The Practicality of Gun Bans in America

Status
Not open for further replies.
army_eod said:
All arguments of banners are moot. We have 2A. If they repeal 2A we have a big problem.
Click to expand...

This statement misses the point, again. As Frank Ettin has explained the surface prose is not a magic spell. It is interpreted by SCOTUS and sometimes legislatively or by executive action. Moot - well, Heller was 5/4. If it was 4/5, that would have been the game. The prose was interpreted differently. Unless gun people get that through their heads, such statements are worthless.

Call up Donald Trump and tell him that his bump stock ban is moot because of the Second Amendment. See how far that gets you.

Whom do you think actually changes the situation on the ground, in the stores, how you carry?

Magic MOOT - conjure me a Glock 18.

Dear Moot Magician - I don't want you to have a 30 round mag which makes it easy to kill folks in my church, synagogue, elementary school, Hindu temple, mosque, Jewish Deli, party in San Bernadino, a concert at Las Vegas, a university building, a movie theater and the mall.

What is your argument that you should have such?

1. You won't comply and you will be criminal
2. You can easily kill as many with 10 round magazines
3. It is a divine proclamation

That's what I'm hearing here. Why did Donald go against the will of God, and make many criminals? Did the moot spell fail on him?

Why did women not vote, blacks be slaves, school segregated, etc. and then that changed? Society changed and that was reflected in the Courts, legislatures, executive actions and Constitutional changes.

Unless, the RKBA can win the social battle, it's sunk. The battle is not with choir cliches. Some logical arguments might work. Some emotional appeals might work.
 
Mass shooters will go back to being bombers, as criminals simply find another way.

"Gun ban" now that would be worth fighting over.
When thats going on it is time to use them as our 2nd Amendment guarantees, or we would never use them again.
 
This might be a bit of a hard pill to swallow for some guys who think that the height of revolutionary activity is hiding a gun in their basement until the wife gets angry about something or responding EMT’s rat them out, but the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting or competing, it’s about shooting the guys who are robbing you of your freedom.

Sorry, but at that point I’m not too worried about obtaining favorable domestic settlements or waiting until the parts fail on my gun or the accessories die.
 
Kendahl said:
I've discussed similar situations with anti-gun Brits on Quora. Their reply is that such an event would be vanishingly rare and the appropriate response would be to reason with him or escape rather than resort to force. When it's a home invasion for purposes of robbery, many believe the situation is dangerous only if the homeowner escalates it. I had one insist that the intruder is a human being, too, and deserves a chance at rehabilitation. The implication is that it's the homeowner's duty to risk injury or death so that the intruder gets that chance.
Click to expand...

Yep. & so many battered women think that if they were just nicer to them, their abusive, parasitic boyfriends would stop beating them.

It's a mental illness. It's called codependency.
 
Walkalong said:
So in my mind there are two fronts, one against the anti politicians in office, and one to convince the general population they need to stop voting for anti gun politicians, simply vote for a neutral or pro gun politician who will otherwise vote how they would like them too. Not easy, I give you that.
Click to expand...

There is one hiccup in your theory, and that's the phenomena of the single-issue voter. For many people here at THR, the 2nd Amendment is everything. Many of us (and I'm purposely generalizing here) will not vote for a candidate who isn't strong on the 2A front no matter how much we might align with said candidate's remaining platform. There are many people in America who feel the same way about some other issue. For example, try getting someone who is "pro-choice" to vote for a pro-gun candidate who is not pro-choice. Not going to happen.

This is the problem with the left/right paradigm. The parties have aligned themselves with certain voting blocs that are intended to be mutually exclusive. The pro choice voter can't possibly vote for a pro gun candidate, even though the two issues aren't really connected.
 
