3 Common Arguments Against Gun Control That Have Serious Logic Problems

[SecularMotion]

President Barack Obama began 2016 with an assertive move: announcing new executive actions to curb gun access, some of which match changes Congress rejected by a close vote in 2013. Determined to address a scourge of gun violence that the legislative branch has not mustered the will to tackle, the president called out Republicans and the gun lobby for rejecting utterly modest and reasonable reforms that will make it more difficult for criminals to acquire guns.

Everybody seems focused on parsing the tears Obama shed when recalling the slaughter of schoolchildren in Newtown, Connecticut, a little more than three years ago. Some praised the president for wearing his emotions on his sleeve during the speech. Others dismissed the presidential weeping as “crocodile tears.” Fox News anchor Andrea Tantaros had the temerity to question their very authenticity. “It’s not really believable,” she said. “Check the podium for a raw onion.”

But the most notable characteristic of Obama’s speech was not the emotion he displayed while reminding Americans of the gun-related tragedies of recent years. His words are more impressive for the devastatingly on-point take-down of the position staked out by gun-rights activists. The enduring value of his presentation is the persuasive justification for the gun reforms he is pursuing that paints opponents as beyond the pale of reasonability.

The lesson began with a reminder about the nature of constitutional rights. While the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other gun-rights groups hail the Second Amendment as a constitutional beacon guaranteeing Americans the right to own weapons, including firearms, no gun lobby will countenance any new moves to limit or regulate guns. Why? Because even a move as seemingly innocuous as certifying that someone may legally buy a gun is a harbinger for dark days ahead. Background checks today, they say, mass gun forfeiture tomorrow. Taking a conceptual cue from James Madison’s “Memorial and Remonstrance” (a 1785 missive opposing a proposal for a tax to support a Christian school), where the founding father warned that “it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment with our liberties,” Republicans decry Obama’s moves as the first step of a “gun-grabbing agenda.” The idea of universal background checks for gun buyers may sound mild and reasonable, but it’s the first step on a slippery slope that ends in the government raiding your home and taking away all your guns.

http://bigthink.com/praxis/obamas-speech-on-gun-control-was-a-master-class-in-how-to-be-reasonable

[TheBlackAdder]

1. A Gun Grab would never happen, unless the path towards Conservative Fascism continues.

.


1) We have a panopticon watching over us, from the NSA, street cameras, cell phone tracking, etc. that everyone is beginning to accept. This is a requirement to enforce and control faction, including local disruptions.

2) We have paramilitarized police forces. All the RW yahoos love seeing their town's hummers and assault vehicles roam down the street. But, this is required to control local faction, and giving the towns this equipment locally stores the trucks, instead of sitting and decaying as a regional National Guard Depot. The kicker is, the towns end up paying for that equipment's maintenance, the same town that might see that equipment turn on their own citizens. The military can only do so much, effective control, sans carpet bombing, requires local township forces to maintain control. That's why paramilitarized police forces are needed.

The missing key, if this continues to expand, is a charismatic fascist leader who could work a deal out with the local police to seize their towns. It won't come from the left, but from the corporatocrisy downward. This will be a RW fascist force.


===

Now, the problems with a 'gun grab' are that over half of the military are pro-2A, and most of the police. Many Dems and Indys are also pro-2A, but with a more tempered mindset.

It would be impossible to control the leakage of such a wide scale grab, since it would need to be done at the same instant across the country, else everyone, Reps, Indys and Dems would resist--including this guy's entire family.

There's other stuff too, but I haven't had my coffee yet.



.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

2. The logic problems with that article about logic problems

Any gun regulation will result in the abolition of all firearms.

Sure all gun owners believe that.
In reality, if one in a thousand actually old enough to own a firearm really believes that, I'd be shocked. I'd be just as shocked if someone really proved that, as George Carlin once said, "Beer leads to heroin." Now you might ask yourself why some pro-gun folks would work against all and every new firearm regulation. I'll propose an answer; some, though not all, of the same folks who work to getting less restrictive gun laws passed also say they favor laws like an AWB or Australia style confiscation. Anyone would acknowledge the logic in "just working against anything those folks favor". And, let's be real, opposing people who oppose what you advocate is not a bad idea. Doing that doesn't make you a Teaparty or NRA member. Additionally, taking a lesson from the Clinton/Kerry state department, the enemy of my enemy is not my enemy and might be my friend. Maybe I should help them.

Constitutional rights are absolute.

