• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The intellectual dishonesty of the Incrementalists [W:79]

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,383
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Every few weeks we get an anti gun poster who whines about normal capacity magazines which are normally 15-17 rounds for modern defensive handguns and 20-30 rounds for "Military" or militia style rifles. These antis claim that say 10 rounds are OK but 15 are not.

Other than the obvious fact that these restrictionists are unlearned as to what is normally used by police, they pretend that they have the expertise to draw lines which of course is a stepping stone (look at Cuomo in NY) to less and less and less.


The fact is, these restrictionists have to claim that normal law abiding citizens can be trusted with 10 rounds but not 15 or 20-an argument that is impossible to support. They also have to argue that we citizens who are not police officers, are less entitled to self defense then our public servants.

when You see a gun restrictionist make this argument you know you are dealing with someone who doesn't trust you to own any weapon but they understand the political ramifications of calling for a complete ban now
 

WCH

Believer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
31,009
Reaction score
9,029
Location
The Lone Star State.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
As I gaze into my gun safe, it seems that ship has sailed. 8)
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
90,115
Reaction score
53,745
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Every few weeks we get an anti gun poster who whines about normal capacity magazines which are normally 15-17 rounds for modern defensive handguns and 20-30 rounds for "Military" or militia style rifles. These antis claim that say 10 rounds are OK but 15 are not.

Other than the obvious fact that these restrictionists are unlearned as to what is normally used by police, they pretend that they have the expertise to draw lines which of course is a stepping stone (look at Cuomo in NY) to less and less and less.


The fact is, these restrictionists have to claim that normal law abiding citizens can be trusted with 10 rounds but not 15 or 20-an argument that is impossible to support. They also have to argue that we citizens who are not police officers, are less entitled to self defense then our public servants.

when You see a gun restrictionist make this argument you know you are dealing with someone who doesn't trust you to own any weapon but they understand the political ramifications of calling for a complete ban now

It is simply the incremental approach to "gun control". With crime rates, including crime committed with guns, steadily dropping they will try to establish "reasonable restrictions" and then assert that those restrictions on guns made the crime rate drop, justifying even stricter "reasonable restrictions".

Note that placing any restrictions, including presenting a valid, state issued, photo ID are said to be a "discriminatory burden" when applied to the right to vote (only once and only as yourself in a given election). These same restrictions (plus many more) are said to be absolutely necessary to buy guns/ammo and are somehow no longer a "discriminatory burden".

Much like the NY laws limitting sode pop serving sizes, restrictions on the number of rounds in a single magazine are simply introducing a hassle factor. You may still purchase/carry all of the soda pop or ammo that you desire, it simply must be in several smaller containers to be considered legal in certain libtard controlled states.
 

Occam's Razor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
2,069
Reaction score
1,122
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Every few weeks we get an anti gun poster who whines about normal capacity magazines which are normally 15-17 rounds for modern defensive handguns and 20-30 rounds for "Military" or militia style rifles. These antis claim that say 10 rounds are OK but 15 are not.

Other than the obvious fact that these restrictionists are unlearned as to what is normally used by police, they pretend that they have the expertise to draw lines which of course is a stepping stone (look at Cuomo in NY) to less and less and less.


The fact is, these restrictionists have to claim that normal law abiding citizens can be trusted with 10 rounds but not 15 or 20-an argument that is impossible to support. They also have to argue that we citizens who are not police officers, are less entitled to self defense then our public servants.

when You see a gun restrictionist make this argument you know you are dealing with someone who doesn't trust you to own any weapon but they understand the political ramifications of calling for a complete ban now

It's "law abiding citizens" that have committed the most mass killings. That is, rampages where large clips were used. This is a strawman argument. There is no way to determine which law abiding citizen will snap, when or why. That is the argument of the left. And it's accurate. However, constitutionally they can't take arms afforded to average infantry. So... another path must be found. Crime must be reduced. If it isn't, the left will eventually win the argument, alter or ignore the constitution, and it's game over.
 