I guess my take on this is that I am willing to fight for the Constitution. Until the 2A is repealed, as I said, it stands. I understand what the Founders wanted. They fought a war for it. Will you? Most will not.
Most will just go back to watching NFL and reality TV and CNN and think that everything is OK.
I spent many years living my oath of office as a military man. I do not intend to give up on that oath. I do not need the SCOTUS to tell me what it means.
We are in a bad situation in this country regarding our Constitution. It has been eroding for decades. The Left has been very successful at destroying America. I understand that Golden Rule of "he who has the gold makes the rules." That did not work out so well for the Brits in 1776. It is all academic until they come to your house to take your guns. What will you do?
Frankly, even if the 2A is repealed, I will not give up the fight. As far as I am concerned this country has been thoroughly infiltrated and subverted by illegitimate actors over several decades. The people who claim to be our elected officials are not my representatives. I think it is obvious.
 
''I'd appreciate your feedback....''

Firstly, welcome to the forums:) and I hope you enjoy your stay. I think you will be a productive contributing member. Probably someone I would shoot with at a range.

However , you asked for a critique of your missive:cool:, the fabric of your article (IMHO) started to fray at fairies, and completely unraveled and popped all buttons when jumping to one of the most offensive curse words possible. I read no further.

I agree with the missive, others in the potential audience are fence setters or left leaners. If they similarly seen certain words as auto-triggers then they also stopped reading at that point.

The substance was great but IMHO (emphasis) that worded delivery isn't necessary. Again, one OPINION.

Would appreciate more writing, all positions are greeted by either don't agree, somewhat and positively agree. You'll never know till you try!

Again, welcome :thumbup:
 
theotherwaldo said:
The main goal of most of the gun-banners is to turn those that own guns into criminals and to turn those that support the right to bear arms into the supporters of criminals.
Click to expand...

Everytime one of these types of threads comes up, somebody has to reply with a statement like this, that is so ridiculous and so far fetched, that it embarrasses the rest of us responsible gun owners. Did those folks that wrote the laws banning driving drunk to it to create criminals? How about the ban on texting and driving? Or was it an honest attempt to save lives? Of course it created more criminals, because some idiots still drink and drive. Some morons still text and drive, but it's not the law that made them criminals, it's their own selfishness. I have said this many times on forums like this, I truly believe we already have enough gun control laws on the books. When it comes to requiring BCs for all gun transfers and Red Flag laws, I am with the belief that neither would impact the ability of any responsible American to own a firearm, still, I don't ardently support them. But....I do know where the majority of folks that support the banning of certain weapons are coming from and it's purely on the belief that it will save lives. It may be a misdirected belief and it may be futile, and it very well may come from just being scared of guns, but it is not in the interest of making criminals outta honest citizens. Make your arguments believable and factual and we have a much better chance of convincing others.
 
Last edited:
Did AA hijack GEMs account?

It sounding like we should just shut down the forum and turn the guns in now.

Unless we adopt one thought process, it's inevitable.

And if we do adopt that thought process, it's a forgone concusion.




There are many ways to argue for the pro 2A side and against it. Some have more facts, some have more emotion, some have more cliches.

Which technique you use depends on who you're talking to.

Relying solely on facts in effort to convince an emotional person that is not looking at facts is foolish.

It's like playing charades with someone wearing a blind fold.

Or telling your wife that losing your wedding ring is no big deal because it was so old anyways. Factually true but not helpful at all.
 
Last edited:
Sorry to introduce some analysis to the issue. Always the same, just accepting cliches as useful in a purity demand. We see the same old arguments again and again. You have to think and take the viewpoint of someone who you want to convince and not think that your argument is self-evident.

Yep, we just have the 2nd Amendment and we will bury our guns and more folks will be killed by bombs after the ban and Draino kills more folks and SCOTUS will save us and if every conservative votes and .... I get it now.

BTW, this is from a WSJ op-ed, the whole text is behind a pay wall but FYI for Scotus will save us fans: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-ch...ts-11588026396?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=2

What an enormous abdication. The Supreme Court ducked its first Second Amendment case in a decade on Monday, and the only plausible explanation is that Chief Justice John Roberts wanted to avoid becoming a target of vengeful Senate Democrats.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
GEM said:
Sorry to introduce some analysis to the issue. Always the same, just accepting cliches as useful in a purity demand. We see the same old arguments again and again. You have to think and take the viewpoint of someone who you want to convince and not think that your argument is self-evident.

