Common sense question about gun control leaders [W:753]

[TurtleDude]

I constantly see people claim the following

a) Democrat politicians who push gun restrictions aren't trying to "BAN GUNS"

b) people don't want to ban guns, they just want "reasonable gun laws"

The question I want those who make these comments to answer is the following

Why would a politician who wants to ban guns ADMIT that is his or her goal at this stage of the game?

 

[MaggieD]

I constantly see people claim the following

a) Democrat politicians who push gun restrictions aren't trying to "BAN GUNS"

b) people don't want to ban guns, they just want "reasonable gun laws"

The question I want those who make these comments to answer is the following

Why would a politician who wants to ban guns ADMIT that is his or her goal at this stage of the game?

They wouldn't.

Our government is all about incremental lose of liberty. Like the frog in a pot of cool water on the stove.

 

[TurtleDude]

They wouldn't.

Our government is all about incremental lose of liberty. Like the frog in a pot of cool water on the stove.

exactly. and one of the ways I know that those who want to ban guns do despite their claims is that the minute one law is passed, the same assholes are pushing for another one. Sarah Brady claimed for YEARS (and I was in a city council hall when she made the claim) that all she wanted was the waiting period and background check by DEALERS. that passed and within a month she was pushing for a ban on semi autos.

 

[TheNextEra]

I constantly see people claim the following

a) Democrat politicians who push gun restrictions aren't trying to "BAN GUNS"

b) people don't want to ban guns, they just want "reasonable gun laws"

The question I want those who make these comments to answer is the following

Why would a politician who wants to ban guns ADMIT that is his or her goal at this stage of the game?

They wouldn't admit they wanted to ban guns, but that doesn't mean the majority of Dems want to all-out ban guns either. I know plenty of Dems that want gun-control laws such as registry lists, waiting periods, etc. but they don't want to ban guns.

That's not to say some aren't trying to ban guns, but I think the majority of Dems do not want all-out bans. They do want serious controls in many cases which I don't agree with though.

I know this is a little off topic, but that is just like how some Republicans want to all out ban abortions, but the smart ones would never run on "Ban abortions" campaigns. Just because some want to ban abortions doesn't mean they all do.

 

[haymarket]

I constantly see people claim the following

a) Democrat politicians who push gun restrictions aren't trying to "BAN GUNS"

b) people don't want to ban guns, they just want "reasonable gun laws"

The question I want those who make these comments to answer is the following

Why would a politician who wants to ban guns ADMIT that is his or her goal at this stage of the game?

So Turtle - once again you come back to the same old same old which goes like this....... you are NOT going to consider what is actually said or what is actually proposed or what is actually passed in law... NO .... you prefer to pretend that you can mind read people and only you truly know the motivations and inner secrets of what people believe and not only that but you can reserve the right to call them liars or evasive or just plain dishonest if they will not concede your ability to read their minds. :shock:

This is the height of intellectual dishonesty and gives you unlimited license to mischaracterize, misrepresent, twist, pervert and play Dr. Frankenstein with anything anyone says because you have the power to know what they really want the entire time.

And then people are suppose to debate you on that field. :doh:roll:

 

[TurtleDude]

They wouldn't admit they wanted to ban guns, but that doesn't mean the majority of Dems want to all-out ban guns either. I know plenty of Dems that want gun-control laws such as registry lists, waiting periods, etc. but they don't want to ban guns.

That's not to say some aren't trying to ban guns, but I think the majority of Dems do not want all-out bans. They do want serious controls in many cases which I don't agree with though.

I know this is a little off topic, but that is just like how some Republicans want to all out ban abortions, but the smart ones would never run on "Ban abortions" campaigns. Just because some want to ban abortions doesn't mean they all do.

you might be right but I have found out that once you believe the rights of gun owners is subordinate to "the public good" and you think the public good is advanced by some gun restrictions, you are easily able to adopt more and more restrictions to support.

but the main point is

it is legitimate for me to tell those who are NOT COMPLETE GUN BANNERS that we cannot support their incremental moves since those moves are needed to achieve complete gun bans

somewhere, some place there are morons who think registering guns is a ultimate step that will help increase public safety but for everyone of those people there are ten gun banners who see registration as the key tool to facilitate confiscation


That is why those people you talk about have to understand that many of us reject their "reasonable" goals because those goals are actually steps for the most pernicious of the gun haters

 

[TurtleDude]

So Turtle - once again you come back to the same old same old which goes like this....... you are NOT going to consider what is actually said or what is actually proposed or what is actually passed in law... NO .... you prefer to pretend that you can mind read people and only you truly know the motivations and inner secrets of what people believe and not only that but you can reserve the right to call them liars or evasive or just plain dishonest if they will not concede your ability to read their minds. :shock:

This is the height of intellectual dishonesty and gives you unlimited license to mischaracterize, misrepresent, twist, pervert and play Dr. Frankenstein with anything anyone says because you have the power to know what they really want the entire time.

