8 votes

Anyone here like to argue about gun control?

I am staunchly pro-gun. I have been debating people on Facebook for a while. Recently I asked someone what kind of gun control they wanted. She laid out a well thought out response that is seemingly moderate. I am going to sleep on my response to her, but since the DP has such a depth and breadth of collective knowledge, I thought I'd share her post. If anyone wants to suggest how to reply feel free to respond. Here's what the gun control advocate said:

I am for EXPANDED gun control legislation. I don't want anyone to be able to legally purchase any gun without having a background check. This includes gun shows, Internet, family, friend or any other outlet.

I'm also a little more extreme in my interests than Dale as far as I know. I think that people should have to pass a test (as we do in order to drive legally) before being allowed to purchase a gun. If they pass the background check and the test, then they can have access to legal guns. The test would question someone's good sense in ensuring the safety of their weapon. It should demonstrate that the person has at least read and understands some basic safety materials including safe storage and use of the weapon and who should and should not be allowed access to their guns (Newtown).

Finally, I would like a law that says that large magazines and fully automatic weapons are not legal for purchase by the general public.

I know that irresponsible gun owners will not follow the safety rules no matter what, but at least they will have had access to the knowledge and can face prosecution for the irresponsible use or storage of their weapons. I also know that criminals will still break the law. If the laws I want were passed, we would then have a means for prosecuting criminals who have guns that are not legal. Finally, I know that these are not complete solutions to the mass killings in America, but they are a start. And, I'd like to get started, please.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

As kindly as it's put...

...that doesn't change the fact that it's horse crap.

#1 - Background checks do approximately nothing. If they require background checks, I can sell a gun to a friend, NOT do a background check and... nothing. Nobody knows. It's utterly unenforceable and an outright ludicrous concept if one stops to think about it.

#2 - Actually, as far as FFLs go, I don't really see a problem with the dealer requiring a sort of "fill in the bubble" test before one buys a gun. I do take issue with the government mandating it. It still won't accomplish anything.

#3 - This person obviously does not know the current laws on the books. Full autos are totally illegal. I would argue the opposite, however, that we need to legalize fully automatic weapons. Take all the mass shootings combined over the past 50 years. Most common weapon? Pistols. Rifles account for almost no crime. Of course, this is disregarding the fact that the rifle is the go-to weapon of Patriots who defy tyrants. Pistols are what you use to fight your way to your rifle that you never should've left behind in the first place.

Let's say, hypothetically, someone goes on a rampage with a fully automatic M4 carbine. He's going to do MUCH less damage that way, believe it or not. Full auto wastes ammunition and makes the gun nigh-impossible to keep on target; it's for suppressive fire, not actual lethality.

Yes, if you're wondering, I love guns.

This argument

has been repeated a million times. Strict gun laws only impact law abiding citizens. Criminals will always have access to guns. The fallacy with her argument is she thinks by stricter gun control, it will reduce crime. This has never proven to be true.

Does she think Eric Holder and the FBI idiots involved in Fast and Furious should have gone through a background check? They ran guns to the Mexican drug cartels and they, in all probability, would have passed a background check (although I defy anyone to make the claim they are law abiding citizens).

By disarming law abiding citizens, does she think the "gun free zones" our children survive in will get better or is the reality that our children will be in a situation where a person, with violent tendencies, will practice shooting fish in a barrel, like they are now?

Let's recap. If stricter gun laws don't reduce crime, if people in our own government ignore the law and run guns illegally to drug cartels, if our children are fish in a barrel, does disarming law abiding citizens make any sense? Of course it doesn't. It makes certain people feel good. It's not my job to make anyone feel good. It's my job to protect myself and my property from people with criminal intent because I truly understand that when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Anyone who attempts to take my weapon away from me, I will consider no better than a criminal attempting to rob me of my property and the reaction will be the same.

You're not going to get through to her. Not this way at least.

Well thought out? Is her name Dianne? Because "her thoughts" just so happens to exactly mirror the Feinstein bill and the rhetoric from DC.

Her regurgitation tells me everything I need to know about her...

She's not using her own brain to rationalize an opinion of her own volition. Thus anything you say will be met with the preconditioned response, like source code in a computer program. And worse is she's anticipating those responses in what you're about to tell her. In short, she's not open to REALLY listening.