Yep, we just have the 2nd Amendment and we will bury our guns and more folks will be killed by bombs after the ban and Draino kills more folks and SCOTUS will save us and if every conservative votes and .... I get it now.
Click to expand...

That was exactly my point.

I don't agree with the analyis/conclusion that this is the only argument.

GEM said:
The argument has to be that the presence of arms in the civilian population is a greater good than caused by their misuse.
Click to expand...

Having a 1 dimensional plan for multi dimensional problem is a plan to fail.
 
Well, what's your plan to reach outside of choir arguments? I'm open to them. I just felt that the usual cliches won't be useful.
 
Isn’t it ironic, we have the second amendment along with the other amendments, to say that the State cannot legally do to us what they have been doing to us for 150 years. Those of us who believe in the Constitution as the supreme law of the land do not have an enforcement mechanism for our viewpoint.
Our side is never desperate enough, and always law-abiding regardless of the unconstitutionality of the law, to counteract the relentless push of those wanting to rule us.
Those of us who believe we have to obey the laws no matter what would have been on the side of our rulers, the British, in the 1700s. We have been brainwashed into believing we need the millions of pages of code in order for law and order to exist.
There aren’t any God-given rights. The constitution doesn’t codify anything unless somebody is willing to enforce the words of that document with their lives. I don’t see that happening. Makes me sad but that’s how it looks to me if I scrape away all the BS.
 
buck460XVR said:
Everytime one of these types of threads comes up, somebody has to reply with a statement like this, that is so ridiculous and so far fetched, that it embarrasses the rest of us responsible gun owners. Did those folks that wrote the laws banning driving drunk to it to create criminals? How about the ban on texting and driving? Or was it an honest attempt to save lives? Of course it created more criminals, because some idiots still drink and drive. Some morons still text and drive, but it's not the law that made them criminals, it's their own selfishness. I have said this many times on forums like this, I truly believe we already have enough gun control laws on the books. When it comes to requiring BCs for all gun transfers and Red Flag laws, I am with the belief that neither would impact the ability of any responsible American to own a firearm, still, I don't ardently support them. But....I do know where the majority of folks that support the banning of certain weapons are coming from and it's purely on the belief that it will save lives. It may be a misdirected belief and it may be futile, and it very well may come from just being scared of guns, but it is not in the interest of making criminals outta honest citizens. Make your arguments believable and factual and we have a much better chance of convincing others.
Click to expand...

There is no right to drive, or right to drive drunk. I think it can be legitimately claimed these laws save lives, or atleast were intended to.
The right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution as the Second Amendment.
R. W. Emerson said '' a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." Yes, drunk driving laws create criminals because, as you say, people violate a just law directly intended to protect the populace. But gun bans create criminals from people who did nothing to affect others, and only defied the ban, which was unjust in the first place.

With regard to background checks and red flag laws, much depends on how they're written and enforced . Red flag laws often defeat due process concerns and can be done arbitrarily on the basis of someone with nothing more than a grudge who calls in anonymously. Background checks I think will prove ineffective as criminals often steal weapons or acquire them through some other illegal means, and making everyone who is buying/selling through a private party deal subject to a bc even if it's family to family is an unjust burden on the innocent.
 
Last edited:
buck460XVR writes:

How about the ban on texting and driving? Or was it an honest attempt to save lives? Of course it created more criminals, because some idiots still drink and drive. Some morons still text and drive, but it's not the law that made them criminals, it's their own selfishness.
Click to expand...

This is a weak attempt at a comparison, as those were bans on actions. Gun-bans are bans on objects, the criminal misuse of which has already been prohibited for as long as they have been around. Cars, alcoholic drinks, and cellphones capable of texting remain legal to own.
 
Texas10mm said:
Am I the only one who suspects the OP is a drive by troll?
Click to expand...

