# Stupid Gun news of the day (Part 1) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 29, 2013, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729 "2013-01-29T19:01:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 195
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3881 "2014-01-31T15:09:23Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > And saying Obama, Clinton, Biden et al are “anti gun” is equally stupid and simplistic. They are anti-gun-violence, and they wish to do something about it. Not a one of them ever pushed for complete gun bans. But if guns enable violence, then wouldn’t the logic be “no guns = minimum violence”? Plus it’s the principle of the thing: police, soldiers and other agents of the state get to have “serious” firearms while [del]peasants[/del] citizens get second-tier guns. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3882 "2014-01-31T15:50:38Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > But if guns enable violence, then wouldn’t the logic be “no guns = minimum violence”? Of course, just like “no alcohol = minimum drunkeness”. Minimizing gun violence, like minimizing drunkenness and all the social problems each entails, does not occur in a vacuum, and prohibition of either creates unintended consequences. So rational people can propose regulations on guns or alcohol that reduce the social problems, without going full on prohibition, and it is not logical to accuse them of being in favor of prohibition, just because they favor reasonable regulation. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3883 "2014-01-31T16:39:32Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > And saying Obama, Clinton, Biden et al are “anti gun” is equally stupid and simplistic. They are anti-gun-violence, and they wish to do something about it. Not a one of them ever pushed for complete gun bans. They’ve each been in favor or legislation that banned guns. If that’s the sophistic branch to reality that you want to hang your hat on it doesn’t make a bit of difference to me. The point I’ve made is that being opposed to Obama’s position on guns does not in any way reflect racism or have anything to do with his being black. Is that something you’re contesting? ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3884 "2014-01-31T16:43:48Z")
No. I don’t believe I said a friggin’ thing about race – actually agree with you on that point. I just commented on your equally black-and-white pronouncement that regulations on some guns somehow equals THEY WANT TO GET RID OF ALL OF MY GUNS!! bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3885 "2014-01-31T16:53:01Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > They’ve each been in favor or legislation that banned guns. If that’s the sophistic branch to reality that you want to hang your hat on it doesn’t make a bit of difference to me. The point I’ve made is that being opposed to Obama’s position on guns does not in any way reflect racism or have anything to do with his being black. Is that something you’re contesting? I’ll contest it. All I have to do is find one racist who opposes Obama and his position on guns, right? I bet I can do that. OTOH, I look forward to your cite showing that no opposition to Obama is ever based on his race. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3886 "2014-01-31T17:13:03Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > No. I don’t believe I said a friggin’ thing about race – actually agree with you on that point. I just commented on your equally black-and-white pronouncement that regulations on some guns somehow equals THEY WANT TO GET RID OF ALL OF MY GUNS!! bullshit. Yes, that would be a stupid argument, I agree. And yes, you made no comment about race. A more nuanced argument would be that allowing the banning of any type of gun makes it incrementally easier to ban others, and therefore all gun bans should be opposed as a matter of principal. > [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > I’ll contest it. All I have to do is find one racist who opposes Obama and his position on guns, right? I bet I can do that. I’m not sure how you got that interpretation from what I wrote, but you’ve misunderstood. Was that intentional? It is obvious there is a union in the set of people who are opposed to Obama’s position on guns and the set of those that are racists. Being in one data set does not mean being in the other. Is that clear enough or would a Venn diagram help? ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3887 "2014-01-31T17:44:15Z")
So I guess you’re sticking with the “any regulation means total confiscation” gambit. Okay. Good luck. Write if you get work. ---
**Author:** ![Truman\_Burbank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecc23a/32.png) [@Truman\_Burbank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truman_Burbank)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3888 "2014-01-31T18:14:09Z")
So laws to regulate the sale of alcohol to minors, and criminalizing drunk driving, mean the jack-booted feds will soon be coming for my Sam Adams? It’s a very juvenile, unsophisticated argument IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3889 "2014-01-31T18:27:17Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I’m not sure how you got that interpretation from what I wrote, but you’ve misunderstood. Was that intentional? I got that interpretation because that’s what you wrote: > [@Bone](#): > > The point I’ve made is that being opposed to Obama’s position on guns does not in any way reflect racism or have anything to do with his being black. Is that something you’re contesting? > [@Bone](#): > > It is obvious there is a union in the set of people who are opposed to Obama’s position on guns and the set of those that are racists. Being in one data set does not mean being in the other. Is that clear enough or would a Venn diagram help? So you still refuse to acknowledge that some people oppose Obama’s position on guns because they are racists? Because your second quote up there seems to indicate that you think each issue is separate and never considered as part of a whole by anyone, that racism and gun control are two different things and are never conflated. Do you have a cite for that, or would you like me to stop beating you with your own words and simply acknowledge that what you meant was “being opposed to Obama’s position on guns does not [del]in any way[/del] **necesssarily** reflect racism or have anything to do with his being black”? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3890 "2014-01-31T19:13:01Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > So you still refuse to acknowledge that some people oppose Obama’s position on guns because they are racists? Because your second quote up there seems to indicate that you think each issue is separate and never considered as part of a whole by anyone, that racism and gun control are two different things and are never conflated. Do you have a cite for that, or would you like me to stop beating you with your own words and simply acknowledge that what you meant was “being opposed to Obama’s position on guns does not [del]in any way[/del] **necesssarily** reflect racism or have anything to do with his being black”? Have I refused to acknowledge that? I agree there are people who oppose Obama’s position on guns and everything because they are racists, but not necessarily so. Your rephrasing is more accurate and what I should have wrote, and was my intended message. I could have been more specific and assumed that was easy to understand. Do you acknowledge that there are people who oppose Obama’s position on guns and everything else who are not racists? This is such a silly line of discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3891 "2014-01-31T19:59:43Z")
