Gun Control - What's the Problem?

[2aguy]

I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.

Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...

Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.


View attachment 59771

Three of the first four posts supply your answer all in the same way: the old Slippery Slope fallacy.

Post 11, as is his wont, prefers the Strawman.

The "slippery slope" argument is the one that I do not understand. Why oppose something that makes sense in fear of possible future proposals that may or may not take away your rights? Why not do what is right now in an effort to help a big problem (even if it just helps a little) and fight proposals that impede your rights if/when they are proposed?

Two questions:
Are you college aged?
And do you understand that confiscation of weapons can and does sometimes leads to a tyrannical government?

Why would you take that chance when our government has taken a chunk of control in the form of gov run healthcare?
Next comes the cashless society where they can monitor your purchases.
You already cant go anywhere without being recorded or tracked on a toll road.
It's getting to be to close to 1984 for my taste...

I am 36 and the odds of us facing a tyrannical US government is about as likely as seeing a unicorn. To be honest I find that argument to be the least valid. Lets go with the unlikely scenario that the government does decide to take over, do you honestly think that the citizens would stand a chance against the military? Take the arsenal of your choosing and you still do not stand a chance, that time has come and gone. Hundreds of years ago, I understand the argument. Living in a place like Syria, I understand the argument... Living in the USA in 2016... Your freedom is better defended with your voice and your vote than it is with your gun. Many of you with this old school way of thinking need to get with the times... You would better support your cause with a stronger argument. In my opinion

It took Germany 20 years to go from the Weimar Republic to gas chambers...a modern nation state with world class universities, scientists, the rule of law and democratic institutions...........

We have drug cartels working with the Mexican government on our southern border murdering thousands of Mexican citizens each year...

 

[2aguy]

I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.

Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...

Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.


View attachment 59771

Three of the first four posts supply your answer all in the same way: the old Slippery Slope fallacy.

Post 11, as is his wont, prefers the Strawman.

The "slippery slope" argument is the one that I do not understand. Why oppose something that makes sense in fear of possible future proposals that may or may not take away your rights? Why not do what is right now in an effort to help a big problem (even if it just helps a little) and fight proposals that impede your rights if/when they are proposed?

Two questions:
Are you college aged?
And do you understand that confiscation of weapons can and does sometimes leads to a tyrannical government?

Why would you take that chance when our government has taken a chunk of control in the form of gov run healthcare?
Next comes the cashless society where they can monitor your purchases.
You already cant go anywhere without being recorded or tracked on a toll road.
It's getting to be to close to 1984 for my taste...

I am 36 and the odds of us facing a tyrannical US government is about as likely as seeing a unicorn. To be honest I find that argument to be the least valid. Lets go with the unlikely scenario that the government does decide to take over, do you honestly think that the citizens would stand a chance against the military? Take the arsenal of your choosing and you still do not stand a chance, that time has come and gone. Hundreds of years ago, I understand the argument. Living in a place like Syria, I understand the argument... Living in the USA in 2016... Your freedom is better defended with your voice and your vote than it is with your gun. Many of you with this old school way of thinking need to get with the times... You would better support your cause with a stronger argument. In my opinion

we are now leaving Iraq and Afghanistan.....having fought backward ass barbarians who were armed with rifles and improvised explosives .....and with our SEALs, Missles, and high tech weapons....we are the ones leaving the fight...not them.

So if our government ever did turn on us there is no reason to believe that a well armed citizenry couldn't stop it.

Hitler hated Switzerland and wanted to invade it...but was convinced by his military that it would be too difficult...the Swiss had over 435,000 well armed civilians who were prepared to fight any invasion....

So you would be wrong in your thoughts....

 

[2aguy]

Three of the first four posts supply your answer all in the same way: the old Slippery Slope fallacy.

Post 11, as is his wont, prefers the Strawman.

The "slippery slope" argument is the one that I do not understand. Why oppose something that makes sense in fear of possible future proposals that may or may not take away your rights? Why not do what is right now in an effort to help a big problem (even if it just helps a little) and fight proposals that impede your rights if/when they are proposed?