Maybe, but I have two brothers who are anti-Republican and inclined to support gun control. The article the OP wrote/linked is worth discussing with them, as they take their position seriously and will consider the points made. Likewise post number 19 will really sting when we discuss the issue. While single-issue voters are unlikely to be swayed by logic, those who feel that voting is important and are willing to consider the ramifications of their votes often can be.
 
dpnc said:
...Do bad guys that would use a semi-automatic rifle give up, or do they switch to another method, like the 2016 truck ramming attack in Nice, France that killed 86 people, or the explosives attacks at The Bath School Massacre in 1927 (44 killed) and Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 (168 killed).​
Click to expand...
Made a stab at fixin' it for you...​
 
Tommygunn said:
There is no right to drive, or right to drive drunk. I think it can be legitimately claimed these laws save lives, or atleast were intended to.
The right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution as the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

MedWheeler said:
This is a weak attempt at a comparison, as those were bans on actions. Gun-bans are bans on objects, the criminal misuse of which has already been prohibited for as long as they have been around. Cars, alcoholic drinks, and cellphones capable of texting remain legal to own.
Click to expand...

If you read my post, I wasn't making reference to the bans, only the intent behind them. Like the old Neil Young song Powderfinger...."cover me with the thought that pulled the trigger!". My response was to the post that claimed the only reason others want to enact more gun laws in because they want to make gun owners criminals. But....in reality, the SCOTUS has decided that travel is a right granted to us by the Constitution. It's just that the individual states have put restrictions on that right to travel. when it comes to the objects like cars and trucks. Kinda like the restrictions put on firearms when it comes to age at purchase, carrying concealed and where we can and cannot legally take them, even tho, they too, they remain legal to own. So in fact, the comparison is fairly close when you open your perspective.

My point was that sometimes(in fact, many times) we are our own worst enemies when we make outlandish claims as to why others want to restrict and why we should not be infringed. We tend to make the same ol', same ol, cliches and belittlements like "their just stupid!". Again, while I do not agree with them, I do understand where they are coming from and for the most part, it is in the name of safety....just like the majority of gun restrictions/laws, now on the books.
 
GEM said:
Well, what's your plan to reach outside of choir arguments? I'm open to them. I just felt that the usual cliches won't be useful.
Click to expand...

None of the cliches are useful here; I agree.

However they can be helpful if the anti tends to use them.... or to make a bold statement that gives them pause enough to listen to facts or maybe just more cliches.

Hey... what ever works. Sometimes you fight fire with fire and sometimes with water and other times with foam.


My plan? Are you throwing out bait?


I actually tend to talk to non gun people at work. As I develop relationships, there is a certain amount of trust and respect that develops. I also learn how/what they respond to best just by working with them day to day.


I'm not the guy that keeps shouting from a megaphone "pressure cookers kill.... ban assualt pressure cookers".

I'm the guy the works the crowd watching the guy with the megaphone.

So let's not completely discount the cliches etc.

Let's be smart enough to capitalize on opportunities to have a meaningful discussions regardless of how they start.


Here's a real example. A lady I work with is a "no guns = no death by guns". She doesn't even want them near her house. Her kids have never seen a real one let alone touch one.

Over months ....I've gotten her to admit there will never be no guns.

Ive also made here realize that part of why she taught her kids to swim is so that they can be safer around water... same with the driving lessons her son was going to. Give some examples like you teach kids about fire... about how to safely cook and not burn the house down.

Then I say things like that I think gun safety should be part of school lessons..... and that I, me personally, think it irresponsible as a parent if I didnt teach my kid gun safety beyond stay away from it just as I think it would be a failure on my part if I didn't teach kids water safety especially since there's far more guns than pools. She is actually thinking of it more. A safety class only... and she's affraid her son might want one if he's exposed to it. ( I said Good)

Another lady at work listens (we all work in the same dept and those 2 are somewhat friends outside of work) .... she has said her husband wanted a gun but she wouldn't allow it. She's not affaid like the other one but with small kids and the media....

Several months ago, she had said she thinks shes going to get one. After LA etc started shutting things down she now says she kind of wishes she had let her husband get one.


