Really, I think it’s beyond stupid to try to invalidate an argument based on semantics. Whether it’s an assault style weapon or a semi-automatic weapon – who the hell cares. So who really gives a fuck if the people mislabel an AR-15? People may not know the difference between an elevator or an aileron - that doesn’t make them unqualified to demand improved air safety, and the same applies to guns. The fact is that these weapons - whatever they were - have caused horrific death and injury. There are millions and millions of people who have lost someone close to them as a result of gun violence. They’re fully aware of the fact that guns aren’t the only cause of violence, as if that is what they’re arguing. It’s not what they’re arguing. They’re arguing that we can regulate firearms to make the nation safer, and they are 100 percent correct, as other nations have already shown.
It’s called representative democracy. People identify a problem, and people demand that their representatives do something about the problem. The people who are suffering from the problem probably don’t have expert knowledge of whatever it is they are legislating or regulating, but that is not going to convince them or their representatives that they don’t have a voice. Again, the longer gun rights cultists continue stonewalling and protecting very narrow interests, the more likely it is that they will eventually find themselves on the wrong side of politics. Don’t expect compromise then.
A better analogy would be between people who own and use cars trying to debate a partial ban of cars by someone who has never driven a car, doesn’t really know how cars work, but wants to ban red cars with spoilers and fancy tail pipe because they can see they are race vehicles and shouldn’t be street legal. The pro-car guys have tried and tried to tell them that putting a spoiler, painting it red and putting fancy tail pipes doesn’t make the car go any faster or operate any differently, but the car banner doesn’t need those ‘technical details’…he knows what he knows, and knows that by banning all red cars with spoilers and fancy pipes it will save the children!!
I wasn’t trying to help my case, I was trying to correct an error. Trinopus statement that “Only a very, very few extremists want to take away all guns”
This has nothing to do with the Gun control side’s ability to ban all guns, just their desire. And this desire is important when we are discussing the politically powerful gun rights side of the argument making concessions to the politically feeble gun control side of the argument. What would be the point of making one sided concessions to the gun control side if it won’t even stop them bitching and moaning about guns every time someone gets shot.
You mean concessions, right? Its an important distinction. Would it be a compromise if the pro-life lobby offered to ban abortions in the second and third trimesters except in the case of the case of rape/incest and physical health? You know, as a compromise. Of course they would keep pushing to ban abortions altogether but they are willing to compromise and ban just some of them in the meantime.
Allowing the status quo is rarely regarded as extreme. YMMV.
The fact that you think this is a compromise is silly.
Doubtful. It could happen, but its doubtful. I don’t see the sort of groundswell that you predict occurring. I predict that one day we WILL have universal background checks and we may have licensing and registration but I don’t think we will ever see the sort of “extreme political and legislative response” that you fantasize about.
Things have been moving consistently in the direction of MORE gun rights over the last few decades rather than less. We have even seen an expansion of federal gun rights under Obama.
A couple of things.
None of the shit you propose works to any meaningful degree (except maybe background checks, licensing and registration). So you are just throwing up obstacles to exercise of the second amendment for no reason other than to fuck with people who lawfully own guns.
None of the shit your propose affects criminals very much but will affect lawful gun owners. So any effect you would see from these laws would be limited to the gun crimes committed by people who are legally allowed to own guns. What percentage of gun crimes do you think are committed by people who are lawfully permitted to own guns? Most gun crimes are committed by people who cannot legally own guns.
What impact do you think carry licenses have on gun deaths in America? None.
What impact do you think assault weapons have on gun deaths in America? No measurable effect.
Some regulations are just fucking retarded. Regulation for regulation’s sake is about as useful as requiring hospital grade facilities at abortion centers.
Too many of the regulations you are proposing are retarded and that retardedness is the result of ignorance of the subject matter. I suspect that if you knew wtf you were talking about, you would propose different solutions that wouldn’t sound so retarded.
Yeah you aren’t offering a compromise now so…
And I think you are dreaming if you think that the anti-gun revolution is just over the horizon.