Two questions:
Are you college aged?
And do you understand that confiscation of weapons can and does sometimes leads to a tyrannical government?

Why would you take that chance when our government has taken a chunk of control in the form of gov run healthcare?
Next comes the cashless society where they can monitor your purchases.
You already cant go anywhere without being recorded or tracked on a toll road.
It's getting to be to close to 1984 for my taste...

I am 36 and the odds of us facing a tyrannical US government is about as likely as seeing a unicorn. To be honest I find that argument to be the least valid. Lets go with the unlikely scenario that the government does decide to take over, do you honestly think that the citizens would stand a chance against the military? Take the arsenal of your choosing and you still do not stand a chance, that time has come and gone. Hundreds of years ago, I understand the argument. Living in a place like Syria, I understand the argument... Living in the USA in 2016... Your freedom is better defended with your voice and your vote than it is with your gun. Many of you with this old school way of thinking need to get with the times... You would better support your cause with a stronger argument. In my opinion

Only a blithering idiot would think that all military personnel would back a socialist asshole as commander-in-chief and go against the people.
Now go hide

Only a paranoid fanatic is preparing for the next civil war. I hope you got your bunker fully stocked, because as you stock your arsenal preparing for the war that will never come, the majority of us are trying to do things that actually make a difference.

What is with all the references to the war on drugs?? I don't see the relation, that is a completely different subject.

One point on the war on drugs...it is fueling the majority of the gun murder in the United States...the majority of gun murder is committed by criminals murdering other criminals with strong connections to drugs.

Second, you can't keep drugs out of the country, you won't be able to keep guns out of the hands of criminals..the ones using them to murder people....

 

[2aguy]

"Gun Control - What's the Problem?"

Problems, actually.

Such as many on the right who are ignorance of Second Amendment jurisprudence, who refuse to accept the fact that the Second Amendment right is not absolute, and conservatives who contrive and propagate ridiculous lies about 'gun confiscation.'

None of congress' enumerated powers would permit them to enact a law criminalizing gun acquisition or possession.

but the supreme court can make various state laws constitutional and then they will be made into federal laws the next time the dems have power.

 

[2aguy]

Two questions:
Are you college aged?
And do you understand that confiscation of weapons can and does sometimes leads to a tyrannical government?

Why would you take that chance when our government has taken a chunk of control in the form of gov run healthcare?
Next comes the cashless society where they can monitor your purchases.
You already cant go anywhere without being recorded or tracked on a toll road.
It's getting to be to close to 1984 for my taste...

I am 36 and the odds of us facing a tyrannical US government is about as likely as seeing a unicorn. To be honest I find that argument to be the least valid. Lets go with the unlikely scenario that the government does decide to take over, do you honestly think that the citizens would stand a chance against the military? Take the arsenal of your choosing and you still do not stand a chance, that time has come and gone. Hundreds of years ago, I understand the argument. Living in a place like Syria, I understand the argument... Living in the USA in 2016... Your freedom is better defended with your voice and your vote than it is with your gun. Many of you with this old school way of thinking need to get with the times... You would better support your cause with a stronger argument. In my opinion

Only a blithering idiot would think that all military personnel would back a socialist asshole as commander-in-chief and go against the people.
Now go hide

Only a paranoid fanatic is preparing for the next civil war. I hope you got your bunker fully stocked, because as you stock your arsenal preparing for the war that will never come, the majority of us are trying to do things that actually make a difference.

What is with all the references to the war on drugs?? I don't see the relation, that is a completely different subject.

No, not really. Recreational narcotics have been against the law as long as I've been alive. Yet the people that want drugs get them. That's the relationship.

It's the same way with guns. If Democrats had their dream which is to make all guns illegal, then only the criminal and police would have guns because the criminals are not about to give their guns up.