And then people are suppose to debate you on that field. :doh:roll:

Your positions are essentially what I am talking about in my post above. Even if you are not supportive of a complete ban, you are supportive of the tools complete banners want to have in order to achieve their nefarious goals. So we oppose what you want because you aid and support gun banners even if you, yourself, are not a gun banner

 

[TeleKat]

I constantly see people claim the following

a) Democrat politicians who push gun restrictions aren't trying to "BAN GUNS"

b) people don't want to ban guns, they just want "reasonable gun laws"

The question I want those who make these comments to answer is the following

Why would a politician who wants to ban guns ADMIT that is his or her goal at this stage of the game?

Ssssh, you're not supposed to ask that question.

 

[ttwtt78640]

So far it has been deemed reasonable to divide the 2A into two separate rights; you now have the right to keep arms (on/in your property) and the possible state issued privilege to bear (carry) them (in public places).

The next reasonable restriction was to define the rate of fire, maximum magazine capacity and even the non-ballistic features that may be present on a legal firearm.

Soon to come are the reasonable requirements that "smart" guns are the only thing that mere citizens may buy.

Each of these reasonable restrictions serves to further limit who may have 2A rights and adding costs to those that can not be otherwise banned from having guns.

 

[CRUE CAB]

I constantly see people claim the following

a) Democrat politicians who push gun restrictions aren't trying to "BAN GUNS"

b) people don't want to ban guns, they just want "reasonable gun laws"

The question I want those who make these comments to answer is the following

Why would a politician who wants to ban guns ADMIT that is his or her goal at this stage of the game?

The believe they are right, and know better than us. They also have many people that agree with them.

 

[Winchester]

exactly. and one of the ways I know that those who want to ban guns do despite their claims is that the minute one law is passed, the same assholes are pushing for another one. Sarah Brady claimed for YEARS (and I was in a city council hall when she made the claim) that all she wanted was the waiting period and background check by DEALERS. that passed and within a month she was pushing for a ban on semi autos.

This is why there is or never will be any compromise on this issue. The gun control advocates will not stop, ever. It's gotten so bad neither side is willing to have an open frank discussion on the issue for fear of giving "points" to the other side.

Hell if someone even thinks about admitting the other side might have a valid point they are immediately demonized by their own side.

 

[TurtleDude]

This is why there is or never will be any compromise on this issue. The gun control advocates will not stop, ever. It's gotten so bad neither side is willing to have an open frank discussion on the issue for fear of giving "points" to the other side.

Hell if someone even thinks about admitting the other side might have a valid point they are immediately demonized by their own side.

well the problem is there is no common ground

pro rights people want to be able to own and use guns legally

they don't want criminals having guns but they realize that crime control is not the main agenda of most of the gun haters

the gun haters have proven that disarming honest people is their main goal. at one time, the main goal of gun controllers was to show they were "DOING SOMETHING" about crime. No longer-now its about getting rid of the NRA and other political enemies

 

[American]

This is why there is or never will be any compromise on this issue. The gun control advocates will not stop, ever. It's gotten so bad neither side is willing to have an open frank discussion on the issue for fear of giving "points" to the other side.

Hell if someone even thinks about admitting the other side might have a valid point they are immediately demonized by their own side.

We start from the point of having a right that was presumed universal from before this country's founding, and are moving toward a point where one has no individual gun rights at all..........when dealing with gun-haters. Thus any compromise whatsoever with gun-haters equals giving up rights.

 

[TheNextEra]

it is legitimate for me to tell those who are NOT COMPLETE GUN BANNERS that we cannot support their incremental moves since those moves are needed to achieve complete gun bans

Yep, don't see an issue there with you doing that.

somewhere, some place there are morons who think registering guns is a ultimate step that will help increase public safety but for everyone of those people there are ten gun banners who see registration as the key tool to facilitate confiscation

I actually see the opposite, where the gun banners are less than the gun control law supporters. However I understand your position regardless of whether one is more than the other.

That is why those people you talk about have to understand that many of us reject their "reasonable" goals because those goals are actually steps for the most pernicious of the gun haters

And that is ok. I look at it as the same that want to limit abortions and put more restrictions. I won't support those people because I feel it is just incremental to banning abortion completely so I understand your position.

 

[TurtleDude]

They wouldn't admit they wanted to ban guns, but that doesn't mean the majority of Dems want to all-out ban guns either. I know plenty of Dems that want gun-control laws such as registry lists, waiting periods, etc. but they don't want to ban guns.