As an exercise here, for those who might believe that any pro-gun folks believe that one, ask any RKBA advocate if they think criminals in prison should be allowed to own guns. A right IS absolute but may, at any time, be denied or limited by, as the 5A in the Bill of Rights states, due process of law. The idea of absolute is what needs to be clarified. Rights are both absolute AND subject to due process restrictions. Just because the court restricts your liberty due to a criminal conviction does not mean that any of your human rights have magically disappeared. You have a right to free speech. Nothing will stop you from inciting a riot or mayhem by yelling fire in a theater or stabbing and killing someone. Subsequent to those actions, the justice system will come after you and, hopefully, due process your ass into prison.

Laws that cannot prevent mass shootings are not worth passing.

We have finally hit upon an argument that is occasionally brought up but not as quoted in that article. Some pro-control folks will, in the wake of a major news making "mass shooting", use that event to justify the passage of new laws that would have had no effect on the event or its outcome. Further, when a pro-RKBA points that out, they are usually countered by accusations of parroting the NRA, having no compassion or "not being a true Democrat".



[center]Now for the final word on this specious collection of straw-men[/center]
The first phrase in this article claims "Extreme advocates of the right to own guns believe three principal errors:". In general, I don't believe any of those "three principal errors". What does that say about me? Am I not "extreme" enough? I don't think I know anyone at all that believes any of those three turd statements from the pro-control punch bowl. It's offensive to be even be accused of believing any of that nonsense. Furthermore, it is accusations such as this which alienate the two sides in this debate and serve to justify the anti-control mindset of anyone even mildly pro-RKBA. How's that stupid rhetoric working for ya?

[Eleanors38]

3. Nice job.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

5. thanks

[pablo_marmol]

4. Yes........excellent job.

Furthermore, it is accusations such as this which alienate the two sides in this debate and serve to justify the anti-control mindset of anyone even mildly pro-RKBA. How's that stupid rhetoric working for ya?

This is what The Controllers have yet to -- and likely never will grasp -- moronic, infantile and dishonest rhetoric......beside backfiring......has HORRIFYING political consequences. Such consequences may display themselves shortly. I truly hope that I am wrong.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

7. Perhaps I just don't understand them

I understand both sides will always present propaganda. I guess articles like that one are meant to appeal to the pro-control types that don't even know someone who owns a gun and usually only thinks about guns when it comes up as an issue around elections.

[beevul]

6. They have twisted at least some of the arguments.

Any gun regulation will result in the abolition of all firearms.

That was never the argument.

The argument was, that any gun control brings us 1 step closer. That argument is unassailable, which is why it was twisted.

Constitutional rights are absolute.

I wish the ones who scream this the loudest, would remember it when complaining about the PLCAA, but as far as PLCAA detractors are concerned, some rights ARE absolute. Just not the rights they dislike.

We have finally hit upon an argument that is occasionally brought up but not as quoted in that article. Some pro-control folks will, in the wake of a major news making "mass shooting", use that event to justify the passage of new laws that would have had no effect on the event or its outcome. Further, when a pro-RKBA points that out, they are usually countered by accusations of parroting the NRA, having no compassion or "not being a true Democrat".

Its not just mass shootings. Using the instance of someone who stole a gun and killed a cop as an example of why we need (more) background checks, rubs people the wrong way (Gun haters excepted). It smacks of dishonesty, which is a deal breaker on the gun issue, for far far more people than any of our friends on the other side of the issue will ever admit. Such dishonesty strongly implies that they have no actual applicable example to use, which begs the question of how significant the problem is that they claim they're trying to solve. Or if there even is one.

For about a tenth of a second, I start to think, "someday, they'll learn", but then that tenth of a second is up, and I'm brought back to the stark reality that they will never learn, because they think what they're doing is working, or because they're too invested in it to change, or both.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

8. How is it possible?

When I stuff all over this site, I see a variety of topics covered by folks with intelligent opinions and such lucid arguments. I've read posts on DU that are absolutely erudite. I know there are numerous Democrats in the pro-control camp that must also be insightful, well-spoken and motivated to write on this issue. My only conclusion is that they choose not to. Why they don't, I have no idea.

[DonP]

9. IMHO, it's decades of "programming"

The majority of the people with those "intelligent opinions" on other issues just aren't directly involved or interested in the RKBA issue. But they want to be "popular" with the crowd.

They just go by what they pick up peripherally from the media (anti RKBA) and the opinions of others on DU and other sites, (mostly anti RKBA).

If they see something that claims that 75% of NRA members want something, they just take it as fact, never questioning, "Gee, why would the NRA let gun control people survey their membership?"

It's just a peripheral issue to them and they jump on what they think is a populist bandwagon, it's easier than getting up to speed on a complex issue ... and won't take time away from the important work of pissing on each other's leg over the primaries.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

10. That's sad

I like this t-shirt that says: "Popularity is what people strive for when they lack the strength to be themselves."

However, trashing each other and the various candidates is probably high on many people's list.
IMHO, not a worthy pursuit but a very popular one.