Thanks for posting an intelligent argument and not just calling the Pres an asshat. I see the relationship between drugs and guns that you are talking about but the big difference is drugs are illegal and guns are not. When it comes to prescription meds there are ton of hoops you have jump through to get those, like seeing a doctor and getting a prescription. I just don't agree that Dems only want cops and criminals to have guns and even if that is the desire of some, that is not a realistic possibility and I don't see anybody rational leader proposing that. The measures that have been put on the table all make sense, but yet the pro-gunners fight tooth and nail against an invisible agenda of what they think will come in the future. If it is just about the issues proposed i'd think any responsible person, especially gun owners would support them. If not then please explain how they are harming your rights. I'm talking about closing the gun show loophole, improving background checks and the database etc...

I am curious....could you state the measures and then explain how they actually work. You seem to be new here, and I have asked the other people who support your position to do the same...they can't or won't...will you?

 

[rockledr]

I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.

Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...

Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.


View attachment 59771

Read this article it covers it pretty good from both sides. The question that should arise is why did they start harping on suicide when gun deaths are down? Why this huge need to regulate guns more?

Gun control groups stress suicides in bid for more support - CNNPolitics.com

 

[2aguy]

Gun culture in this country has gotten pretty far out there... its got me shaking my head and i'm a gun owner,. #embarrassing

1min 40sec
Guns for sale - inside an American gun show - BBC News

Did you think about that clip?

Do you realize that if a criminal wants that 400 dollar gun...and Universal Background checks were in place....then the criminals would do what they already do...they would send in a straw buyer, someone they know or hire to buy the gun because that buyer can pass a background check.....so Universal Background checks would still not stop that purchase.

And do you realize that Britain is 2x as violent as the United States....that the people of Britain are robbed and beaten at a higher rate than they are here?

And you know they still have gun crime in Britain...all the time...in fact, after the confiscation their gun crime spiked and then it fell back to the same level it was after the confiscation....do you realize that? They confiscated guns and all they got for it was the same level of gun violence they had before the confiscation...and more violent crime in general........


The difference between the U.S. and Europe and Australia....our criminals commit murder more often....it is not those people at the gun show that are the problem...it is career criminals......our criminals murder more often than the criminals in Britain, Europe and Australia even though they have the same ability to get the guns they want and need.

Even in Japan.....they have had gang wars over there...and are concerned about another one that might break out...the gangs there are buying guns and hiring hit men.....so even in Japan, when their criminals want to murder people, they can get the guns they want and need.....

Most of the time they just don't choose to murder as often.....

 

[2aguy]

You guys are still missing the whole point... Nobody is arguing that you can't have a gun!!!! You are defending that position but nobody is trying to take that away. Show me the legislation proposing that... There is none.

You say that making improvements to the purchase process won't prevent criminals from getting guns but you still don't explain why you think it is a bad idea???? Why are you fighting against actions that intend on securing that only responsible individuals are able to buy guns????

Washington is moving to ban standard magazines an Assault rifles....neither move will effect criminals or mass shooters in any way.....

Did you know that there are over 3 million AR-15s in private hands...and only 2-3 a year are used for crime...yet the anti gunners want them banned...why?

 

[2aguy]

You guys are still missing the whole point... Nobody is arguing that you can't have a gun!!!! You are defending that position but nobody is trying to take that away. Show me the legislation proposing that... There is none.

You say that making improvements to the purchase process won't prevent criminals from getting guns but you still don't explain why you think it is a bad idea???? Why are you fighting against actions that intend on securing that only responsible individuals are able to buy guns????

Why are you fighting against actions that intend on securing that only responsible individuals are able to buy guns???

First , because owning a gun is a Right that came before the Constitution was ever created.

Second....those actions you talk about won't secure that only responsible individuals get guns...the current background checks have not stopped criminals or mass shooters from getting guns.

Criminals steal their guns, or get a straw purchaser to buy the guns for them.....so even Universal Background checks would fail to stop them.

Mass shooters.....almost all of them passed one or more background checks for the guns they used to murder people in gun free zones. The others bought their guns illegally or stole them.

 

[2aguy]

The bottom line is we already have all the laws we need to stop gun crime. If you use a gun to commit a crime you are arrested and put in jail. If you are a felon and are caught in possession of a gun at your home or on your person you can be arrested and sent to jail.....

That is all the gun control we need......and it actually targets people who break the law with guns.

