

I don’t think you were being intentionally biased, but I think you erred on this call. Of course, all you did was say “keep the tone GD worthy”, but really I don’t see where Oak or Ludovic did anything not GD worthy.