Your intent may be clear, but when you need convoluted drawn out examples to fail at making your point, it’s hardly simple. This is the best summation though:
This is actually quite amusing that you think when a gun is banned it’s not a gun ban. I’m still laughing.
[ul]
[li]First, you’ve failed at analogies again. In your example, you say there are no safety or emission standards and that this is exactly analogous. That’s not the case now and your analogies are terrible.[/li][li]Second, as a result of the first, your (a), (b), and (c) formation is worthless.[/li][li]Third, in the interest of precision, have you considered adopting “I don’t want to ban *all *guns” as your motto?[/li][/ul]
Here you fail at analogies again. You’ve switched who is articulating the description. If that’s your position, and a *different *person describes it thusly then yes it is accurate, clear, and honest. If that is how you describe your own position, I’d say you’re not a skilled politician. Look at how this plays out - I assert that gun control folks want to ban guns. It’s accurate, but not perfectly precise. Gun control folks will respond that they don’t want to ban guns. That’s neither accurate nor precise because they do want to ban some guns. To make their sentiment accurate the statement must be that ‘they don’t want to ban *all *guns’.
Gun control folks want to ban 100% of all new model semi auto pistols. Gun control folks want to ban magazines that can contain over 7 or 10 rounds when they can. Gun control folks want to ban the most popular rifle in America. Gun control folks want to ban a 30 lb rifle that costs over $2000, has never been used in a crime, is impossible to conceal, weighs nearly 30 lbs, and each round costs $4. Gun control folks want to ban possession of stun guns and nunchucks. Gun control folks want to ban weapons based on their cosmetic features. All that together though, they don’t want to ban guns because words have no meaning.
Sure, if you want to insist on precision, then every time we talk about bans, simply state you don’t want to ban *all *guns, and then list out the guns you do want to ban. If you do that, I’ll consider describing your efforts as a ban on *some *guns.
This is not just wrong, it’s wrong on two counts. First, this detail would make no difference whatsoever to the value of the analogy even if it were true. The analogy is a reductio ad absurdum that illustrates the deceptive nature of referring to a series of automotive regulations as a “car ban” or “ban on cars”.
Second, the analogy was intentionally constructed so that even this detail is, in fact, true. Every industrialized country in the world has reasonable, measured and successful gun control policies that are lacking in the United States. That’s precisely what this whole gun debate is about – that the US should look to the successes outside its borders. Thus my analogy of a hypothetical country that lacks automotive safety and emissions standards and is looking to adopt the successfully implemented standards of another country expresses a very accurate parallel.
As a result of the first being correct, my questions (a), (b), and (c) remain.
I don’t have a “motto”. In general, mottos and bumper-sticker slogans are a very poor way to characterize complex issues because they tend to introduce gross distortions and fundamental misrepresentations. Calling gun control a “gun ban” is one of the more egregious of such misrepresentations.
Here again you’re not just wrong, but doubly wrong, on two counts. First, I haven’t “switched” anything in order to change the argument. I’ve simply constructed a narrative about reasonable automotive regulation in order to explore the veracity of the statement that this constitutes “banning cars”. In my hypothetical, I as author of the proposal state “I want to ban cars”. I then posted my questions about the accuracy and reasonableness of such a statement. If you prefer someone else articulates such a statement, it changes nothing at all. Consider that it’s my opponent speaking, and he states “My opponent wants to ban cars”. The same questions remain as to whether this is a reasonable statement that accurately summarizes the purpose and intent of the proposals.
Second, your description digresses to a straw man. Sure, if I said such a thing, then my opponent would be justified in repeating it. But if I said it, I would be idiotically wrong, and if my opponent independently invented such a description of automotive regulation, he would not only be idiotically wrong but maliciously deceptive. But – and this is where the analogy works once again – it would be tactically useful, if dishonest, for my opponent to use just such terminology to instill fear and confusion in the voters.
IOW, you finally admit that calling automotive regulation a “car ban” is inaccurate, deceptive, and harmful to those advocating such regulatory policy.
This is remarkably similar to the revealing attitude that UltraVires just posted. It essentially lists a whole lot of things that piss them off about gun control, and the attitude is that they’re entitled to call it a “gun ban” because of how angry it makes them. No, they’re not. A “toaster ban” means I can’t have a toaster, and “gun ban” means I can’t have a gun. Say what you mean and mean what you say or you don’t have credibility.
