Observations on the anti-gun crowd

[M14 Shooter]

What I find most amusing about the anti-gun crowd - especially the anti-gun crowd on this board - is their inability to engage in a knowledgeable, honest, reasoned conversation about the issue.
Their posts are full of strawmen, falsehoods, intentional or otherwise, abject ignorance, unsound reasoning, non-sequitur and ad hom, all of which, of course, are useless for a meaningful conversation among adults.

If you are -so- right, why can you not present a sound, reasoned, honest, knowledgeable argument to back your position?

Wait...
You say you're not anti-gun, you just want "common sense" laws and/or "reasonable restrictions"?
Prove it.
Provide an example of a gun control law you believe constitutes an infringement upon the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd amendment, and thus violates the constitution.

 

[Failzero]

Not embracing Open Carry makes you an Anti here

 

[Concerned American]

Not embracing Open Carry makes you an Anti here

Not anti--but certainly in need of learning the meaning of 'shall not be infringed.' Like a millionaire tax not affecting those making less, it is short sighted to not recognize that once the foot is in the door, other with less will be taxed as well--in the same vein, an unconstitutional infringement will only lead to more.

 

[Oddball]

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

What I find most amusing about the anti-gun crowd - especially the anti-gun crowd on this board - is their inability to engage in a knowledgeable, honest, reasoned conversation about the issue.
Their posts are full of strawmen, falsehoods, intentional or otherwise, abject ignorance, unsound reasoning, non-sequitur and ad hom, all of which, of course, are useless for a meaningful conversation among adults.

If you are -so- right, why can you not present a sound, reasoned, honest, knowledgeable argument to back your position?

Wait...
You say you're not anti-gun, you just want "common sense" laws and/or "reasonable restrictions"?
Prove it.
Provide an example of a gun control law you believe constitutes an infringement upon the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd amendment, and thus violates the constitution.

What is the point of this OP? Legit research, or more ways to develop new rhetoric to hate on the left?

 

[Votto]

What I find most amusing about the anti-gun crowd - especially the anti-gun crowd on this board - is their inability to engage in a knowledgeable, honest, reasoned conversation about the issue.
Their posts are full of strawmen, falsehoods, intentional or otherwise, abject ignorance, unsound reasoning, non-sequitur and ad hom, all of which, of course, are useless for a meaningful conversation among adults.

If you are -so- right, why can you not present a sound, reasoned, honest, knowledgeable argument to back your position?

Wait...
You say you're not anti-gun, you just want "common sense" laws and/or "reasonable restrictions"?
Prove it.
Provide an example of a gun control law you believe constitutes an infringement upon the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd amendment, and thus violates the constitution.

Stop trying to make sense of the Left as they march around saying we should all give our guns to the government, and then in the next breath protest Trump is Hitler, which is essentially demanding we give Hitler all our guns.

You may as well try figuring out why these same gun hating loons then use guns they claim to hate so much in order to assassinate pretty much all of their political opponents as well.

 

[westwall]

What is the point of this OP? Legit research, or more ways to develop new rhetoric to hate on the left?

Trust me, hating the left requires no work. Simple common sense does that.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Trust me, hating the left requires no work. Simple common sense does that.

Are you the OP?

 

[westwall]

Are you the OP?

Nope, just answering you.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Nope, just answering you.

Why?

 

[westwall]

Why?

It seemed you needed some information

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

It seemed you needed some information

Is this the kind of person you are? A busybody? Did I specifically ask for an opinion from you?

 

[forkup]

What I find most amusing about the anti-gun crowd - especially the anti-gun crowd on this board - is their inability to engage in a knowledgeable, honest, reasoned conversation about the issue.
Their posts are full of strawmen, falsehoods, intentional or otherwise, abject ignorance, unsound reasoning, non-sequitur and ad hom, all of which, of course, are useless for a meaningful conversation among adults.

If you are -so- right, why can you not present a sound, reasoned, honest, knowledgeable argument to back your position?

Wait...
You say you're not anti-gun, you just want "common sense" laws and/or "reasonable restrictions"?
Prove it.
Provide an example of a gun control law you believe constitutes an infringement upon the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd amendment, and thus violates the constitution.

What I find most amusing about this post is that it condemns the “anti-gun crowd” for being unable to engage in a “knowledgeable, honest, reasoned conversation,” because their arguments are supposedly full of strawmen, falsehoods, non-sequiturs, and ad hominem attacks.

Then, almost immediately, it falls into the same kind of reasoning it claims to oppose.

“You say you're not anti-gun, you just want ‘common sense’ laws and/or ‘reasonable restrictions’?”

That’s either a strawman or, at minimum, a broad generalization unless you can point to people here actually making that argument.

And this:

“Provide an example of a gun control law you believe constitutes an infringement upon the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms…”

…is an irrelevant litmus test a non-sequitur. Even if someone can’t point to such a law, that still would not prove they’re incapable of making a reasoned argument about gun policy.

The debate over reasonable gun control does not hinge on whether a person believes a law violates the Constitution. It hinges on what they can rationally defend as effective, justified, proportional, or necessary.

So there’s a pretty obvious irony in condemning weak argumentation while simultaneously relying on broad generalizations, loaded framing, and a test that doesn’t actually establish the point being argued.

But I’ll make a deal with you.

Let’s actually have the kind of honest, reasoned conversation you say you want.

I’ll start with two questions:

What gun control law, if any, do you believe does not infringe on the Second Amendment?