Not, it’s not a better analogy. Every time this topic comes up, it is made clear that the only people that should have any input on this subject are those that have accurate knowledge…and the only ones that could possibly have accurate knowledge(and thus the only ones worth conversing civilly with) are those who oppose any and/or all forms of gun control.
It might be clear to you, but it’s not clear to me…just use this thread as an example of folks on the anti-gun side who don’t know what they are talking about, many of who are tossing around insults right and left. And it IS a good analogy, since we are talking about the Assault Weapon Ban, which was an attempt to ban guns that were functionally the same as guns not (yet) on the ban, but were being banned because they looks scary and military to folks who didn’t have a clue. You can try and spin that any way you like, but people who know what they are talking about, as opposed to those who think or thought the AWB was a great idea know better.
English, remember? It’s the language we are using. Because here again you are using English words in non-standard ways. To be clear, there have been no compromises offered by gun control folks in Congress. If you think there have been actual compromises, can you define the word first, then give an example? I don’t think you can.
We know. Why do you think there is a dearth of credibility in the gun control position?
The otherwise law abiding folks who would become felons care quite a bit. But I do agree, some semantic arguments do not have merit on overall positions in some cases. For example, if a person confuses a clip vs. a magazine, that’s not a big deal and doesn’t really substantively change most arguments. There could be specific instances where that distinction does make a difference, but for the most part it doesn’t and I don’t think it’s beneficial to get hung up on those details.
But other times, the differences aren’t merely semantic. The difference between a select fire firearm and a semi-automatic firearm is not semantic. The difference between something that impacts the function of the firearm vs. the aesthetic is not semantic. Willful ignorance insisting that red really is the same as blue is nothing to be celebrated, no matter how good the intentions are.
Just to prove your post wrong, I’ll point out that Damuri Ajashi, a regular participant in these threads, is both very knowledgeable on the subject, and supports some forms of gun control (licensing and registration IIRC).
I support universal background checks (if implemented through similar means of the Coburn amendment). Democrats in Congress could have UBC today if they were actually willing to compromise.
Yeah…the irony in these threads is that most ‘pro-gun’ dopers are the moderates, and most are willing to compromise on stuff that is actually meaningful and would make a difference. I’m fine with universal background checks as well, and even gun registry…as long as it’s clear that these aren’t slippery slopes to be used in eventual all out bans (i.e. some meaningful assurance from the gun-CONTROL side that they will rein in their fringe extremists and draw some lines).
I’d be doubtful of “car control” people setting the rules and regulations if they did inane things like saying any car with a spoiler is a “racing car”.
If only we were dealing with something as honest as an open proposal to repeal the Second Amendment. Gun control advocates don’t want to do that and don’t think they need to. Since the Roosevelt administration progressives have relied on Supreme Court rulings to uphold how they think the Constitution should be interpreted. Insisting on formal amendments to the Constitution is counter to their entire strategy and would undermine the legitimacy of things like the ridiculous extensions of the Interstate Commerce Clause.
More broadly, the Left seems to regard the idea of people choosing what they want as a quaint relic of an unenlightened era. What they want is for the good wise people (i.e., the Left) to determine what’s good for the people and mold public opinion until [del]the sheep do what they’re told[/del] outmoded ways of thinking have been reformed.
Specific policy proposals frequently require specific knowledge to support it.
Supporting an assault weapons ban displays such lack of knowledge.
I can’t tell you how many times I have had to explain that assault weapons were not machine guns. And when they realize their error, they just wave away the fact that one of the pillars on which they have formed their opinion of the assault weapons ban was illusory and keep supporting the assault weapons ban without missing a beat.
I don’t know if you realize this but there is at least as much uncivil conversation coming from gun control folks who accuse gun owners from everything from wanting to kill children to being the equivalent of wife-beating, racists terrorists.
For me, an actual compromise from the gun control side (pre-emption of all state and local gun laws, repeal of the stupider federal gun laws and a national carry license) would be very assuring.
Instant and really cheap background checks. Who would pay for the setup of this entirely new system, and what would be included in this “really cheap and instant” background check?