Everything you think you support.....targets normal, law abiding gun owners who do not break the law using their guns and they don't shoot other people.

Why do all of the laws you support target law abiding gun owners but do nothing to stop criminals and mass shooters?

 

[2aguy]

where do you get those great photos from?

 

[2aguy]

So? No gangbangers are buying overpriced firearms at gun shows. In How many of these killing do the firearms come from gun shows??

This is an nonissue...

The only way to avoid a background check is to buy from a private seller. Gunshow or not. The claim of a "gunshow loophole" is a blatant lie told by the anti-liberty left in their pursuit to end civil rights.

And all you have to do to avoid any background check....steal the gun or get someone with a clean record to buy it for you....which is the way it is done at gun stores, guns shows and if they pass Universal background checks, they will use it for them too....

 

[2aguy]

Centinel, Please elaborate... Because Congress can not make it illegal it is a bad idea? That doesn't make sense.

Correct. If congress enacts laws for which it has no constitutional authority, then that's a bad idea.

I agree with that statement Centinel, but it is also a question of interpretation. As the 2nd allows us the right to bare arms it certainly does not say without regulation or restriction. It is a privilege and a huge responsibility to own a gun and it is up to us to decide who and how we allow to have one, especially in a society that has shown continued abuse and recklessness which has resulted in many deaths. Much like driving a car, we must be of age and pass a test verifying that we are responsible enough to handle that privilege. There are many auto deaths a year and we are continuously working to make that system as safe as possible. I'd hope for a similar effort with guns but there is so much resistance.

No...sorry. Owning a gun is aRight....the democrats used literacy tests to keep blacks from exercising their right to vote....they also used Poll taxes to block blacks from voting....that is why both are Un constitutional and violate the 14th amendment.....

we simply have to bring cases based on the 14th Amendment to defeat many of these taxes and bans.....

guns are already safe....they have safety features to keep them from firing when they are dropped and other features that make them safe......

You can't make a car safe against intentional harm......same with a gun.

Gun accidental deaths in 2013... 505...with over 320 million guns in private hands at the time.

Car accidental deaths.... 2013.. over 35,000

 

[2aguy]

So? No gangbangers are buying overpriced firearms at gun shows. In How many of these killing do the firearms come from gun shows??

This is an nonissue...

The only way to avoid a background check is to buy from a private seller. Gunshow or not. The claim of a "gunshow loophole" is a blatant lie told by the anti-liberty left in their pursuit to end civil rights.

You can watch it straight from the horses mouth in the BBC news piece I posted earlier... I know its hard to take a break from Fox but i promise everything will be ok... Hannity will still be on later tonight.

and you just showed you suck.....cheap shot at people actually trying to discuss the issue....twit.

 

[2aguy]

Centinel, Please elaborate... Because Congress can not make it illegal it is a bad idea? That doesn't make sense.

Correct. If congress enacts laws for which it has no constitutional authority, then that's a bad idea.

I agree with that statement Centinel, but it is also a question of interpretation. As the 2nd allows us the right to bare arms it certainly does not say without regulation or restriction. It is a privilege and a huge responsibility to own a gun and it is up to us to decide who and how we allow to have one, especially in a society that has shown continued abuse and recklessness which has resulted in many deaths. Much like driving a car, we must be of age and pass a test verifying that we are responsible enough to handle that privilege. There are many auto deaths a year and we are continuously working to make that system as safe as possible. I'd hope for a similar effort with guns but there is so much resistance.

Are you stupid in the head??
No one has an right to a car.
Firearms are an right.

Firearms are an right? Ok genius... So you do think a 5 year old has the right to take a gun to school? Do you think an ex-con fresh out of jail should be able to stroll into a gun store and buy a gun? How about the mentally disturbed? If you have any brain you'd say no to these loaded examples, but it validates the point that there are limits and restrictions that should be put in place. Now if you said yes to any of those examples i'd love to hear your rationale

and your left wing loony toons are coming out....it just takes facts, the truth and reality and the inner liberal reacts to them like a vampire to a cross.....