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
38,963
Reaction score
28,098
Location
Southern England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Speaking of dishonesty, where are all these anti-gun magazine size whines? They happen every few weeks apparently, but I can't say I've noticed them.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,717
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
It's "law abiding citizens" that have committed the most mass killings. That is, rampages where large clips were used. This is a strawman argument. There is no way to determine which law abiding citizen will snap, when or why.
Nope, this is completely wrong. Every mass shooter has either been under observation by a sheriff's department, or in the case of Charles Whitman were otherwise known to either have a severe mental issue at the time of shooting. Laughner, Holmes, Whitman, The Columbine kids, Pearl Mississippi, et. al. had at least one factor indicating that the shooter was about to snap, VTech as well.
That is the argument of the left. And it's accurate.
No it is not, has been disproven constantly. It's a false argument used to justify taking away rights from everyone because a few people weren't properly held in check. EVERY single mass shooting had a buildup, EVERY SINGLE ONE .
However, constitutionally they can't take arms afforded to average infantry. So... another path must be found.
No more compromises, the left loses on the constitution. Americans are getting sick of this nanny state bull****.
Crime must be reduced.
Already has been dropping steadily since the late 1980s.
If it isn't, the left will eventually win the argument, alter or ignore the constitution, and it's game over.
And then the left will be arrested for perjury or treason when they go too far, and it's game on.
 

ChrisL

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2012
Messages
47,571
Reaction score
16,958
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Speaking of dishonesty, where are all these anti-gun magazine size whines? They happen every few weeks apparently, but I can't say I've noticed them.

Well then . . . you must not frequent the gun control forums. I see those claims all the time.
 

Tigger

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
12,879
Reaction score
2,707
Location
New England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The biggest part of the magazine capacity fallacy is that restricting mag size makes any difference in protecting people during mass shootings. The grand total of difference in time to fire dozens of rounds is merely a few seconds.
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
It's "law abiding citizens" that have committed the most mass killings. That is, rampages where large clips were used. This is a strawman argument. There is no way to determine which law abiding citizen will snap, when or why. That is the argument of the left. And it's accurate. However, constitutionally they can't take arms afforded to average infantry. So... another path must be found. Crime must be reduced. If it isn't, the left will eventually win the argument, alter or ignore the constitution, and it's game over.

No the left won't win the argument because the left supports policies that feeds into criminal behavior that scares people too bad to want to give up their guns. The left are the ones who refuse to address crime for fear of offending its base, not the right. That is why gun control measures are directed at the law abiding so the left gets to dodge the proverbial bullet of not going after real criminals, particularly the group that commits a far disproportionate amount of violent crime in relation to their population.
 

Occam's Razor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
2,069
Reaction score
1,122
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Nope, this is completely wrong. Every mass shooter has either been under observation by a sheriff's department, or in the case of Charles Whitman were otherwise known to either have a severe mental issue at the time of shooting. Laughner, Holmes, Whitman, The Columbine kids, Pearl Mississippi, et. al. had at least one factor indicating that the shooter was about to snap, VTech as well.

Doesn't matter. Until you break a law, you are law abiding. Don't get me wrong... I agree with you about prior signs... but that is a social issue, not a law enforcement one. How many times do you hear on the news following a domestic shooting, "I never would have expected it from this guy, he was always polite, quiet, etc.."?

No it is not, has been disproven constantly. It's a false argument used to justify taking away rights from everyone because a few people weren't properly held in check. EVERY single mass shooting had a buildup, EVERY SINGLE ONE.

Well of course they did. So what? Until you break a law, law enforcement is ineffectual.

No more compromises, the left loses on the constitution. Americans are getting sick of this nanny state bull****.

Wow, did you just appoint yourself the voice of Americans? Anyway, it's not a compromise.. it's a moral and civic duty to address the causes of crime at the root. Dems won't be charged with treason... they'll just gather enough support to change the constitution or get judgements on interpretations of the constitution. Remove the cause for their concern by fixing and strengthening the family and the community and you solve more than just the gun issue, but a host of societal ills. Rights come with responsibilities to your fellow countrymen, including social responsibilities.

