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

@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.

So in other words, progressives are secretly out to ban guns, and their denials are just a smokescreen.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

It's like saying you don't give a **** how many innocents are slaughtered, so long as you get this neat play toy.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

It's like saying you don't give a **** how many innocents are slaughtered, so long as you get this neat play toy.

I guess you could say that. Besides talking on an internet forum, what are you doing about all the innocents getting slaughtered? You care a lot, you must spend a lot of time in shelters and donating time and money, huh?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

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

If you mean honest background checks, you could be right. How about an enormous fee for conducting those checks. How about denying the purchase due to a two year old speeding ticket - or something equally unrelated to firearm ownership? It's possible to own a firearm in NY City - in principle. The likelihood of an ordinary, law abiding citizen being able to qualify and afford the process is about zip.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Just by posting to you I am doing a thousand times more than you.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

No. Virtue signaling does not count as doing something.

0 Replies

@roger,

The ridiculous claim made in the OP is that everyone is an extremist on this issue with no room in the middle.

I claim that it is possible to support the right to own a gun and also support reasonable restrictions. I also believe that there are lots pf peopke who have a diverse set of opinions about pistol grips and background checks.

My objection is to the extremists on both sides staking out extreme all or nothing ideological positions and then claiming no other position is possible.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

The claim is not ridiculous. Progressives do misrepresent their position to try to fool people into not opposing them.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

It's like saying you don't give a **** how many innocents are slaughtered, so long as you get this neat play toy.

It's not like gun availability has any appreciable impact on homicide rates to begin with.

But yes. Our freedom would outweigh any saved lives even if it had actually been true that lives would be saved by banning guns.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

The ridiculous claim made in the OP is that everyone is an extremist on this issue with no room in the middle.

I claim that it is possible to support the right to own a gun and also support reasonable restrictions. I also believe that there are lots pf peopke who have a diverse set of opinions about pistol grips and background checks.

My objection is to the extremists on both sides staking out extreme all or nothing ideological positions and then claiming no other position is possible.

That's not the claim at all. That is your ridiculous reading of what I wrote. In another thread, it has been asked over and over and over again what the solution is. In that thread it seems you are either in favor of the endless slaughter of innocent babes or you want to know what can be done to stop that endless slaughter of innocent babes.

So, I am looking to find out who on the other side are willing to admit that they are actually in favor of banning guns entirely.

Unfortunately, this issue really is one of those issues that one needs to be an extremist about. It is just as important as the freedom of speech and should be just as zealously protected.

Until the other side realizes that there is not a single law that can be passed that will stop criminals from buying illegal guns there will be no middle ground. That has to be the start of the conversation.

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

Quote:

So, I am looking to find out who on the other side are willing to admit that they are actually in favor of banning guns entirely.

If someone tells you that they are not in favor of banning guns entirely... would you believe them anyway?

This is the definition of a straw man argument. You are demanding people take a position that they aren't actually taking. What you are doing is the equivalent of them calling you a racist.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

If someone tells you that they are not in favor of banning guns entirely... would you believe them anyway?

If they are a progressive, I'd be pretty skeptical.

Note also that calling for a measure that is a grievous violation of people's civil liberties is still unacceptable even if it falls short of a total ban on all guns.

maxdancona wrote:

This is the definition of a straw man argument. You are demanding people take a position that they aren't actually taking. What you are doing is the equivalent of them calling you a racist.

Not if that progressive is deliberately misrepresenting their position.

Most progressives deliberately misrepresent their position on guns in order to try to fool people into not opposing them.

Progressives are a lot like the Sith in Star Wars.

0 Replies

Most people I know favor keeping a gun for protection, but also favor passing gun control laws. By painting gun control people as gun confiscators, the visceral effect is to cause the weak of mind to panic and accept the fiction, which is why arguments and dialog do not work. Only by electing responsible representatives can we make it happen.

3 Replies

@edgarblythe,

It's never as simple as some like to portray. There are people who would like to have all guns confiscated, and then there is the NRA who believe even people on the no-fly list should have unlimited access to weapons....I think the AR-15 is the new mid-life crisis red convertible sport car.

People who live in very rural areas need a rifle to protect their animals and themselves.

2 Replies

@glitterbag,

People who live in very rural areas need a rifle to protect their animals and themselves.

They did fine with other guns before they could get AR-15s. Smile

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Setting aside that fact that outlawing an ordinary hunting rifle for no reason would be a grave violation of people's civil liberties (which of course is your real goal here), if you got away with outlawing one ordinary hunting rifle, you'd quickly follow by outlawing more and more ordinary hunting rifles.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

By painting gun control people as gun confiscators, the visceral effect is to cause the weak of mind to panic and accept the fiction, which is why arguments and dialog do not work.

That progressives are out to ban guns is not a fiction. Progressives really do misrepresent their goals in an attempt to fool people into not opposing them.

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

the NRA who believe even people on the no-fly list should have unlimited access to weapons....

Given the lack of due process, of course they oppose it. It would be a grave violation of people's civil liberties to prevent people on the no-fly list from having guns.

Progressives just happen to like committing grave violations of people's civil liberties.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

I want those weapons whose only difference from military issue weapons is selective fire banned and confiscated.

Not reasonable. Basically you're saying that a flash suppressor, barrel shroud, bayonet mount, or pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous. I have yet to see any proof of such a claim.

But that's neither here nor there anyway. Anyone who wants to ban "assault weapons" must be ignorant of the fact that assault weapons are already banned, as the only feature that distinguishes an assault rifle from a regular rifle is select-fire capability.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

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.

Most likely not something that would satisfy your criteria.

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