Making a better argument for gun control

[Schneiderman]

Starts with having a clue what it is that you're trying to control, and also being honest about your intentions...

Dear Gun Control Democrats: 6 Ways to Make a Better Argument | Kontradictions

Small excerpt:

I wish I had a dollar for every Democratic politician and commentator that has looked into a television camera over the past few months and said, “No one is trying to take your guns away!”

Allow me this humble suggestion: The best way to convince the American public that you’re not interested in taking guns away is to stop talking about taking guns away.

Firstly, when your politicians are asked, “Do you support state legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?” as Obama was in his 1996 Senate campaign, you should never answer “Yes,” as Obama did. Publicly advocating a ban on all handguns is not the way to convince people that you’re not interested in banning guns. Furthermore, when you are campaigning for president, never say the phrase “I continue to support a [federal] ban on concealed carry,” as Obama did in 2004. This gives people the impression that your intention is to prevent the states from setting reasonable guidlelines on who can defend themselves outside of their home.

If you then win the election, do not go on to fully support gun bans in two US cities – Chicago and D.C. – in which law-abiding citizens are disarmed, citing them as models for gun policy while trying to convince the rest of the country that you really aren’t interested in banning their guns. (Guess which two US cities you’re most likely to be killed by a gun in.)

It has become almost cliché for smirking Democrats to attempt to ridicule people like myself by crooning, “Obama wants to take our guns!” in a stereotyped hillbilly drawl – something particularly offensive to some folks here in the south – when in fact, Obama has said exactly that.

Some of you will argue that regardless of the President’s conflicted/dishonest assertions, the legislation that died in Senate earlier this week had nothing to do with taking anything. But let us not forget the “assault weapons” ban, which enacted slow confiscation over a generation. I wouldn’t have to immediately surrender any firearms, but because of the angle of the grip on the shotgun I own, it would be a felony offense to pass it on to a family member (or anyone else) upon my death. It would instead be confiscated by the government and presumably destroyed.

The same would happen to tens of millions of firearms all over the country, including more than 3 million of just one single model, the AR-15. In this case, gun control advocates literally want to pry the most popular rifle in the country from every owner’s cold dead hands. “We’re not taking any guns away from you, just all future generations.” Needless to say, this is not the way to convince people that no one is interested in taking guns away.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

If it walks like a duck, squawks like a duck, and looks like a duck, then it's a duck.

 

[KWCrazy]

Democrats cannot be trusted with any facet of the Constitution, but especially the second amendment. Other things with which they cannot be trusted include:
The economy,
National security,
Defense againse terrorists; either in America or abroad,
Border security,
The protection of the unborn,
Religious freedom (unless you're Muslim),
American sovereignty,
truth in media,
The rule of law.

 

[super animator]

Democrats cannot be trusted with any facet of the Constitution, but especially the second amendment. Other things with which they cannot be trusted include:
The economy,
National security,
Defense againse terrorists; either in America or abroad,
Border security,
The protection of the unborn,
Religious freedom (unless you're Muslim),
American sovereignty,
truth in media,
The rule of law.

As guy who strongly support the secound admendment, this has nothing to do with the party and everything to do if you authoritarian or not.

 

[Crusader05]

Good article, I would add a few items. When you discuss the 2nd Amendment stop conflating the issue by taking about hunting, the 2nd Amendment has zero to do with hunting.

The President says he can understand why some in rural areas may want guns but wants to keep disarmed those in urban areas who are most in need of a gun for self-defense. Those most vulnerable and effected by crime (inner-city blacks) generally live under the strictest gun control. Maybe if the law abiding could more easily obtain legal weapons for their self-defense it would deter would be criminals (I know, what insanity!).

Also, you can call something 'common sense' all day but calling it that doesn't make it so; just as your constant assertions that you respect the 2nd Amendment don't make it so.

 

[GarfieldJL]

As guy who strongly support the secound admendment, this has nothing to do with the party and everything to do if you authoritarian or not.

Tell that to the retirees that lost a big portion of their retirement savings because Obama violated Bankruptcy law to give the Unions a reward for helping him in the 08 elections...

 

[EdwinWillers]

If it walks like a duck, squawks like a duck, and looks like a duck, then it's a duck.

...and of course, if it calls itself a duck, so much the better.

Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, “No, my writing wasn’t on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.”
Actually, Obama’s writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:
35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.
Obama’s campaign said, “Sen. Obama didn’t fill out these state Senate questionnaires--a staffer did--and there are several answers that didn’t reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn’t reflect his views.”
Source: FactCheck.org analysis of 2008 Philadelphia primary debate Apr 16, 2008

...but hey, it was just [another] lie

Then he voted NO...

Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. Voting YES would:
Exempt lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime
Exempt lawsuits against actions that result in death, physical injury or property damage due solely to a product defect
Call for the dismissal of all qualified civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment by the court in which the action was brought
Prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or delivery of armor piercing ammunition, and sets a minimum prison term of 15 years for violations
Require all licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers who engage in the transfer of handguns to provide secure gun storage or safety devices
Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S 397 ; vote number 2005-219 on Jul 29, 2005

Yeah, he's identified himself quite well.

Suggestion: when using the phrase "common sense" - don't assume we don't know what it [really] means.

 

[Belk]

Tell that to the retirees that lost a big portion of their retirement savings because Obama violated Bankruptcy law to give the Unions a reward for helping him in the 08 elections...

To bad they were not members of congress so they could use all that juicy insider trading info.

 

[GarfieldJL]

To bad they were not members of congress so they could use all that juicy insider trading info.

Yeah, look at Newt Gingrich he got hit with ethics violations for teaching a college class... Maybe he should have been using juicy insider trading info like a good little corrupt politician and he would have been safe...

 

[NaughtyNinja]

Democrats cannot be trusted with any facet of the Constitution, but especially the second amendment. Other things with which they cannot be trusted include:
The economy,
National security,
Defense againse terrorists; either in America or abroad,
Border security,
The protection of the unborn,
Religious freedom (unless you're Muslim),
American sovereignty,
truth in media,
The rule of law.

Despite gun control and abortion they are doing everything else better.

 

[GarfieldJL]

Despite gun control and abortion they are doing everything else better.

Yeah better for America's enemies...

 

[NaughtyNinja]

Gun regulation is a must and it is idiotic not to know where guns are going. I heard of guns going over to borders of Mexico often for drug wars.

In my country I can buy almost any gun I please except explosives, and any weapon above a 50caliber or various armor piercing rounds.
All guns are regulated and all ammo is managed by government to ensure safety and quality along with weaponry.
The issue is we have it set up by city often so very often people cannot open carry weapons unless in certain regions and this is generally rural regions since in case of gun violence the probability of death is lower. In my region I can fire a gun in my own property since it is rural enough and as long as I am not aiming at anybody I am fine . Most laws are common sense laws actually.
All guns must be stamped also to provide legal ownership as well.
I myself have a few AKMs, SKL-41, some H&k arms and my beloved rechambered AMD-65. All of in which are automatic and fully legal yet still average murder rate by gun is around 200 a year as oppose to America's astonishing 20,000 I believe.

America does not need to ban weapons it just needs to have strict control over who is getting them. Repeat offenders, criminals mental wards and such.
The main reason such shooting do not occur here is because the odds of a man doing such are slim since he would be shot dead on the 5th shot

 

[GarfieldJL]

Gun regulation is a must and it is idiotic not to know where guns are going. I heard of guns going over to borders of Mexico often for drug wars.

You mean like how the DoJ was deliberately shipping guns to Mexican Drug Cartels and then trying to blame gun store owners for the uptick in violence in Mexico...

 

[Belk]

Yeah, look at Newt Gingrich he got hit with ethics violations for teaching a college class... Maybe he should have been using juicy insider trading info like a good little corrupt politician and he would have been safe...

Watch out Garfield, we are dangerously close to agreeing on something.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Dear columnist,

Stop giving the enemy ideas.

 

[Blackguard_]

I heard of guns going over to borders of Mexico often for drug wars.

As mentioned a lot of that was the BATF ordering gun stores who reported suspicious buyers to them to go through with the sale to anyway because they wanted the guns in the hands of cartel buyers, whether as police history's most poorly planned sting operation or as anti-gun propaganda.

Also, remember just how thoroughly corrupt Mexico is, much of their police is on the take, and they have problems with soldiers defecting to the cartels and that the US gives the Mexican military and police lots of aid in munitions, and that we gave such aid to many of Mexico's southern neighbors, and Mexico has a smuggling problem on it's southern border. This is why the cartels also have things like RPGs you simply can't get at a US gun store/show

So the the cartels have a lot of "guns from the US" that never saw the inside of US gun store. Not that no guns are ever stolen or straw purchased here and taken south, but it's not much next to what they can get within Mexico or from the international arms market, i.e. overseas. The idea the American corner gun store or sporting goods store is fueling the Mexican Civil War and that passing a new Assault Weapon Ban would curtail it is silly.

Note that while whatever number of guns are smuggled south, tens of thousands of people and literal tons of drugs are smuggled north from Mexico.

The way for the US to deal with Cartel violence in Mexico, short of another Punitive Expedition, would be to guard the border. This will stop the drugs, the cartels' primary source of income, from going to a major customer base as well as prevent any guns from going south.

Repeat offenders, criminals mental wards and such.

It's already illegal for such to have guns here. Most of the people who murder with guns here weren't legally able to have that gun in the first place.

average murder rate by gun is around 200 a year as oppose to America's astonishing 20,000 I believe.

it's more like 10,000

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Dear columnist,

Stop giving the enemy ideas.

Amen, brother.