OK, I was wrong. Though I fail to see much difference between Bush’s and Obama’s programs.
No, and the fact that it slipped under Obama’s radar is a minor black eye for him, sure.
Bullshit.
That’s true…because we’re living in your world. The world with cheap, easily available guns, that aren’t registered and which are being used for murder every single god damned day. We’re living in the gun place. So, yes, we are asking for some simple, common-sense, safety-minded concessions. Which the gun people aren’t even willing to talk about.
I guess when women wanted the right to vote, you’d have snarked that off as a “concession.”
I support instant, really cheap background checks, required for most sales.* I would be Ok with a ban on the sale of magazines over 10 rounds.
Using the No-fly list is a violation of Civil Liberties. Banning “assault guns” is stupid as there are no good definitions of what is a “assault weapon”. Gun Registration is useless.
Oh no. Unless you can prattle off an explanation of the exact differences between various sorts of assault rifle, explain the benefits of hollow-point bullets, and recite a litany of every flawed detail in any prior definition of “assault rifle”*** then you are not entitled to any opinion on “assault rifles”*** (or any other aspect of gun control for that matter).
This proscription applies only to matters protected by the Second Commandment. Feel free to prattle any ignorance about Hillary Clinton’s felonies, YouTube economics, etc. But gun control is not a matter you should trouble your brain with unless you are a paid-up oath-taking member of the NRA. Thank you.
Sent from my Heckler & Koch MR 556A1 using Tapatalk
This website is supposed to be all about ‘fighting ignorance’. In the gun control debate, the gun control side is by-and-large quite ignorant. Why complain when we try to correct their/your misconceptions. I’ll admit that sometimes the gun control crowd’s misconceptions are innocuous. Sometimes though, they’re extremely significant. Can you understand that?
It’s one thing to fight ignorance about technical differences between various kinds of firearms if the topic is the difference between various kinds of firearms. This is generally not a level of detail important or relevant to the issue of how easy it should be to acquire and possess firearms designed to.kill large numbers of people quickly and easily. There’s a difference between “oh, by the way, this is a detail you don’t seem to know about” and “your position on a broad policy issue is invalid because.you are unaware of this little detail.”
Its not an article of faith. it is a belief founded on a long history and evidence. Its like saying that the Republicans have not done anything to convince the Democrats that the Republicans wouldn’t try to restrict abortion as much as they possibly can for now and then try to ban it if they ever get the opportunity.
It is the lack of a difference between the programs that makes Obama no worse than Bush. No better. But no worse.
It depends. If they are trying to make policy based on that ignorance the it can be an issue. The original Assault Weapons Ban was just such and instance, and only made sense if one were ignorant of those little ‘technical differences’. If someone is expounding on a supposed fix or policy that has at it’s roots an ignorant misunderstanding of the differences or similarities between guns being banned or not banned for arbitrary or cosmetic differences then pointing out that their position is based on ignorance is perfectly valid. And that is generally the case in these debates, with the most radical and fervent on the anti-gun side basically not bothering to even attempt to educate themselves or even trying to understand why their ridiculous proposals are summarily dismissed by the pro-gun side. The only time you see something similar to this is in some of the nuclear debates, with some of the anti-nukes (the most fervent and radical) not bothering to even try to educate themselves or to even try and understand the other sides position.
No. True story. The number of gun control proponents that just want to stick the camel’s nose under the tent but has no desire to eradicate guns from our society is not significantly larger than the gun control folks who would repeal the second amendment if they were king for a day.
Then stop calling it a compromise.
Those simple common sense safety minded concessions are frequently not simple or common sense or safety minded.
Even if we passed every law you wanted, we would STILL have unregistered guns (I am generally in favor of registration) being used for murder every single god damned day. We can probably reduce gun murders with a house to house search and seizure of firearms but I don’t see anything about assault weapons, stand your ground laws (which I generally disagree with) or concealed carry permits that contribute measurably to those murders that occur every single god damned day. I guess what is common sense to you is not always common sense to me.
I don’t recall people couching women’s suffrage or any of the other civil rights issues as a compromise.
Would the right be offering a compromise if they offered to roll back gay marriage and replace it with civil unions?
Would the right be offering a compromise if they offered to ban abortions in the second and third trimester and severely restrict it during the first trimester?
Would the left be offering a compromise if they offered to pass ineffective meaningless gun control legislation instead of banning guns altogether?
These things are not compromises that the other side is unreasonable for rejecting.
You don’t need to know details about the mechanics of guns or NICS or anything to have an opinion on guns and their effect on our society. But we HAVE been saying “your position on a broad policy issue is invalid because.you are unaware of this little detail”
The fact that you think that an assault weapon ban addresses the issue of access to “firearms designed to.kill large numbers of people quickly and easily” indicates that your lack of specific knowledge is impeding your ability to understand the broader issue.
These regularity with which the ignorance of the gun control side of the debate makes their larger points invalid are ridiculously common.
If you are having an abortion debate about a rape exception to some abortion restriction an the person you are arguing against doesn’t believe you can get pregnant from rape, how do you feel about that person’s ability to take broad policy positions about the rape exception to some abortion restriction?
Bush didn’t invoke Executive Privilege to hide his administration’s involvement with Operation Wide Receiver as Obama did to hide the questionable practices of his administration along with those of the FBI and BATFE during Operation Fast and Furious.