So, my plan? I tend to take a more individual approach and tailor my conversation to who I'm talking to I real life.

It's a revolutionary idea in an age of the 'faceless internet appealing to the heard with generic #tag fodder'.
 
buck460XVR said:
My response was to the post that claimed the only reason others want to enact more gun laws in because they want to make gun owners criminals.
Click to expand...
My point was that the leadership of the gun banners finds it useful and convenient to paint their opponents as dangerous criminals or the supporters of criminals, or as drunken and irresponsible rednecks and the backers of such dregs of society.
Whether they actually succeed in banning guns is actually irrelevant - the important part is the public perception of these gun owners and the people and institutions that support them.

I suspect that most of these leaders of the gun-banners do not actually want guns banned as that would take away a major part of their platform - and probably cost them many of their followers.

"Never actually solve a problem, as that would not only require effort in the solution but would also require the creation of a new problem."
 
Last edited:
"The Practicality of Gun Bans in America"

NONE!! They simply do not work. More importantly, we have a Constitution with a Bill of Rights. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" . Anything that "takes away" is an infringement. Magazine capacities, types of firearms and other accouterments (bayonets, suppressors, etc) are also equally protected, those that make arguments to "take away" are either stupid or have an evil agenda.
 
danez71 - we are not far off. I think a personal approach to convince people of the personal utility of firearms for their lives is very useful. I try to do that. I found my views were influenced by practical personal issues as well as theoretical ones. My strong response was to statements and strategies I thought are counterproductive at worse and useless at best. Won't repeat them again in detail.

Rodinal220 - have you read the entire discussion? What part of announcing the statement from the Second Amendment will magically dismiss laws or bans. Right now, we are waiting on SCOTUS to see if they take up cases that will really impact the current set of bans. That's the kind of analysis that frustrates me

Here's a quote from an excellent WSJ op-ed on the Court:
Justice Kavanaugh may agree with the Chief that the Court needs to avoid political
controversies, especially with Democrats threatening to pack the Court if they win the White
House and Senate in November. But the Court’s timidity on gun rights amid Senate threats
means that liberal and media intimidation will escalate. The Court hasn’t taken a Second
Amendment case in a decade, even as cities and states erode its landmark Heller decision bit by
bit. The Court is sending a signal that the Second Amendment is the exception in the Bill of
Rights, a second-class freedom.
Click to expand...


The article is behind a pay wall.
OPINION | REVIEW & OUTLOOK
The Chief Justice Ducks on Gun
Rights
The Court majority cowers to Senate Democratic threats.
Updated April 27, 2020 6:49 pm ET

Thus,
More importantly, we have a Constitution with a Bill of Rights. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" .
Click to expand...
is not going to change how the world works by just saying that. Can we be any clearer on this?

After the election if Trump lost, we lose a progun justice through age, death or retirement. We get an antigun justice. A case comes in and the new majority says:

1. The militia clause means only the armed forces have such guns.
2. Reasonable restrictions are the law of the land and the states can enforce them.

That's now the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Say the magic words again. But there will no new semis for sale anymore. As I pointed out, all you can do with yours is bury it.


When the "law" defies common sense, the public's faith in law is diminished and places our civil society at risk.
Click to expand...

Good point - tell that to the extremists of the left and right who want to control personal freedom and liberty based on their own social prejudices.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
13 Killed in Rampage Shooting in Serbia, Under Strict Gun Control
Replies
1
Views
414
Walkalong
Walkalong
M
  • Locked
Questioning banning semi-automatic and military weapons
2
Replies
46
Views
2K
Odd Job
Odd Job
C
  • Locked
Letter to the Editor & my response
Replies
10
Views
903
XLMiguel
X
Don357
  • Locked
Gun Ban Govt Intelligence
Replies
8
Views
684
Shadow 7D
S
hso
  • Locked
Good article from Forbes after the Biden request to Congress
2 3 4 5
Replies
101
Views
4K
bdickens
B
Back
Top