Why are anti-gunners so afraid to admit they just want all guns banned and confiscated?

They think that they can fool people into not opposing them.

They do succeed in fooling some people, but many more people are not fooled.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

As the topic suggests, why do people that argue for stricter gun laws afraid to just admit that they want all guns banned and confiscated? It obvious that is what they want. Either that or they only want the people they approve of to have guns...

Not sure why they are so hesitant to do so.

I have owned guns for many years, I'm not anti-gun, I'm pro safety. I'm sure there are people who want all guns confiscated, there are people who want booze outlawed, there are people who want all sorts of things and if you only focus on the crazies you allow the real crazies to flourish.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

Quote:

Either that or they only want the people they approve of to have guns...

No, I only want people to own guns of which I approve.

Quote:

Not sure why they are so hesitant to do so.

The people who believe that aren't hesitant to do so. The reason you don't hear a lot of gun control advocates saying it is because it's not all that common. Gun ownership is constitutionally protected so it's sort of beside the point, you know.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

The people who believe that aren't hesitant to do so.

Unfortunately no. Progressives frequently misrepresent their position in order to try to fool people into believing that progressives are not a threat to civil liberties.

Progressives do not fool many people, but they do fool some.

hightor wrote:

Gun ownership is constitutionally protected so it's sort of beside the point, you know.

That doesn't stop progressives from trying. Progressives think that it's fun to violate people's civil liberties, so they continuously try to violate the Constitution.

0 Replies

Those who are so fearful they need military weapons in their homes can never understand the difference between having a weapon for protection and being a crime against humanity. Arguing does not help. Only winning at the ballot box can make the genie back in the box. Screw being nice and sensitive about it.

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

Here we have a conservative exanple of absolutism...

On the liberal side we have

- if you question #MeToo then you support rape.
- if you oppose abortion then you want women to die without healthcare.

And on the conswtvayive side you have

- if you support background checks you want to take away all guns.

It is the same thing. You would think that normal rational human beings would have a wide range of opinions on a diverse set of topics.

Both of the political extremes want to force us into two camps and demand ideological purity. That explains American polítics in 2019.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

I think you missed the point here.

How do back ground checks, no matter how in depth, stop a criminal from getting a gun illegally? How do they stop people from breaking into homes and stealing guns from responsible gun owners?

The ONLY thing that new gun laws do is infringe upon responsible gun owners rights. Look at what is going on in Virginia right now. They are on the cusp of a full rebellion while the leftist government continues to try to infringe on responsible gun owners rights.

Leftists continue the cry of "What is the answer?" All the while what they really wish is to ban all guns and are too chicken **** to admit it.

There is NO way to have guns in society and expect there not to be gun crimes. That is why they are criminals, they are breaking the law and will continue to do so regardless of how many background checks responsible gun owners have to go through.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Those who are so fearful they need military weapons in their homes can never understand the difference between having a weapon for protection and being a crime against humanity. Arguing does not help. Only winning at the ballot box can make the genie back in the box. Screw being nice and sensitive about it.

Fearful? What about those that just want to own a fully customizable gun that fills many needs while ALSO providing home defense?

I know a lot of people that bought an AR-15 for the only reason being they were fearful they might not ever be able to because the Govt was going to ban them. That is the way in America.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

I think you made my point for me.

You are taking an absolutist position (just like people on the left do). Instead of actually tyinking about the issue you are pushing talking points and straw man arguments.

I can think of several ways that background checks may have a positive inpact on crimes of passion, mental health issues and suicides.... if you look you might even find unbiased research contradicting your absolute claim.

Once you start inventing arguments for people outside of your ideological bubble rather than listening to what they are actually saying... you have crossed a line.

I know you recognize when people on the left do this. You have complained about being called a racist. You don't seem to see that you are doing the same thing.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

I don't want all guns banned and confiscated. I want those weapons whose only difference from military issue weapons is selective fire banned and confiscated. Also, I want to limit the amount of total firearms available in the US. You'll still be able to own guns, just not a personal arsenal.

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

Those who are so fearful they need military weapons in their homes can never understand the difference between having a weapon for protection and being a crime against humanity. Arguing does not help. Only winning at the ballot box can make the genie back in the box. Screw being nice and sensitive about it.

Fearful? What about those that just want to own a fully customizable gun that fills many needs while ALSO providing home defense?

I know a lot of people that bought an AR-15 for the only reason being
they were fearful they might not ever be able to because the Govt was going to ban them. That is the way in America.

So to you that's a good trade-off to mass slaughter.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I think you made my point for me.

You are taking an absolutist position (just like people on the left do). Instead of actually tyinking about the issue you are pushing talking points and straw man arguments.

I can think of several ways that background checks may have a positive inpact on crimes of passion, mental health issues and suicides.... if you look you might even find unbiased research contradicting your absolute claim.

Once you start inventing arguments for people outside of your ideological bubble rather than listening to what they are actually saying... you have crossed a line.

I know you recognize when people on the left do this. You have complained about being called a racist. You don't seem to see that you are doing the same thing.

Oooohhhhhh, I see. You want to concentrate on the .01% of gun crime instead of the actual problem. I

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

So to you that's a good trade-off to mass slaughter.

My guns haven't slaughtered anyone. Have yours? Shocked

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

And on the conservative side you have
- if you support background checks you want to take away all guns.

Not exactly. The gun control fight is not about background checks. The gun control fight is over pistol grips on semi-auto rifles.

Progressives enjoy violating people's civil liberties. They try to do this by outlawing pistol grips on semi-auto rifles.

Progressives also actively deny that they are trying to do this, because they manage to fool a handful of people into not opposing them.

It is right that people point out that progressives are out to impose unjustifiable gun bans.

It is right that people point out that progressives are not being truthful about their real goals and motives.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

I don't want all guns banned and confiscated. I want those weapons whose only difference from military issue weapons is selective fire banned and confiscated.

In other words, you want to outlaw a bunch of ordinary hunting rifles.

InfraBlue wrote:

Also, I want to limit the amount of total firearms available in the US. You'll still be able to own guns, just not a personal arsenal.

I'm guessing that you cannot come up with any compelling government interest to justify such a thing.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Those who are so fearful they need military weapons in their homes can never understand the difference between having a weapon for protection and being a crime against humanity.

It is highly inaccurate for you to refer to ordinary hunting rifles as military weapons.

edgarblythe wrote:

Arguing does not help. Only winning at the ballot box can make the genie back in the box. Screw being nice and sensitive about it.

This is why the American people always defeat you at the ballot box and you get no additional gun control of any sort.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

So to you that's a good trade-off to mass slaughter.

Your efforts to outlaw ordinary hunting rifles have nothing to do with trying to prevent mass slaughter.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

Such guns as are used in these massacres are in your hands and all persons with your attitude along with the shooters.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Such guns as are used in these massacres are in your hands and all persons with your attitude along with the shooters.

That's like saying you shouldn't be able to own a car with more than 70hp because someone else sped in theirs. I refuse to give up my liberties just because someone else chose to be irresponsible.

1 Reply

Why are anti-gunners so afraid to admit they just want all guns banned and confiscated?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know