That's not to say some aren't trying to ban guns, but I think the majority of Dems do not want all-out bans. They do want serious controls in many cases which I don't agree with though.

I know this is a little off topic, but that is just like how some Republicans want to all out ban abortions, but the smart ones would never run on "Ban abortions" campaigns. Just because some want to ban abortions doesn't mean they all do.

when I first came here, I repeated what I said as a guest on the "Rich King" show back in the mid 80s. Gun control is the democrat party mirror image of abortion for the Right wing social conservatives. Both sides claim that their goal is to "defend innocent life" when in reality, the real goal for most of the leaders-is to punish people they don't agree with on most issues. Both political parties see their issue as one that will cause the other side to waste much effort and money defending "rights" they already have.

any military leader can tell you that if you make the enemy defend turf they already hold, they are less likely to invade turf you own

 

[Winchester]

well the problem is there is no common ground

pro rights people want to be able to own and use guns legally

they don't want criminals having guns but they realize that crime control is not the main agenda of most of the gun haters

the gun haters have proven that disarming honest people is their main goal. at one time, the main goal of gun controllers was to show they were "DOING SOMETHING" about crime. No longer-now its about getting rid of the NRA and other political enemies

Pretty much sums it up.

 

[TheNextEra]

when I first came here, I repeated what I said as a guest on the "Rich King" show back in the mid 80s. Gun control is the democrat party mirror image of abortion for the Right wing social conservatives. Both sides claim that their goal is to "defend innocent life" when in reality, the real goal for most of the leaders-is to punish people they don't agree with on most issues. Both political parties see their issue as one that will cause the other side to waste much effort and money defending "rights" they already have.

That is why I cannot vote for either parties, because both of them support the systematic destruction of liberties in various degrees.

any military leader can tell you that if you make the enemy defend turf they already hold, they are less likely to invade turf you own

Yep which is why BTW I think the Dems were successful in the last election. They kept the GOP having to defend Romney's comments.

 

[haymarket]

Your positions are essentially what I am talking about in my post above. Even if you are not supportive of a complete ban, you are supportive of the tools complete banners want to have in order to achieve their nefarious goals. So we oppose what you want because you aid and support gun banners even if you, yourself, are not a gun banner

Thank you for making a post which proves my point. You see fit to take it upon yourself to tell people what they think... what they believe.... what they want ... what their position is even when such things are mostly in your own mind.

Your idea that I support gun banners because I support some initial tools they want to employ is intellectually dishonest. It is no different than a father telling his teen age daughter not to let a boy hold her hand because that is exactly the type of thing that men who might impregnate her also use along the way. Its simply ridiculous.

 

[TurtleDude]

Thank you for making a post which proves my point. You see fit to take it upon yourself to tell people what they think... what they believe.... what they want ... what their position is even when such things are mostly in your own mind.

Your idea that I support gun banners because I support some initial tools they want to employ is intellectually dishonest. It is no different than a father telling his teen age daughter not to let a boy hold her hand because that is exactly the type of thing that men who might impregnate her also use along the way. Its simply ridiculous.

the problem is Haymarket-is that many of the leaders of YOUR party pretend they don't want to ban guns and when we claim they do, you immediately whine that these leaders have not publicly said such a thing.

but we do know that every group that has publicly called for GUN BANS has also called for REGISTRATION. We also know that the minute the CLinton GUn ban was passed, the Congressional leader of that ban-Chuck Schumer-bragged that if this was the "nose of the camel under the tent" (as the NRA claimed) he and the coalition that passed that idiocy planned on showing the NRA the REST OF THE CAMEL


so we can pretend that politicians are believable

or we can use our own experience and remember that lots of Democrats have -upon the passage of some gun law-immediately claimed it was a GOOD FIRST STEP and guard against what is obvious

people like you might not want complete gun bans, but if you fight to achieve some of the steps gun banners want and need, you are helping to ban guns

 

[haymarket]

the problem is Haymarket-is that many of the leaders of YOUR party pretend they don't want to ban guns and when we claim they do, you immediately whine that these leaders have not publicly said such a thing.

Again - your thread uses the title COMMON SENSE but what you are attempting to employ is MIND READING. And that is as opposite as one can get from either common sense or intellectual integrity.

but we do know that every group that has publicly called for GUN BANS has also called for REGISTRATION. We also know that the minute the CLinton GUn ban was passed, the Congressional leader of that ban-Chuck Schumer-bragged that if this was the "nose of the camel under the tent" (as the NRA claimed) he and the coalition that passed that idiocy planned on showing the NRA the REST OF THE CAMEL

If you think I give a five pound bag of manure for what anybody else says about camels or tents - you have another thing coming. I could not care less what a person says or how you decide you are going to interpret it and use it for your own purposes.

people like you might not want complete gun bans, but if you fight to achieve some of the steps gun banners want and need, you are helping to ban guns

Let me tell you about "people like me" and guns. And you may want to pay attention so you can repeat it back in a quote when the issue of what my REAL POSITION is.