It's very hard for people like her to understand where people like us in the liberty movement are coming from, because they don't prescribe to a any one philosophical viewpoint to guide them in their every decision. Instead, most of their thoughts are driven on pure emotion. As a result their so-called rationale for forming opinions on matters are often inconsistent and in conflict depending on the situation. To see an example of this thought process at work just watch any Jan Helfeld interview.

If it was me I'd try not to argue guns but start a discussion on the philosophy of liberty since that's the foundation from which such matters can be answered. You're also likely find common ground there because virtually everyone will knee-jerk claim they were born free and own themselves etc. It's only when you start testing their assertions do things begin to fall apart. She may disagree but at least it'll get her mind actually working.

Churchill's law -“Never engage in a battle of wits with an unarm

Churchill's law -“Never engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.”
http://www.dailypaul.com/271044/churchills-law-never-engage-...

“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.” ― Henry Ford.

A 2nd Amendment argument you can use with anyone!

http://www.dailypaul.com/270702/a-2nd-amendment-argument-you...

“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.” ― Henry Ford.

Hugger, you're wise to let

Hugger, you're wise to let your friend's point of view settle. Too often when we think we're "enlightening" someone, we're actually just spouting our own beliefs. A settling period helps give us that break to understand where the other person is coming from and really respond in a way that communicates rather than spouts.

I'll do my best with what I gleaned from what you said about your friend's gun control stance.

Her first paragraph: I completely understand. In fact, some of her reasoning her, I think, is sound. I can, as a free person decide to disarm anyone, and I can use my reputation and social sway to convince others in my community to maintain the disarmament of that person. By extension, we can as a community imbue a government body with that power to disarm and maintain the disarmament of an individual.

Where the reasoning begins to break for me is when she wishes to use government to prevent people from acquiring weapons. Fine to disarm a person who has convinced a community he should be disarmed; really weird to not allow someone to acquire a weapon before they've showed themselves and idiot with it.

Ask your friend what sort of world she imagines if we decide to let government not allow a law-abiding father to pass on a weapon to a law-abiding son. Remind her that convicted felons, those society has already decided are not law abiding or responsible, are not allowed to own weapons nor to buy or give weapons to others. Would she wish to replace the court system, trial by jury, all our legal protections with some government "you're-not-worthy" system? What would her system be based on if not a group of one's peers finding one guilt?

Your friend's analogy with a driver's license is just a little silly. No one needs a license to drive. The license only gives a person state sanctioned permission to drive on publically funded roads. You don't need a license to drive on your own property, or on private roads. It's not the driving that's sanctioned by the government; it's the ability to drive on government roads.

Finally, ask her to think about what she says in her last graph. First she thinks that laws will give irresponsible gun owners access to knowledge about gun safety. Ask her to consider this theory in another realm. People didn't know about the dangers of smoking pot until there was a law against and now everyone is well informed with the actual facts of the felony that is taking a toke. Ask her if she'd really like to be surrounded by a community of folks that waits for laws to become informed on anything. Do people make laws? Or do law make people?

Ask her how she envisions the government would find and prosecute those folks who have all these suddenly illegal guns. There is no way for the government to find out if you've got your guns safely stored or it you're all responsible with them all the time unless she sanctions door-to-door searches. Ask her if she'd be willing for a door-to-door search. Tell her that a great deal of Americans believe that it's irresponsible to have sex outside a committed relationship. Some of them want government to go door-to-door to ferret out those who are irresponsible with their reproduction -- an irresponsibility that leads to far more human deaths in the number of aborted fetus that death by gun. Would she like government to come to her door and examine and judge how responsible she is?

Ask her how well those government test are doing when it comes to licensing "responsible" drivers on public roads. Ask her how well the state is doing at judging who should drive on our public roads. Ask her if she wants that level of incompetency deciding who carries bullets.

Ask her if it's "responsible" and "safe" to have sex and risk pregnancy when you're pretty sure you'd kill your fetus. Ask her if the million human fetus aborted every year kind of make the 30,000 shootings (including suicide and accidents) a silly argument. If we want to save lives, have the government go door-to-door looking for women who can't figure out birth control. And by the way, point out that according to her logic, making abortion against the law would at least give folks "access to knowledge."

Sorry, I actually meant to phrase all that in a way that would work with your friend. I got lazy. I hope that it as least gives you a framework to discuss with her while being far more tactful and compassionate.

phxarcher87's picture

Gun Control vs People Control

Gun control consist of using two hands on a weapon.