Already has been dropping steadily since the late 1980s. And then the left will be arrested for perjury or treason when they go too far, and it's game on.

You claim gun crime is already down from the 80s... so... instead of taking on 45,000 gallons (deaths), we're now only taking on 30,000 gallons... sounds like "still sinking" to me.
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,531
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Every few weeks we get an anti gun poster who whines about normal capacity magazines which are normally 15-17 rounds for modern defensive handguns and 20-30 rounds for "Military" or militia style rifles. These antis claim that say 10 rounds are OK but 15 are not.

Other than the obvious fact that these restrictionists are unlearned as to what is normally used by police, they pretend that they have the expertise to draw lines which of course is a stepping stone (look at Cuomo in NY) to less and less and less.


The fact is, these restrictionists have to claim that normal law abiding citizens can be trusted with 10 rounds but not 15 or 20-an argument that is impossible to support. They also have to argue that we citizens who are not police officers, are less entitled to self defense then our public servants.

when You see a gun restrictionist make this argument you know you are dealing with someone who doesn't trust you to own any weapon but they understand the political ramifications of calling for a complete ban now

So the only restriction that you accept is the limitiation of the possibilities of technology?
 

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
51,982
Reaction score
33,901
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The SCOTUS has outlined the infringments on the right to bear arms that are acceptable. Some excerpts from District of Columbia v. Heller:

It is "... not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

"Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time". We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'"

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent "... to consider... prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons."

There you go. Now, define "dangerous and unusual."
 

Μολὼν λαβέ

Si vis pacem, para bellum
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
6,914
Reaction score
3,673
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
So the only restriction that you accept is the limitiation of the possibilities of technology?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I believe is what he's stating. (Which is a rational argument based on citizens' rights acknowledged by the US Constitution.)

That and those who worship big brother are inclined to disagree.
 
Last edited:

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,531
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Μολὼν λαβέ;1062112725 said:
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I believe is what he's stating. (Which is a rational argument based on citizens' rights acknowledged by the US Constitution.)

That and those who worship big brother are inclined to disagree.

I do not understand your post as a reply to my question

Originally Posted by haymarket
So the only restriction that you accept is the limitiation of the possibilities of technology?
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,717
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Doesn't matter. Until you break a law, you are law abiding. Don't get me wrong... I agree with you about prior signs... but that is a social issue, not a law enforcement one. How many times do you hear on the news following a domestic shooting, "I never would have expected it from this guy, he was always polite, quiet, etc.."?
That is completely disingenuous and you know it. People who are never going to break any laws have no business in the same catagory as people under suspicion.



Well of course they did. So what? Until you break a law, law enforcement is ineffectual.
Horse ****, if someone is ruled a danger they can be involuntarily committed by court order.



Wow, did you just appoint yourself the voice of Americans? Anyway, it's not a compromise.. it's a moral and civic duty to address the causes of crime at the root. Dems won't be charged with treason... they'll just gather enough support to change the constitution or get judgements on interpretations of the constitution. Remove the cause for their concern by fixing and strengthening the family and the community and you solve more than just the gun issue, but a host of societal ills. Rights come with responsibilities to your fellow countrymen, including social responsibilities.
You think those Democrat senators jumped ship on gun control out of the goodness of their hearts? They saw the writing on the wall, you vote for it your ass is gone was the message.


You claim gun crime is already down from the 80s... so... instead of taking on 45,000 gallons (deaths), we're now only taking on 30,000 gallons... sounds like "still sinking" to me.
More bull****, the crime rate has been steadily dropping, less per year. If you really want to know what causes it the common factor tends to be social unrest at the time, this can be a recession, prohibition, etc.
 
Last edited:

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,383
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
So the only restriction that you accept is the limitiation of the possibilities of technology?