> [@Truman\_Burbank](#): > > So laws to regulate the sale of alcohol to minors, and criminalizing drunk driving, mean the jack-booted feds will soon be coming for my Sam Adams? Why not? You don’t NEED alcohol. From 1919 to 1933 federal agents in fact did kick in peoples’ doors and confiscate their alcohol. > [@](#): > > It’s a very juvenile, unsophisticated argument IMHO. False equivalence: laws already prohibit minors from doing lots of things, including owning guns. And drunken driving laws prohibit neither alcohol nor cars, just the irresponsible combination of the two. By contrast, virtually all proposed gun restrictions are “instrumentality” based: they seek to eliminate a behavior by eliminating the means. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3892 "2014-01-31T20:16:01Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > By contrast, virtually all proposed gun restrictions are “instrumentality” based: they seek to eliminate a behavior by eliminating the means. Nonsense. Expanded background checks and closing the gun show loophole do neither. ---
**Author:** ![Truman\_Burbank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecc23a/32.png) [@Truman\_Burbank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truman_Burbank)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3893 "2014-01-31T23:41:21Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Why not? You don’t NEED alcohol. From 1919 to 1933 federal agents in fact did kick in peoples’ doors and confiscate their alcohol. > > False equivalence: laws already prohibit minors from doing lots of things, including owning guns. And drunken driving laws prohibit neither alcohol nor cars, just the irresponsible combination of the two. By contrast, virtually all proposed gun restrictions are “instrumentality” based: they seek to eliminate a behavior by eliminating the means. OK, I’ll shoot up that barrel full of fish: Laws mandating the closing of bars a 2am, or the existence of “dry counties”, or Oregon allowing only state-run liquor stores, = jack-booted thugs coming for my Sam Adams? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2014, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3894 "2014-02-01T00:25:38Z")
Access to alcohol is not an enumerated fundamental constitutional right. Pick one that is and then make a better comparison. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2014, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3895 "2014-02-01T00:35:09Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Access to alcohol is not an enumerated fundamental constitutional right. Pick one that is and then make a better comparison. The Supreme Court has already ruled the Second Amendment [does not bar state regulation of firearms.](http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php) ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2014, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3896 "2014-02-01T00:46:21Z")
Do you believe that relevant in some way? Maybe you could share your thought process there. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2014, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3897 "2014-02-01T00:55:19Z")
Perhaps I misunderstood you when you alluded tht the fundamental right of gun ownership precluded comparing it to regulating alcohol. I pointed out firearms can be regulated by the state. Your move. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2014, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3898 "2014-02-01T00:59:59Z")
Everything can be regulated. Being an enumerated fundamental right doesn’t change that. But when comparing available regulation, to be consistent the type of thing being regulated should be similar. Alcohol and the right to arms are dissimilar enough to make the comparison less meaningful. A more apt comparison to regulation of the 2nd amendment would be regulation of the 1st. \*and by the way, your cite says the opposite of your statement. Probably better to look to the text of the opinion - it’s more accurate than the summation at that link. > [@](#): > > The outcome of D.C. v. Heller **leaves some issues unanswered, including whether the Second Amendment restricts state regulation of firearms** , and the standard for evaluating the constitutionality of other laws and regulations that impact the Second Amendment right. These issues will be the subject of future litigation. (my bold) ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2014, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3899 "2014-02-01T01:10:17Z")
Perhaps you missed this part: > [@](#): > > The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment. While precludes banning an entire class of gun outright, it does not preclude regulation such as enhanced background checks, including gun show sales. In that respect, guns and alcohol are very similar. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2014, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3900 "2014-02-01T02:05:22Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Have I refused to acknowledge that? I agree there are people who oppose Obama’s position on guns and everything because they are racists, but not necessarily so. Your rephrasing is more accurate and what I should have wrote, and was my intended message. I could have been more specific and assumed that was easy to understand. Do you acknowledge that there are people who oppose Obama’s position on guns and everything else who are not racists? > > This is such a silly line of discussion. Funny, you didn’t seem to think so when I asserted that some loud idiots are both pro-gun and oppose Obama due to racism, and you responded as though I had asserted that all pro gunners were racist platypuses or something equally unrelated to what I actually wrote. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729.md?page=194) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729.md?page=196)