People control consists of regulation and eventually disarmament of free people.

Be sure to use Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zadong for references on people control.

n psychology, cognitive dissonance is the excessive mental stress and discomfort[1] experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time.

coffee_sponge's picture

The 2nd Amendment guarantees a right, not a privilege

The right to keep and bear arms is the logical extension of the right of self-defense. To ensure your ability to defend yourself, you must be able to keep the means of self-defense ever handy.

The 2nd Amendment guarantees a right. A right is something you are born with; it's part of your very humanity. Your rights are unlimited in as long as they are not abused to infringe on someone else's rights or property. Rights are not licenses allowing you to commit criminal acts.

Likewise, rights are not privileges. Privileges are permissions granted to do something or to be somewhere without which you would not have the authority otherwise. Privileges may be restricted or withdrawn entirely by the issuing authority. For example, you may enter someone else's property only with their permission; without their permission, you are trespassing.

Since government is not the source of our essential liberties, government has no authority to restrict or deny us our rights, unless we forfeit our rights, for example by committing criminal acts. Government's only role is to protect our rights and to enforce contracts.

When government establishes hoops and hurdles we must navigate simply to be able to exercise our rights, it is usurping authority it legitimately does not have. Such hoops and hurdles are known as "prior restraints". For example, we don't allow the government to require news reporters to submit their articles to a government censor for fact verification simply because someone may be libeled. We don't require patrons to wear gags in a crowed movie theater just because someone might yell "Fire!" in an effort to precipitate a panic. We simply prosecute someone if they actually commit a crime.

Background checks, even instant ones, are prior restraints on the 2nd Amendment right to arms. Unless someone wants to establish precedents that may eventually allow censorship, establishment of religion, etc. then any prior restraints must be opposed. We already see our rights to due process and to privacy evaporating because of these creeping encroachments.

In addition, the Bill of Rights is all about essential liberties, i.e. RIGHTS, not needs. "Who needs a magazine that holds more than X number of bullets?" Well, I don't have to prove or explain why I need X number of rounds; I have a RIGHT to have X number of rounds.

If someone insists that 2nd Amendment rights can be subjected to a needs test, then I insist we subject that person to an intelligence test before he/she is permitted to continue speaking in regards to the 2nd Amendment. If they pass that test, then they may articulate cogent reasons why they should be permitted to address this particular topic.

Why does Piers Morgan need access to millions of viewers for voicing his opinions, when most of us don't have that opportunity? The Founding Fathers never could have envisioned network television. Surely they would not want an angry simpleton like Piers to have the opportunity to reach so many people with the flick of a microphone key. Seventeenth Century technology consisted of a soap box. Today we have satellites. Let's ban CNN.

Egalitarian democracy demands that no one have access to assault communications equipment with the ability to reach so many people all at once. Just look at the panic precipitated by Orson Welles' original broadcast of War of the Worlds. I would remind people like Piers that one feeble-minded jerk behind a microphone is far more dangerous to our society than is some whack job with a gun.

Incidentally, while we are at it, let's subject these freedom-averse people to I.Q. tests before they are allowed to vote. The right to arms is an essential liberty expressly guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, which lists rights people are born with. Voting, on the other hand, is not mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Voting is a privilege of citizenship. If you are not a citizen, you are not supposed to vote, although you still have a right to speak freely, worship freely, etc. Low-information voters are far more dangerous to our society than are armed individuals. If it's OK to restrict our right to arms, then surely it's OK to bring back requirements that voters must be tax-paying property owners.

The bottom line is if people who don't like guns succeed in snuffing our 2nd Amendment rights, they in turn will lose the rights they care about as well. Our rights don't exist in a vacuum; they stand or fall as a unit.

Good article below video

A very good article:

http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/american-revolution-again...

“How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!” – Samuel Adams

My understanding of gun control is...

a good eye and a steady aim.

Potential Annualized National Debt Allowance - a look back at 40 years of PANDA diplomacy next Pandaline

I know exactly what you mean

Honestly, I'm very open minded. I will debate gun control with my friends and they'll make very good points. I hope that they see that I make very good points too. It's very hard debating somebody who's close-minded, so I try and always be open-minded.