Nah, I sort of like as a bright line rule-whatever the civilian police have, the rest of us civilians can have-and whatever is the standard issue weapon of the national guard, civilians should have. That eliminates worrying about people having nukes, anti air craft rockets etc
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,717
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Nah, I sort of like as a bright line rule-whatever the civilian police have, the rest of us civilians can have-and whatever is the standard issue weapon of the national guard, civilians should have. That eliminates worrying about people having nukes, anti air craft rockets etc
I have a stricter standard, but like your dictate because it forces government out of the equation, any disarmament of a civilian is a disarmament of defense forces and police, would love to see a politician with the stones to try that move. My standard is anything that fires a controlled ammunition, bullets, bearing rounds, less lethal, etc. on target is absolutely protected.

Area effective weapons such, explosives such as TNT, grenades, RPGs, artillery, rifle mounted grenade launchers, and other explosive ordinance should be a license only situation, based on proficiency and legal standing tests, THAT is something I could actually see applying GCA standards to absolutely. For any mass effect weapons such as nukes, chem bombs, napalm, or WMDs it's a solid prohibition, absolute no.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,383
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I have a stricter standard, but like your dictate because it forces government out of the equation, any disarmament of a civilian is a disarmament of defense forces and police, would love to see a politician with the stones to try that move. My standard is anything that fires a controlled ammunition, bullets, bearing rounds, less lethal, etc. on target is absolutely protected.

Area effective weapons such, explosives such as TNT, grenades, RPGs, artillery, rifle mounted grenade launchers, and other explosive ordinance should be a license only situation, based on proficiency and legal standing tests, THAT is something I could actually see applying GCA standards to absolutely. For any mass effect weapons such as nukes, chem bombs, napalm, or WMDs it's a solid prohibition, absolute no.

after every citizen who can currently own a single shot rifle should be able to own any police weapon and the M4 rifle or equivalent. after that is implemented, we can talk about belt fed machine guns and Strelas
 

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,443
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Every few weeks we get an anti gun poster who whines about normal capacity magazines which are normally 15-17 rounds for modern defensive handguns and 20-30 rounds for "Military" or militia style rifles. These antis claim that say 10 rounds are OK but 15 are not.

Other than the obvious fact that these restrictionists are unlearned as to what is normally used by police, they pretend that they have the expertise to draw lines which of course is a stepping stone (look at Cuomo in NY) to less and less and less.


The fact is, these restrictionists have to claim that normal law abiding citizens can be trusted with 10 rounds but not 15 or 20-an argument that is impossible to support. They also have to argue that we citizens who are not police officers, are less entitled to self defense then our public servants.

when You see a gun restrictionist make this argument you know you are dealing with someone who doesn't trust you to own any weapon but they understand the political ramifications of calling for a complete ban now

In fairness to gun control advocates, this is how any politically unpopular change occurs -- in fits and starts over the course of time, when the people are pissed off with or afraid of something that may or may not have anything to do with the change being pushed.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,383
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
In fairness to gun control advocates, this is how any politically unpopular change occurs -- in fits and starts over the course of time, when the people are pissed off with or afraid of something that may or may not have anything to do with the change being pushed.

what is funny is watching those who favor such incremental restrictions lambasting anyone who says that its incrementalism-even though NY is proof
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,531
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Nah, I sort of like as a bright line rule-whatever the civilian police have, the rest of us civilians can have-and whatever is the standard issue weapon of the national guard, civilians should have. That eliminates worrying about people having nukes, anti air craft rockets etc

But the problem you always have is that your understanding of what a civilian is is not what a civilian is. :doh

And of course you just endorsed "infringements" ( to use one of your often invoked terms) on arms. :shock:
 

prometeus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
27,656
Reaction score
12,048
Location
Over the edge...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
what is funny is watching those who favor such incremental restrictions lambasting anyone who says that its incrementalism-even though NY is proof
Oddly enough the right uses the same incremental approach to abortion restriction.
Makes one wonder why the hypocrisy on both sides. Me personally I am for both, guns for law abiding citizens and freedom to choose for women.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,383
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Oddly enough the right uses the same incremental approach to abortion restriction.
Makes one wonder why the hypocrisy on both sides. Me personally I am for both, guns for law abiding citizens and freedom to choose for women.

very true-in both cases the banners talk about saving innocent life but in reality its all about punishing political opponents
 
Top Bottom