On your last paragraph, it’s no so much that I “insist on precision” but rather that I insist on integrity in such politically charged issues as the gun debate. I don’t have to qualify that I “don’t want to ban *all *guns” since the meaning of gun control is well understood and “banning” things isn’t fundamentally what the debate is even about. It’s about standards, licensing, registration, accountability, and limiting access to dangerous weapons to those who are fit to possess them. Calling gun control a “gun ban” is the worst kind of sloganeering that ignores all these objectives and engages in irresponsible fearmongering over the fact that some weapons or features might be restricted.
No…you are obviously too, um, set in your thinking to get it. The joke is about the perception of need and has nothing to do with valuing guns more than people.
In addition, way to play that racism card and get it past the mods! Good job there! A really, really fucking stupid comeback, but it works for you.
The word “ban” is the magic incantation that lets these people dismiss any and all suggestions that there might be a better way to live. All they have to do is contort facts, whether real or imagined, into a definition that lets them use the word, and they’re excused from any further need for discussion.
On, and UltraVires: Nobody wants to reduce gun availability just because they’re guns. Nobody. The goal is to keep more people alive. Do you recognize and share that goal?
You assert two things that are wrong, and both assertions fail. To the first - whether or not a detail is relevant is an issue of perception, not one that can be correct or incorrect. To the second - your hypothetical posits there exist no automotive safety or emission standards - trying to imply the US has no gun safety standards. That’s wrong and that is why your analogy is worthless. Throw in more worthless comparisons to other countries and you have a trifecta of terribleness.
Gun control is not a gun ban. A ban on guns is a gun ban. Except in the world where you get to redefine words.
I mean exactly what I say. Just as you have said a ban on guns is not a gun ban. I’ll requote it because it’s such obvious nonsense.
Insist on integrity? Again with the comedy. See, when you have to construct convoluted hypothetical that attempts to redefine words in common use, it’s hard to talk about credibility. I’ll illustrate:
When you say, “your side” in the above two instances, do you mean, each and every person? Why don’t you qualify that with “some people on your side”? This entire time you’ve been worshiping at the altar of the composition fallacy. I’m sure you’ll continue to insist when guns are banned it’s not a gun ban. And while the English language weeps, I’ll just laugh.
Nobody wants more people to die. Nobody. The debate is whether or not what you or others are proposing will actually have any sort of effect. Pointing out that other countries don’t have this issue when they ban or heavily restrict guns is meaningless…what will it do HERE? Also, the devil is in the details…what, specifically is being proposed? Ban all guns? Leaving aside the fact that this is pure fantasy and never going to happen, the next question will be…how do you propose to enforce that? Without the public buy in to do something like that, it’s never going to happen…and currently the public isn’t going to go along with something like that.
So, a partial ban? What, specifically…and, again, how will it be enforced? A hand gun ban? Rifle ban? Semi-automatic ban? A scary looking gun ban?
The thing is, if you REALLY want to ‘save lives’ and you really, really think that gun bans are the way to do it in the US, then you need to stop beating the Heller and 2nd Amendment revisionist horse and start doing what you should have done 60+ years ago. Instead of trying to use the judiciary to reinterpret the amendment out of existence, your side should have been putting in the ground work to a new Amendment to make it say what you want it to say…that there is no personal right to keep and bear arms. This would allow for cities, counties and states to put in real gun control as you want it. Of course, states could still opt out in this and decide that they would allow firearms, but it would allow for more.
Instead, you relied on the fact that the USSC had never really ruled on the 2nd wrt personal verse collective rights and the fact that in so doing some cities were able to put in heavy restrictions or even outright bans in some cases and get away with it. You guys figured you’d just continue as it had been, using revision and reinterpretation to eventually do away with the Amendment by fiat, instead of using the mechanism in place to change the Constitution the right way. Well…it bit you collectively on the ass. You are now fucked. Even worse since many lefty types decided to take their marbles home and not vote or vote 3rd party instead of for Hillary and now we have Trump in the drivers seat. What he’s done already in the USSC is going to affect things for decades…decades more of precedence and case law wrt the 2nd that would have to be completely overturned by the court just so you can try and undermine the system again at some far future date.
Or you could suck it up, stop whining and accept reality…Heller pretty much changed the game. So, you guys need to start building the groundwork for making a facts based and cleared case to the American people as to just why they don’t want and don’t need and really don’t want a personal right to keep and bear arms, and from that use it to push through a new amendment.