In regards to your question, I feel like whenever you mention something about background checks here on the DailyPaul or some type of gun control (I don't mean to sound scathing), people will always be defensive and defend guns in GENERAL. However, not all gun control advocates are for taking away all guns. So I think it's really important that we stop using straw man arguments and misrepresenting the opposition. Most gun control advocates do not want to ban all guns, as you have pointed out. Some really do have moderate views.

My friend came to be about the universal background check law. He presented some very convincing arguments and I had to think about the gun show, internet, private sales loophole. I was very tempted to be onboard with closing down this background check loophole. But I started to remember why I'm a natural rights advocate instead of a utilitarian advocate. I think that people who use utilitarian philosophy don't have a backbone. They don't have principles. Like... if you ask a utilitarian... Do you believe in drug laws? Do you believe in the TSA? Do you believe in allowing terminally ill patients to have the right to choose experimental medicine for themselves that are not approved by the FDA? Do you believe in the NDAA? They'll assess each argument and see which side offers the greatest amount of happiness. However, Libertarians usually advocate the natural rights philosophy. If you ask us our views on these questions, we won't even bat an eyelash. We don't have to have a few minutes to think about our views. You already know that we're against drug laws, against the TSA, pro-terminally ill patient choices, and against the NDAA. This is because we actually have principles.

So, for the universal background check argument. I think Libertarians will generally say that this requirement violates private property rights. The government should not be allowed to dictate what you do with your property. Sure, it has the right to require Federal Firearms Licensed dealers to have their license to sell guns, and to run background checks, but this mandate is okay with me because it's a condition to be a licensed dealer. Just like you have to have a doctor's license to be a doctor. I'm cool with that mandate. But it shouldn't be able to mandate that private citizens undergo background checks to have a private voluntary exchange. I should be able to hand my pistol down to my son without any hassle. I should be able to sell my handgun to my friend without any hassle (unless he does something stupid with it and has a dangerous past, in that case I'm actually kind-of pro-negligence lawsuits but that's something totally different than this subject). Natural rights theory tells us that we have a right to our property and to do whatever we want with it.

In today's world, I am allowed to buy a car from my neighbor without any hassle. I'm not too sure about state laws, but I'm under the impression that if I just want to buy a Mercedes to keep in my garage to rust, I can literally pay my neighbor $5000 for his Mercedes without even applying to the DMV for a change of title. Likewise, I believe that I should be able to buy my friend's gun and keep it in my home, my own private domicile in my safe, without any hassle. NOW, if I wanted to take that gun out in PUBLIC, that's a totes different story! Just like if I want to actually ride my newly bought Mercedes out on state roads, I must apply for a driver's license / title change on the car. So, if I plan to take my gun out in public or to apply for a CCW license, I totally support having to pass a background check and passing tests. But literally, these laws are in place. People who carry firearms in public are already doing exactly what this gun control advocate is asking. They already do have to pass a background check, a skill exam, and a safety exam.

Anyways, besides the argument that private property protection allows for this private sales loophole, I really think that the universal background check is a slippery slope. Because LITERALLY, with this new universal background check, the government must know every time a gun changes hands. So why does the government need to know this? With this new law, it would always know who owns what guns. Because if you sell your handgun to somebody else, you have to notify the government that you did. I think there's enough historical precedence to show that

Step 1: Universal background checks
Step 2: Registration, always knowing where every gun is at in any moment within that country
Step 3: Confiscation, if crap ever hits the fan and martial law is ever imposed

Now, if there was some magical way to ensure that background checks were deleted within 24 hours, I think maybe I would give the universal background check more thought. I don't see why gun control advocates would have a problem with this. They would get their universal background check ensuring everybody who ever purchased a gun would be safe to own one. And the federal government could never keep a registry on its citizens. This would seem to be a great thing. But honestly, I don't believe it'll ever happen. The surveillance state is growing, and they will never delete any of their data on anything.

not sure if...

http://qkme.me/3u5f30

I use Blue Wave, but don't expect one of THEIR silly taglines.

Respond like this:

And who do you propose enforce these laws??? the same organization that is selling guns to mexican drug cartels??? the same organization that ____ (insert atrocity here where the government was involve with the murder of innocent life)...

then inform them that you have found a flaw in there plan...

It doesn't say "shall not be infringed unless..."

ConstitutionHugger

ConstitutionHugger's picture

You misunderstood the purpose of my post.

