"Here's the thing. The admittedly tenuous connection between legal gun owners and gun violence exists only because it is you pro-gun guys who stand in the way of eliminating guns among the civilian population.
There is no one trying to ban cars or swimming pools. But there are people who want to ban guns and since you are preventing that from happening, I feel, you must bear some of the responsibility for the unhappy results."
Note the bolded parts in particular. Yeah Mike, I'm sorry we've got this silly thing called a Constitution that stands in the way of elimination of private arms.
According to Mike I am responsible for any and all gun violence because I won't roll over and eagerly yield my Constitutional rights. I mean hell, I guess those folks who like their 5th and 6th Amendment rights are responsible for the violence of criminals too, since those antiquated individual liberties make it harder to put folks in jail.
And you wonder why I find it hard to have any respect for anti's, or why I so often regard them as intolerant or bigoted.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Quote of the Day - Anti-Gunner's in a Nutshell
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
I see. Oh that pesky Constitution and the people that want to uphold it!
indeed. silly us for wanting to retain the rights protected by the Constitution.
He's mental function is incoherent. Legal gun-ownership has ZERO impact on illegal gun-violence, and eliminating guns from the legal civilian population has NEVER been shown to have a positive effect.
Dirtcrashr - When has attempting to limit the legal market for ANY consumer good had a positive effect on the BLACK market for said good?
Rhetorical question of course. (see alcohol prohibition or War on Drugs)
For example, I have to show ID and sign a log to buy cold medicine and can only buy in limited amounts. Does anyone really think this keeps dealers from getting what they need to make meth?
Quite frankly I'm fucking sick & tired of being blamed for the criminal actions of others.
I mean hell, Mike's claiming that it's MY fault that a couple FFL dealers thousands of miles from me are breaking the law and selling guns to illegals that end up being used in Mexico's cartel wars.
I'm responsible for the use of MY firearms and nothing more.
Funny, I doubt Mike will honestly apply his "logic" to any other consumer products, just the icky guns that he doesn't like.
Like Joe Huffman has said, antis are either bigoted or mentally ill. I've a sneaking suspicion many of them are both.
"Like Joe Huffman has said, antis are either bigoted or mentally ill."
I think there are those who are just genuinely ignorant. They really just don't know any better.
his logic just makes no bleepin' sense --- as i've tried to point out to him, without success.
why should the fact that somebody somewhere objects to my owning a foofaraugh be the thing that lands me, a law-abiding citizen, with partial responsibility for Joe Mobster's criminal abuse of their foofaraugh?
i mean, i can think of reasons why i might bear partial responsibility. perhaps i've been negligent in some way, so that Joe Mobster ended up with a foofaraugh he shouldn't've had. perhaps i've provided Joe with some incentive to become, or remain, a Mobster when he otherwise wouldn't have. there are things i might do, or have done, that could make me an accomplice in Joe Mobster's crimes in a variety of ways.
but why should Patty Pearlclutcher's desire to ban my foofaraugh be such a thing? that desire of hers is no fault nor doing of mine, after all. yet mike b. thinks it is somehow a factor in my bearing some theoretical blame, and that makes no damn sense to me.
I have kind of started to wonder if that particular Mike is just playing dumb to see what people are doing...
His logic does make sense, to a point. I can see how we can be demonized for getting in other people's ways, and not letting them have what they want. But conflating us, law-abiding gun-owners, with criminals? Yeah, that is just inherently stupid.
I think there are those who are just genuinely ignorant.
Indeed, but I don't think that Mike B falls under that category. He's studied the issue, it would seem but tends to swallow the Brady line generally without question. Ignorant? Hardly. Sanctimonious prick? You bet your ass.
Sanctimonious prick? I'm smiling at that one.
Here's the thing. I don't say to any one of you in particular that it's your fault when someone does wrong with a gun. I do say, in a general sense, in a philosophical sense, all of you bear some of the responsibility for the violence. I think there's a big difference between that and what Mike W. said I said, "Mike's claiming that it's MY fault that a couple FFL dealers thousands of miles from me are breaking the law."
I respectfully thank you for the link and for accepting my comment.
I think there's a big difference between that
Of course you do. Did you think we'd be surprised by that?
Mike - Either way you're saying WE share responsibility for the CRIMINAL actions of others and should suffer the consequences.
That's a load of shit. It's like saying we need widespread censorship of the internet because some folks engage in child pornography.
It's like saying that because some people drink at a bar and drive home drunk that there should be a law requiring everyone to surrender their keys upon entry to the bar.
Why? because some people can't act responsibly all should be punished? That's what you think Mike. It's puritanical group punishment notion and implies that you think your fellow citizens are incapable of acting responsibly. You don't trust them.
As L. Neil Smith put it,
"Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school"
Apparently liberals haven't done so, but I suppose that explains why they act like petulant children so often.
I got the impression when I first encountred MikeB that he was the standard liberal preaching on an anti-gun soap box. No idea what laws we have, how long they've been in effect, and no idea the difference between a colt M-16 and a Winchester '94.
A buch of us found him and we had some polite discussions. He even started reading pro-gun blogs, stats and references.
Somewhere around there it happened. Somewhere he figgured out what we know and preach, and decided to lie and decive to push an agenda he knows is wrong.
I'd say Sanctimonious prick is pretty close.
"A buch of us found him and we had some polite discussions. He even started reading pro-gun blogs, stats and references."