Or, I guess, keep on with beating that dead horse and hope that the USSC changes magically and gives you a majority of justices willing to strike down Heller and reverse the court to the way things were decades ago when the court just sat on the fence wrt the 2nd…and hope it stays that way long enough that revision and revise works and you can do it by fiat as you always wanted too.
That’s a different avoidance tactic, but it’s still one.
So is that.
That’s the presumption you work from, isn’t it? If you were willing to work with us instead of denouncing us, we might come up with something together. If.
Well, that’s something, admitting it’s a fantasy before continuing to discuss it in apparent seriousness.
Are you willing to work with us or against us on that? Yes, We The People always relied on a sane and responsible Supreme Court up until Heller, but the NRA insanity and money has taken them over. That isn’t the fault of the sane, but you celebrate it anyway.
So, once again, what do YOU propose? What are YOU doing to help? What responsibility do YOU accept? Do you even recognize a problem?
Asking if it will do any good is an avoidance tactic?
That’s a worthwhile goal. Is it an avoidance tactic if I ask if whatever you suggest will keep more people alive?
Suppose the other side wants to ban guns if they have a bayonet lug or a folding stock. I don’t see how it is avoiding anything to ask “how does that keep more people alive?”
Naw. The presumption I work from is that your side wants to do it the easy way. They want to simply reinterpret the Amendment out of existence instead of putting in the hard work to do it right. YOUR presumption is that I’m on the pro-gun side.
There is precedence for it, so it’s not ‘fantasy’. It’s just hard. But your side doesn’t want to do the hard work, so it’s fantasy. That and you guys like to whine a lot…and beat dead horses into hamburger, then form the patties into little mini-horses and beat those too.
Relied on the Supreme Court to sit on the fence and not make a ruling, allowing you to circumvent the system by reinterpretation of a core Amendment so that it would say exactly the opposite to what the original author(s) meant it to say? Yeah, that’s a great plan! Beats doing the leg work to do it right.
Thought that was clear. I propose a movement to encourage the American people to voluntarily give up their guns and to voluntarily give up this right for the greater good. I think the trend was already happening, as less American families actually owned a gun. Myself, I think your side has made it infinitely worse by the underhanded shit they were pulling for the last 60 years or so, and that the backlash has put us back decades from where we would be had they not fucked it up. Now, myself I see the only way forward is to do what you fucking SHOULD have been doing all along…using the system, as it’s actually designed and with the mechanisms built in to change things that need changing because society has moved on. Do YOU fucking accept responsibility? I’m guessing not. Do you fucking even see the REAL issue? No, I’m guessing not. To you the issue is the Supreme Court finally ruled on this after fucking around and sitting on the fence for decades, hell over a century, and it wasn’t the ruling you wanted. But the REAL issue is that if we want to get rid of an Amendment the right way, we need to fucking follow the god damned process instead of trying to circumvent it because it’s hard.
Who are you characterizing as “the other side” here, and why? What position do you take that you see under attack from the Forces of Evil?
That’s exactly what happened in Heller, even though you approve of the result.
The “side” you claim is the reflexively anti-gun-control side, so what does that make you?
Miller. As for what the amendment means, the writers already told you.
Speaking of fantasies. The self-declared law-abiding citizens won’t do that until forced, and then they promise to stop abiding by the law. It’s gonna take enforcement.
Or you have something else in mind as an incentive, do you? Something that isn’t working or hasn’t been tried yet? What might that be?
Etc. Picking somebody else to blame is yet another avoidance tactic.
:rolleyes:
I see people getting killed every day. I think that’s a real issue. You dismiss it. To you, the real issue is a result-driven misinterpretation of the Second Commandment, which takes precedence over the most basic precept of human morality. I’m comfortable I’m on the right “side”.
San Francisco voted in a Handgun Ban. The State of CA has a 'assault weapons"** ban. **
Of course, a total ban, one where every shotgun, rifle, pistol would be banned from the hands of all civilians, military and police is not on anyones list, as far as I know.
Actually you are wrong, some people have a phobia about guns.
If the goal is to keep more people alive, well, frankly, in the USA gun control has never done that.