And why is the Second Amendment itself reasonable in the first place?

 

[westwall]

Is this the kind of person you are? A busybody? Did I specifically ask for an opinion from you?

Ummmmm, helloo...this is a discussion forum....we're here to DISCUSS things.

Helloooooooo

 

[westwall]

What I find most amusing about this post is that it condemns the “anti-gun crowd” for being unable to engage in a “knowledgeable, honest, reasoned conversation,” because their arguments are supposedly full of strawmen, falsehoods, non-sequiturs, and ad hominem attacks.

Then, almost immediately, it falls into the same kind of reasoning it claims to oppose.

“You say you're not anti-gun, you just want ‘common sense’ laws and/or ‘reasonable restrictions’?”

That’s either a strawman or, at minimum, a broad generalization unless you can point to people here actually making that argument.

And this:

“Provide an example of a gun control law you believe constitutes an infringement upon the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms…”

…is an irrelevant litmus test a non-sequitur. Even if someone can’t point to such a law, that still would not prove they’re incapable of making a reasoned argument about gun policy.

The debate over reasonable gun control does not hinge on whether a person believes a law violates the Constitution. It hinges on what they can rationally defend as effective, justified, proportional, or necessary.

So there’s a pretty obvious irony in condemning weak argumentation while simultaneously relying on broad generalizations, loaded framing, and a test that doesn’t actually establish the point being argued.

But I’ll make a deal with you.

Let’s actually have the kind of honest, reasoned conversation you say you want.

I’ll start with two questions:

What gun control law, if any, do you believe does not infringe on the Second Amendment?

And why is the Second Amendment itself reasonable in the first place?

ALL gun control laws infringe on the 2nd Amendment.

As to the reasonableness of the 2nd one must look to the intent of the people who wrote it. Why did they include it? Why did the write the Bill of Rights?

Easy, they understood that governments have a lifespan. The natural order of things is the government starts out with the concept of aiding and protecting its people. But over time corrupt individuals will take over the government with the intent of controlling the people for the benefit of the corrupt. Anacharcis said that "laws serve to only entangle the poor and powerless, while the rich and powerful are able to ignore those laws"

The Bill of Rights are nine limitations on what government (those corruptocrats) can do to the people, and one final option.

The 2nd merely enshrined the Right of the people to REMOVE corruptocrats when they become too powerful, and oppressive.

What is unreasonable about that?

Or do you favor a permanent one person/party rule?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not embracing Open Carry makes you an Anti here

There's a difference between not liking open carry and arguing there's no right to do it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What is the point of this OP? Legit research, or more ways to develop new rhetoric to hate on the left?

Thank for supporting the premise of the OP.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The debate over reasonable gun control does not hinge on whether a person believes a law violates the Constitution. It hinges on what they can rationally defend as effective, justified, proportional, or necessary.

Your statement is unreasonable, irrational and false, and directly supports the OP

You cannot have a sound, rational, knowledgeable or reasonable conversation about gun control - that is, laws which place restrictions on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms - without involving the constitution, because the constitution - the legal and political framework for the society we live in - directly addresses the right to keep and bear arms, and the limits which may be placed on same.

You can try to present an argument that does not involve the constitution and the jurisprudence regarding same, but then the argument takes place in a context that does not exist, and as such, supports the premise of the OP.

So, it does not matter how effective, justified or necessary you believe a law to be...
...the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
-Scalia, Heller, 2006

But I’ll make a deal with you.

I bet not.

Let’s actually have the kind of honest, reasoned conversation you say you want.

Yes. Lets.

I’ll start with two questions:

I already started. You avoided the challenge.

What gun control law, if any, do you believe does not infringe on the Second Amendment?

Laws which prohibit firing a firearm randomly into the air within city limits.
These laws pass the test laid out in Bruen as they are consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation as these laws, in some form, have existed in the American colonies since before they seperated from the UK

And why is the Second Amendment itself reasonable in the first place?

Already addressed. It's there, and you don't get to ignore it; you can try to have an argument that does not involve the constitution, but then the argument takes place in a context that does not exist.

I suspect you present this line of reasoning because you want to ignore the constitution as you know you cannot argue around it; such an argument is not only dishonest, irrational, and unreasonable, it is also a waste of time.

Your turn:
Provide an example of a gun control law you believe constitutes an infringement upon the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd amendment, and thus violates the constitution.
Well?

 

[Concerned American]

ALL gun control laws infringe on the 2nd Amendment.

As to the reasonableness of the 2nd one must look to the intent of the people who wrote it. Why did they include it? Why did the write the Bill of Rights?

Easy, they understood that governments have a lifespan. The natural order of things is the government starts out with the concept of aiding and protecting its people. But over time corrupt individuals will take over the government with the intent of controlling the people for the benefit of the corrupt. Anacharcis said that "laws serve to only entangle the poor and powerless, while the rich and powerful are able to ignore those laws"

The Bill of Rights are nine limitations on what government (those corruptocrats) can do to the people, and one final option.

The 2nd merely enshrined the Right of the people to REMOVE corruptocrats when they become too powerful, and oppressive.

What is unreasonable about that?

Or do you favor a permanent one person/party rule?

Reasonable gun control laws would be the same as what would be considered reasonable SPOON control laws. IOW--no laws.

 

[Failzero]

There's a difference between not liking open carry and arguing there's no right to do it.

Exactly