 

[2aguy]

You guys are still missing the whole point... Nobody is arguing that you can't have a gun!!!! You are defending that position but nobody is trying to take that away. Show me the legislation proposing that... There is none.

You say that making improvements to the purchase process won't prevent criminals from getting guns but you still don't explain why you think it is a bad idea???? Why are you fighting against actions that intend on securing that only responsible individuals are able to buy guns????

Other than circumvent congress, what did Obama's recent executive actions do that will prevent future shootings like the ones he cited as his call to action? What will they do to prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals?

Oh yeah... NOTHING.

So while I have no problem with the effects these executive orders will have, I take issue with his use of the executive orders to circumvent congress on this issue.


If I were a cynic, I'd think this was just a foot in a door President Obama hopes to pry open with more executive orders, more circumventing congress...

I feel like you all are reading from the same talking points and are fighting this invisible ghost agenda. How can we make progress without a first step. You said you have no problems with the effects of the executive actions and I think many would agree if they took them at face value. So my question is why can't we just take them at face value and if that horrible follow up occurs where your rights are violated and your guns are trying to be taken away then state your objections. The way the Pro-Gunners act now just adds more fuel to the fire and creates more polarity. Its the same reason why things are at a standstill in Washington. People would rather fight, argue and banter than work together and create change.

So my question is why can't we just take them at face value and if that horrible follow up occurs where your rights are violated and your guns are trying to be taken away then state your objections.

Once a Right is lost it is almost impossible to get it back.........and giving up a right when things are peaceful will mean you won't realize what you have done until it is too late....just ask the Jews and other political enemies of the nazis who registered their guns in the Weimar Republic because they believed the government would protect them....and needed to know who owned the guns......

 

[2aguy]

Boy, 8, Accidentally Kills Self at Gun Show

Man Shot, Killed Outside Cedar Park Gun Show

Five Injured After Firearms Go Off In Ohio, NC, Indiana Gun Shows

Woman Shot at Gun Show in Bloomsburg

Pastor Shot Dead by Son-In-Law Outside Gun Show in Tragic Sunday Accident

---- What exactly does the word "ZERO" mean on your planet, Sparkles?

2013.... 320 million guns... 320 million guns in private hands....

Number of accidental gun deaths, total... 505.

So, which number is bigger and by how much?

and with all those guns....gun murder has gone down, not up.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.

Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...

Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.


View attachment 59771

Three of the first four posts supply your answer all in the same way: the old Slippery Slope fallacy.

Post 11, as is his wont, prefers the Strawman.

The "slippery slope" argument is the one that I do not understand. Why oppose something that makes sense in fear of possible future proposals that may or may not take away your rights? Why not do what is right now in an effort to help a big problem (even if it just helps a little) and fight proposals that impede your rights if/when they are proposed?

because this is not the first time people have demanded registration of guns to keep people safe......it happened in Germany, Britain and Australia....the most prominent and known examples...then years later...they banned and confiscated all guns.

This is not made up, it has actually happened......

and in the worst case scenario...12 million people were sent to the gas chambers when Europe was disarmed.

Britain wants its guns back - The Commentator

 

[2aguy]

You guys are still missing the whole point... Nobody is arguing that you can't have a gun!!!! You are defending that position but nobody is trying to take that away. Show me the legislation proposing that... There is none.

You say that making improvements to the purchase process won't prevent criminals from getting guns but you still don't explain why you think it is a bad idea???? Why are you fighting against actions that intend on securing that only responsible individuals are able to buy guns????

They're doing that because their attachment is on a purely emotional level. It's because what they're dealing with is, after all, a fetish. And not at all unlike the baby who cries when his pacifier's taken away, they bawl on the internet. The only difference is they're bawling before it happens, because they're old enough to have learned not only the fetishism, but the paranoia to go with it.

Germany, Britain, Australia......guns first registered....for the protection of the citizens...and then later confiscated.

 

[OKTexas]

I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.

Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...

Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.


View attachment 59771

CA has everything he wants and then some, how'd that work to keep guns away from terrorist? There's no need for more laws, just enforce the ones we have, gun prosecutions have dropped by almost half under the dear leader, now he want's more laws on the law abiding, screw him.