Obama chose to end the investigations into F&F. Two main questions remain, (a) what actually happened, and (b) who was responsible? As it is, we’ll never know until a future President revokes Obama’s EP.
(underline added)
Generally-speaking, if you’re trying to convince the loyal opposition that you know what you are talking about, it’s best to get the facts straight. Some form of this conversation has been taking place since 1968 and the gun-banners still can’t seem to get their facts correct.
But as YOU say - “This is generally not a level of detail important or relevant to the issue of how easy it should be to acquire and possess firearms”. However, the people YOU need to convince to change their position on gun-banning and registration/confiscation do expect you to have a basic understanding of what you’re trying to ban.
On one program that Obama didnt even know about.
So, already revoked. And Obama had no hand in it. Nor did Holder.
But yes, Obama invoked EP as it was a witchhunt by a hostile Congress. Bush had a friendly congress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandalwiki:
*On July 31, 2012, the first part of a new three-part report, Fast and Furious: The Anatomy of a Failed Operation,[37] was released by Republican lawmakers. The report singled out five ATF supervisors for responsibility in Fast and Furious, all of whom had been previously reassigned. The report also said that Fast and Furious resulted from a change in strategy by the Obama Administration. The Justice Department was dismissive of the report, saying that it contained “distortions” and “debunked conspiracy theories,” and that “gunwalking” tactics dated back to 2006.[114] DOJ spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler, while critical of the report, did credit it for acknowledging that the idea for “gun walking”—allowing illegal sales of weapons on the border—originated under the Republican administration before Eric Holder took office in 2009. Schmaler noted that Holder moved swiftly to replace the ATF’s management and instill reforms.[115] …
On September 19, 2012,[120] the Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz publicly released a 471-page report[1] detailing the results of the Justice Department’s own internal investigations. The Inspector General’s report, which had access to evidence and interviews with witnesses not permitted in previous Congressional reports, recommended 14 federal officials for disciplinary action, ranging from ATF agents to federal prosecutors involved in the Fast and Furious operation.[120] It found “no evidence” that Attorney General Holder knew about Fast and Furious before early 2011.[121] It found no evidence that previous Attorneys General had been advised about gunwalking in Operation Wide Receiver.[1]
Now, you can argue that Holder should have known, but he didnt. Nor did Obama.
I think this is an extremely important and often overlooked point.
As I believe I’ve said either here or in the other nearly identical thread, pretty much anyone with the knowledge to understand the fundamental technical differences between a Military Style Semi-Automatic rifle and an actual Assault Rifle understands that banning guns because they “look scary” is a totally different kettle of fish to banning guns which have full automatic fire.
Basically, anti-gun folks are going to have a much more solid argument if they can convince people they’re coming from a position of knowledge, not a mere fear of something that looks scary.
You wouldn’t let people who not only can’t drive but don’t think anyone should be allowed a car decide what the road rules and vehicle regulations are - and I don’t think that people who not only don’t shoot but also don’t know anything about guns and (critically) don’t want to know anything about guns should be driving the legislation surrounding their ownership and use.
Even if *theirs *are the lives threatened by incompetent or irresponsible or impaired or enraged drivers? :dubious:
If guns were designed only to kill their own holders, you might have a point. But no.
And, if you’re going to talk about credibility, first please have a constructive proposal of your own to offer that actually addresses any actual problems in even a partial way. Mere dismissiveness and denigration does anything but help you look credible.
Nope-that should definitely be left entirely to the auto manufacturers and car enthusiasts. The people that know what they are talking about when it comes to driving and vehicles. :rolleyes:
Given that it would require 38 states to ratify any repeal, and given the fact that that’s very unlikely to happen in any of the Southern or Midwestern states, I don’t think a repeal of the 2nd amendment is at all likely, and I doubt that you think that’s going to happen either. You’re just arguing empty hypotheticals, which is successful in the short run, but as it does nothing to confront fears of gun-related violence – fears held by people who otherwise strongly support basic rights of firearms possession – you’re not really helping your cause.
The fact is that there are compromises that have been offered that fall short of total outright bans on firearms possession. The fact that you don’t want to label those as compromises or the fact that you simply ignore them doesn’t change the fact that they have been offered, and summarily rejected by politicians who either authentic in their ideologically extreme position of allowing the current status quo, or those who are afraid of the consequences of angering gun rights activists. The longer people delay, however, the more extreme that the consequences of doing nothing become, the more likely it will be that there will be a more extreme political and legislative response at some point.
Nobody is denying that we would have gun-related murders every day. People ignore traffic laws, but they exist because the statistics show that they greatly reduce the number of people who would otherwise die without them. Ever since we took away people’s “freedom” not to wear a seat belt and the “freedom” to drive as fast as we want, we’ve dramatically reduced traffic fatalities. There’s no controversy. Air bag requirements and other mandatory features have also improved safety on the road. Regulations work. Laws work. The fact that some or even many people disregard the law is no argument for proposing laws that clearly reduce the number of fatalities and critical injuries. That’s just childish logic, as are dire predictions of the US turning into a fascist state because of bans on AR-15s. We’ve banned guns before – lots of times. We are still a democratic republic.