People like me support people having guns for self defense and home protection and business protection and hunting and sport and recreation and other such uses. We also believe that we want to live in society where COMMON SENSE (your word again) is used and exercised in matters of public policy - and that includes guns.....and we DO NOT want to live in a society which is gun centric or a return to the Old West where everybody who wants to walks around armed or where only technology and ones pocketbook is the limit on weaponry people have. We don't want those things and see "people like you" as a threat to the society we feel is a decent and sustainable and livable one.

That is why you and the gun lobby sycophants want so badly to portray me and others who do support gun ownership with reasonable regulation as greater threats than the already marginalized gun banners who want a society without guns. You know they are not respected by most Americans and they have no chance of winning. The real threat to the gun centric society you advocate is people like me and the other average Americans who would stop your dream of a right wing day of jubilee in its tracks by making sure you do not win.

So you lie about my position. You pervert my position. You twist my position. You pretend to know what only a mind reader could know. And you do all this to demonize the real enemy - the American people who hold no sympathy for a gun centric society or the kind of weapons you feel every tom dick and harry should have at their disposal.

That is what this is all about.

 

[ttwtt78640]

So Turtle - once again you come back to the same old same old which goes like this....... you are NOT going to consider what is actually said or what is actually proposed or what is actually passed in law... NO .... you prefer to pretend that you can mind read people and only you truly know the motivations and inner secrets of what people believe and not only that but you can reserve the right to call them liars or evasive or just plain dishonest if they will not concede your ability to read their minds. :shock:

This is the height of intellectual dishonesty and gives you unlimited license to mischaracterize, misrepresent, twist, pervert and play Dr. Frankenstein with anything anyone says because you have the power to know what they really want the entire time.

And then people are suppose to debate you on that field. :doh:roll:

That is simply not so, as an example I offer what Hillary Clinton recently said about those "fully validated and licensed" that are allowed to have guns. That means that reasonable gun control measures, which are now the law, are ineffective so we need more restrictive measures.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-control/193156-hillary-clinton-gun-culture-way-out-balance.html

 

[haymarket]

That is simply not so, as an example I offer what Hillary Clinton recently said about those "fully validated and licensed" that are allowed to have guns. That means that reasonable gun control measures, which are now the law, are ineffective so we need more restrictive measures.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-control/193156-hillary-clinton-gun-culture-way-out-balance.html

Where in that 'news story' is Clinton quoted as saying she wants to get rid of Second Amendment protections?

 

[voyager1]

I don't know anyone who doesn't support gun control. Anyone out there want a mental patient having access to an AR15 and then walk into a school with your children in it?

Anyone want that?

Didn't think so. But is fun watching certain elements of the gun lobby defend people like Nancy Lanza or deify George Zimmerman. The majority of Americans don't own guns, and they do see this "debate" a lot.

 

[soot]

it is legitimate for me to tell those who are NOT COMPLETE GUN BANNERS that we cannot support their incremental moves since those moves are needed to achieve complete gun bans

I guess it's "legitimate" but it's also kind of silly.

It's like arguing that a politician who pushes for reasonable restrictions on, say, drunk driving, is really sneaking us on to the slippery slope of eventually fully banning both alcohol and automobiles.

As a NON COMPLETE GUN BANNER I really could not care less whether or not you agree with me or whether or not you support my position.

Unless I hear a reasonable argument to the contrary I'm going to maintain my position with or without your support.

I don't really think that some speculative argument about the potential of a total gun ban at some point in the distant and indeterminate future is a reasonable argument against banning gun ownership for criminals, the mentally ill, drug addicts, alcoholics, and etc... (which is the type of ban I support).

somewhere, some place there are morons who think registering guns is a ultimate step that will help increase public safety but for everyone of those people there are ten gun banners who see registration as the key tool to facilitate confiscation

A position for which you have absolutely zero proof or even any reliable evidence (that there are ten people who advocate for a complete and total gun ban for every one who really only wants reasonable restrictions on gun ownership for the small subset of the population that seems to be engaging in 99% of gun crime using otherwise legal weapons).

 

[ttwtt78640]

Where in that 'news story' is Clinton quoted as saying she wants to get rid of Second Amendment protections?

If those 2A protections should not be given even to those private citizens that have been validated and licensed by the gov't then who is left?