Gun Control Essay

Discussion in 'Carry Issues' started by R4lf, Oct 30, 2011.

  1. So I pride myself in the ability to read and discover both sides of an argument. With that in mind I in now way support what this individual wrote or think anyone should support him in any way, but I did read his essay and I was looking for some opinions from my fellow 2A supporters.

    If you happen to know of any forums that are strictly anti-gun mssion oriented let me know. I enjoy learning from my enemies. ;)


    Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
  2. No offense but why bother?

  3. None taken, one of my closer friends says the same thing to me when I bring it up. I personaly find it easier to make my decisions, large or small, when I get all the facts. I find the concept so alien to me that not all people have guns. I knew of only one weapon in my house and I never interacted with it. Now that I'm older I am being more weapon friendly than the majority of my extended family.

  4. It's really pretty simple. Read John Lott's book "More Guns, Less Crime." It proves that concealed carry decreases crime. I find liberals to be very hostile and closed minded on the subject though.
    #4 MinervaDoe, Oct 30, 2011
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2011
  5. Oh no, Kim isn't such a bad guy. He's just not understood.

    #5 R4lf, Oct 31, 2011
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2011
  6. samurairabbi

    samurairabbi Dungeon Schmuck

    That collection of essays is actually on the somewhat "reasonable" side of advocacy of limitations on civilian firearm ownership. It needs some updating, even given the probable politics of its authors.

    It devotes considerable space to the supposed "collective right" doctrine. That "collective" theory of the second amendment is now dead. ALL opinions in Heller and MacDonald affirmed the "individual" nature of the 2nd amendment; the 5-4 splits in both decisions concerned the level of allowable limitations on that individual right. The "collective" theory had a potent run in its era, but anyone now supporting it after two US Supreme Court decisions UNANIMOUSLY rejecting it is more ideologue than legal observer.

    The "balancing of interests" advocacy is a tactic FAVORED when trying to advance restrictions one favors, and OPPOSED when facing restrictions one dislikes. There are many issues on which many, left or right, would outright reject a "balance of interests" argument.
    #6 samurairabbi, Oct 31, 2011
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2011
  7. "Hand grip ID tagging"? LMAO, Oh this guy who wrote the essay is definitely a stoner, that sounds like something a stoner would come up with after taking one too many hits from the bong!
  8. Lior


    If you're interested in reasonable gun control, how about the idea of keeping dangerous criminals away from guns, i.e. by keeping them in prisons and morgues?
  9. Oh no, that makes too much sense. I always thought you were innocent until PROVEN guilty. Now and days it seems more innocent people are being convicted everyday.

  10. TexasFats

    TexasFats NRA, TSRA, SAF

    Proper gun control in five steps.

    1. Take a well-balanced power stance.

    2. Get both hands high on the handgun.

    3. Use a strong, two-handed grip.

    4. Focus on the front sight.

    5. Good trigger control.

    Means that you will hit where you aim.

    Learned that from one of Mas Ayoob's books.
    #10 TexasFats, Oct 31, 2011
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2011
  11. That essay seems obsolete. It mentions support for the Brady Bill. It also cites the Supreme Court has not issued a ruling concerning the 2nd Amendment. Also, it appears to be written by a Japanese person. The Japanese are primarily a knife culture with a higher suicide rate than the United States.
  12. To quote another GT member who's already replied, "Why bother?"

    The author immediately sidesteps the fact that the US Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right of all law-abiding US citizens. This constitutional right includes handguns as well as rifles and shotguns. The fact that the author ignores this fact by resorting to the "not an absolute right" means next to nothing in my opinion, any more than shouting, "Fire", in a crowded theatre without just cause voids our First Amendment rights.

    The author apparently has put a lot of effort into his web site but his anti-rights position and the method by which he seeks to argue for his specious position is slipshod and smacks of pandering to acceptable Leftist attitudes and agendas.

    Why bother when you have the Heller and McDonald USSC decisions to read and offer for all Americans?
    #12 unit1069, Oct 31, 2011
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2011
  13. If you know what the other side is thinking it is easier to battle them
  14. I understand and agree with your approach... I plan to read the essay with an open mind; however, it won't sway my opinion about guns.
  15. The essays has more flaws than I really care to go into, but I'll name a few:

    1) No mention of Heller or McDonald, or any of the other 2A cases out there.

    2) The old "occupants in a house with a gun are 43x more likely . . . " line. I thought that number had been thoroughly debunked.

    3) The claim that a national registration system "would prevent [some of the illegal gun trafficking] by scaring those 'friends' into not buying the guns legally and selling them illegally, for if the guns are used in an illegal crime, that person can be held accountable." This makes no sense, and it's flat wrong, IMO. What he's talking about already sounds like a straw purchase to me, and those are already illegal. Besides, if someone's already willing to do a straw purchase for a buddy, he's probably not above filing a false police report and claiming that the gun got stolen, too.
  16. samurairabbi

    samurairabbi Dungeon Schmuck

    1) That essay was put out before Heller was decided; on the internet, old info becomes immortal.

    2) That "40-odd times more likely" shtick is one of the three classic statistical warp jobs that have lives of their own. If the shooter is even an ACQUAINTANCE of the person shot, then the shooting counts in that classification. That means that two thugs that know each other's names and have met just once fall into that juicy classification.
    #16 samurairabbi, Nov 1, 2011
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2011
  17. That's kind of what I figured. I should have added "and should be updated," I guess.
  18. Lord

    Lord Senior Member

    He says:

    "The moral arguments why the 2nd is not absolute

    First, it important to note that no right is absolute, even those supposedly granted by God and guaranteed in the Bill of Rights."

    Do I not have the right to live and breathe? Is that not an absolute right?

    The guy's a moron.
  19. Nope we have the death penalty to deal with that.

  20. Nor should it. If anything you should be able to strengthen your stance by being able to have an intelligent counter argument.

Share This Page