I'm pro-gun. I'm even pro-cannon. I was looking for feedback on how to respond to this person's seemingly moderate position on gun control. Usually the people I come across are much stupider than this lady so I haven't research the arguements against these intrusive government regulations. And for her, I'm sure quoting the 2nd A isn't going to convince her she's wrong.

How do you mean by pro-cannon, sir?

Is there a line that you draw to restrict private citizens from owning some weapons like nukes, tanks, machine guns? Does the line that you draw have some basis, or is it an arbitrary line that you draw based on your judgment that you believe this X gun is bad and this Y gun is not that bad?

I actually would love to hear your response. I have a difficult time drawing a line too. I feel like my line is arbitrary. Like, I don't want citizens to be able to own tanks, but I want them to be able to own handguns. But honestly, I don't have any argument or any basis from which to create this line. I suppose it's just my own man-made judgment.

However, I did come across a RP clip talking about gun control that seems to answer this question. If you're interested, you only have to watch the first 20 seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX_NaaKqwV8

Do you agree with Ron Paul? And how do you argue your pro-cannon stance?

ConstitutionHugger's picture

My pro-cannon stance was inspired by this quote:

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." -Tench Coxe 1788

If GovCo can have terrible implements, we can have them. Financial limitations and personal liability would be the only deterance.
Private citizens already own tanks and cannons. Because they are so expensive, most people don't have them. I've never heard of people being irresponsible with them.

Quote Jefferson

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Then, ask the question: "In reality, who would determine the qualifications to be met in order to own a gun?"

Person answers: "The government."

Then: "Well, that's analogous to letting slave owners decide whether or not their slaves can vote. Don't you imagine if slaves could vote, they would vote down slavery?"

Person answers: "Of course."

Then: "In reality, the government is not that different from a slave owner. Wouldn't you consider 100% taxation as slavery?"

Person answers: "Yes."

Then: "I think we're getting closer and closer to a state of slavery everyday. Every year, I take home less and less of my hard earned money. As it is, 50 cents on every dollar ends up going to some level of government whether through income or sales tax. That is, half of the hours I spend at work are in servitude to the government. Who will defend me when they decide they need all my money? If they are the ones who decide who are and aren't allowed to have guns, do you think they would let their slaves have guns?"

Person answers: "No."

Then: "Well, then it's not a good idea to let the central government decide who can and can't have guns. Besides, there are already state background checks."

Then, finish with another Jefferson quote - "Thomas Jefferson also said..."

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

Then: "Don't you think they are trying to take it?"

TwelveOhOne's picture

Thank you!

I love this site! Over the past year, my argumentative skills have increased tremendously - through osmosis it seems, being exposed to great writing such as this.

I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.
http://fija.org - Fully Informed Jury Association
http://jsjinc.net - Jin Shin Jyutsu (energy healing)

ConstitutionHugger's picture

I shouldn't make posts when I'm tired

I am against gun control. But because I'm tired tonight I needed some mental help with arguing against this lady's ideas on gun control. I always find it best to sleep on it before responding anyway. There is such a breadth and depth of knowledge here from all the contributors of the DP that I like to come here and ask for help when I'm feeling stumped. Love the comments below, btw. But was hoping for something that a typical obamanite might be able to grasp.

How about sharing facts about guns?

Does she know how many crimes and lives have been saved by guns owned by good people, and if we were all armed, many of these "mass shootings" would never happen. The "wild west" had the lowest crime rates in American history. Areas with the most gun control laws are the places where the most crime occurrs. Common sense, why would I steal from an armed person when I can steal from an unarmed chump.
And what about the facts about the real causes of death. While guns and bombs get all the media attention, more people die from car accidents and falls than from guns. And even more die from abortion, about 3000 babies per day, and we are wasting time arguing about gun control? Seems to me we should start with banning abortion like we did when we were a moral nation and believed in God.....
Hope this helps.

I believe the gun laws should

I believe the gun laws should be the same for the taxfeeders as they are for the peasants, but the laws should be enacted for the taxfeeders first so they can show us the benefits of their gun control.

If tax feeders can have automatic weapons with huge mags then so should the peasants who are forced to pay the taxfeeders their ridiculous incomes.

BAN HAND GUNS

we dont need em

.

We don't need Ferraris either

After all, don't automobile accidents cause more deaths than handguns?

BAN THEM

A signature used to be here!