Oh I give MikeB a lot of credit. He still shows a level of decency far above most anti's I've encountered AND he at least tries to engage in a dialogue.
Hell, he gets some respect from me just for having an open comment section. I've also read his blog and agree with him on some other issues, just not guns.
I don't think that ant-gun folks are mentally ill or stupid. I think that they just can't understand that criminals do not obey gun laws. Also, they think that if guns were banned somehow criminals would not get them and that we (everybody) would not be subjects to a tyrannical state. I only debate them, online and offline, because the "undecideds" are listening. My advice to all freedom loving gun owners is simple: Don't humiliate them or insult them. Present our case and let the truth convert the fence-sitters amongst the sheep.
"AND he at least tries to engage in a dialogue."
I don't think that's true anymore. His comments are open, his "Dialoge" is more badgering, now.
I do say, in a general sense, in a philosophical sense, all of you bear some of the responsibility for the violence.
And I do say, in a specific sense, that you are full of shit.
I am not responsible for another person's actions.
No other person is responsible for my actions.
We are free to make our own decisions of our own free will, and the consequences of those actions are ours and ours alone.
By the same "logic", you might as well "philisophically" blame all alcohol consumers for any deaths caused by drunk drivers.
That gos-se just does not fly.
If we are going to start blaming people who aren't actually pulling the trigger then we should be blaming the supporters of victim disarmament since they are the ones preventing people from defending themselves.
if we are to follow your philosophical reasoning further- and we good citizens who own guns must carry the burden of gun crime, then doesn't society as a whole also carry that burden?
Just because we exercise a right that you do not does not give us responsibility into the actions of others anymore than our citizenry as a whole must be held accountable by the nature of our social contract.
I can't hold a manufacturer of spirits and liquor accountable for people who take their product and and kill others with vehicles or hurt themselves.
Yet we, the gun community- bear more scrutiny for exercising a right than do people who exercise vice.
What really should happen is we should hold individuals accountable for their actions
Sorry about pulling my last comment- I had to edit it for sake of structure.
Mike's Spot said, "if we are to follow your philosophical reasoning further- and we good citizens who own guns must carry the burden of gun crime, then doesn't society as a whole also carry that burden?"
I go for that. That's exactly what I'm talking about. As a member of the society that carries that burden, I personally favor gun control as a partial solution to the problem.
If society has responsibility in general for gun violence, shouldn't those societies that have implemented gun control show results?
That is where your argument falls flat. England has that mentality you specify and violence is increasing, not decreasing.
Conversely, in societies and states that have liberalized their gun control laws, violence has gone down. Doesn't that show the actual approach to reducing violence is greater gun ownership, not less?
Show us any society, culture, state, city, or country that has implemented gun control and seen a reduction in violence?
"I go for that. That's exactly what I'm talking about. As a member of the society that carries that burden, I personally favor gun control as a partial solution to the problem"
Here's the problem Mike. You're advocating infringement on my Constitutional rights as a "solution." As such, it is your responsibility to prove that your policies will work and that they are as minimally invasive and narrowly tailored as possible.
#1. - You cannot and have never proved this. If anything all data points to the opposite. I don't have to prove a need for anything. If you're going to infringe on my rights you damn well do have to.
#2 - Any proposal you have must be as narrowly tailored as possible. Gun control laws do not do this. Many make it damn near impossible to exercize my rights. You and your ilk advocate bans, including prohibiting citizens of entire communities from exercising their rights. I take my freedoms very seriously and will NEVER stand for that. I will call it outright Bigotry every chance I get because that's what it is.
the others have noted my point- but I'll go a bit further.
If we (society) are all responsible for the crimes of the few, and we have tried one avenue that does not work effectively, which in my opinion gun control has not-
we have an obligation to try a different avenue.
Treat men and women decently and with respect for their autonomy and the vast majority of the time they will not let you down.
it is with respect to the individual, and not the group that you can see your best results- and thats what we need to do more of legally- respect people's ability to act in as free a system as possible.
"it is with respect to the individual, and not the group that you can see your best results- and thats what we need to do more of legally- respect people's ability to act in as free a system as possible."
Which of course is EXACTLY the principle this nation was founded on, and why the 2nd Amendment is specifically listed in a charter of INDIVIDUAL rights.
"the vast majority of the time they will not let you down."
And the vast majority of those that do are called criminals.
Lock violent criminals up. Separate them from society due to their deviant actions and guns (or any other tool) don't matter. Those who commit acts of unprovoked violence against others CANNOT do so if they're locked up away from the rest of society.
A small subset of individuals commit most of the violent crime in this country. Lock up those folks and focus efforts improving the values in the communities where those people originate and you'll have a positive impact on crime.
The problem? That takes much more effort than simply screaming "The guns are the problem" at the top of your lungs. It takes actual effort rather than simply passing laws. Plus, you even bring it up and everyone shoves their head in the sand and screams "RACIST!"
as I've said before-
you possess a far greater ability to make a point concisely than I do mike.
Let's make it concise:
Like Joe Huffman ask, can you show anywhere, anytime that taking away guns (or making it harder for them to be obtained) has made the average person safer?
If not, why advocate for greater restrictions?
"I respectfully thank you for the link and for accepting my comment."
No problem Mike. I always will. The only time I'll reject or delete a comment is if it explicitly threatens harm against myself, my family/friends, or another commenter.
Post a Comment