The worst thing is - they did it to themselves. Assault weapons bans, bans on concealed carry, bans on open carry, making it really hard to get a permit- all those flew. But then DC and Chicago (and also SF, later) decided to ban handguns. Well, like anything, if you push too far, there’s gonna be a reaction, and the reaction will usually push back further.
There is a third choice- work within Scalia’s suggested limits. You can get away with banning the sale of expended magazines or even 'assault weapons- but possession may be too far. You can get away with waiting periods, limits on number of guns bought per year, requiring ID at all stages, etc. That so -called “gun show loophole”? Yes, you can close that.
You might be able to get away with banning open carry OR concealed carry, but according to the case the OP (me) brought up- not both.
The preservation of the Constitution and the constitutional process, obviously. ‘The other side’ would be those who want to (as you admitted) actively circumvent the process and change the Constitution by fiat. I’m opposed to that.
I approve of the fact that the Supreme Court finally came down off the fence, yes. I’m un-surprised at the result, as that’s pretty much what the authors intended, as anyone familiar even passingly with their writings would know. I approve of the fact that the process is being followed, and is forcing those who want change to have to use it, instead of circumventing it by fiat.
I’m for gun control and in favor of the Constitution and constitutional process. That puts me firmly against you and your side. I LOATH your side and the tactics they have used in the past.
Have you actually bothered to read Miller and do more than a thumb nail take on it? It doesn’t address the question of a person right at all, merely touches on the militia aspect. It never dealt with the root question. Granted, it was used as a sop by your side to circumvent the Constitution by fiat…and used effectively. A lot of the bad blood that exists on this stems directly from your sides use of it for more than it was intended.
Horseshit. Plain and simple. It was ALREADY happening…ACTUAL ‘law-abiding citizens’ were voluntarily choosing not to have a gun in their home. But the continued attacks on a basic Constitutional right in the manner it was being attacked…again, underhanded, slimy dog reinterpretations and fiat…riled up the pro-gun side to a frenzy. They felt, rightfully, that your side was going to take away their right without even bothering to actually use the process, instead merely reinterpreting it out of existence by fiat and poof, it would be gone.
Since your side likes throwing the ‘what about’ stuff from other countries around, what about Australia? They voluntarily gave up their guns, no? And by that I mean a majority of their citizens chose to give them up? Correct? So, if you get a majority of Americans to give them up (and no idea what the fuck you mean by ‘law-abiding’ when we are taking a majority of Americans), then it doesn’t matter what the minority think once you change the Amendment. Be like the minority of Americans who just KNEW that we shouldn’t have legal alcohol. Fuck all they could do about stopping the majority from buying booze once a new Amendment was put in.
What part of ‘use the process’ DON’T you understand. Do you want me to parse the phrase for you and explain in more detail? Perhaps you need a flow chart or sentence graph? Here is a news flash…YOUR FUCKING SIDE HASN’T EVER TRIED THIS.
People die literally every day. Some die from cancer. Some die from heart disease. Some are killed by alcohol. All of these and more COULD be prevented…yet we don’t prevent them. I don’t dismiss the deaths, merely note that societies make choices, and those choices have real consequences pertaining to life and death. Increase the speed limit on a stretch of road by 5mph and you are likely to have a non-zero number of additional deaths that wouldn’t have happened otherwise. Make alcohol legal again and you are going to have a non-zero number of deaths that occur because of that decision. Allow the citizens to smoke or use tobacco products and folks are going to die. Allow them to eat triple cheese burgers, fries and a trough sized soda and folks will die. Guns are no different in that regard. And in this particular case, there is a Constitutional Amendment that specifically protects their right to keep and bear those arms. When the FF drew that up, they knew this would entail a non-zero number of additional deaths due to this.
Today, perhaps things are different. We don’t really need this right anymore, IMHO anyway. So, the right thing to do, if this is the case and if a majority of my fellow citizens agree is use the process, create a new Amendment and remove the right.
And yeah…I fucking blame you and your side for not doing this 60+ years ago, if your side really, truly believed this was the best thing. And I loath the fact that instead of doing the right thing, which was and is today (more than ever) really, really hard, they chose a tactic to undercut the very process this country is built on. To me, it’s a slippery slope, because if you can just reinterpret the Constitution and it’s amendments because it’s easy and convenient to change the 2nd, why not the rest? Fuck that. Do it right. Or just whine and beat dead horses while what you supposedly are concerned about just keeps happening because, you know, changing the Constitution is hard and stuff. :rolleyes:
