Gun control myths:

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

Now and then someone will bring up an issue that amounts to an ad hominem attack. In an attempt to discredit the real intent behind the RKBA, some of the framers are pointed out as bad examples because they owned slaves. Jefferson, for example, was a slave owner. Which brings up the real issue; what is slavery? Slavery is the opposite of freedom. Slaves can't own property, they have no voice in the government, they don't have self determination, THEY CAN'T DEFEND THEMSELVES FROM ABUSE BY THEIR MASTERS...

When, exactly, did slavery end? Well, the major institution whereby African Americans were forced into involuntary servitude has been illegal for almost 150 years. But...when were those same people able to vote? Some voted in the 19th century but practices of intimidation continued for decades. The Chinese didn't get to vote until almost 1900; women got to vote 20 years after that and Native Americans weren't considered citizens til the 1920s and couldn't vote til the 1930s.

Abe Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, Johnson, Grant, Taft... were all these men and their work just invalid because the freedoms of some of those we recognize today as American citizens were compromised? Of course not!

This country is about the evolving of government and society to better effect the ideals expressed in our founding documents: freedom, common defense, domestic tranquility, liberty... Our constitution frames a government that works across almost 4,000,000 sq. mi. (I think) and unifies over 300,000,000 people. The idea of a constitution framing government has become about the most popular, the most copied format in the world.

The fact that our government constantly evolves to better respect the rights of the people is a good thing, but that means growing from a state of less to more respect for those attributes. It also necessarily means that the state of government as framed in the 18th century will be an example of a less a less respectful state than that of today.

What is your pet peeve about an argument for or against the RKBA/gun control?

[whoneedstickets]

1. The RKBA argument, as you pose it, refers to the nonsensical, and useless

idea that we might be successful resisting our own government with violence.

The uprisings in the middle east recently show that non-violent resistance is ultimately always more effective. This goes without even opening up the reality of the massive organizational and armament advantage that an army would have over a rag-tag citizen militia.

Please give up these Red Dawn fantasies if you want to make RKBA arguments.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

27. Get yourself out of the '80s

Oh my! They have predators and cruise missiles; a citizen faction with rifles and camo-gear is no match. <icon of 9-year-old running, screaming through the house>

Do you really believe that during some martial law instance, the Guardsman around the corner who you coach Little League with is going to pick you up for questioning because you're a Democrat? Will the Reservist you eat lunch with at work come one night with no warrant to search your house for guns because you have a hunting license? NO WAY! The military in the US is *US*, they are part of us. They are not separate or a special class or 'party members'. Our military is an enlightened one that does not follow orders blindly.

Red Dawn was about some foreign invasion.

You'll get no arguments from me about non-violent resistance. "Your number one Option for Personal Security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation."

The military mindset is as it is, not due to special training. It is due to being American patriots. The same spirit that makes a patriot volunteer for duty makes him respect the rights of others and gives him the inspiration to fight for those at home.

You're kind of off base.

The last state the ratify the 19th amendment was Mississippi in 1984.
The last state to give voting rights to Native Americans was Utah in 1956.

[SteveM]

50. ...Cuba, Algeria, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Iraq: How 'bout them fantasies?

Of course, non-violent resistance can be effective, but that doesn't negate numerous examples of successful revolutions/takeovers by people armed with small arms and improvised weapons, even when facing a "superpower."

You seem to forget the Second Amendment is a right, not a guarantee of some kind of successful "fantasy."

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gejohnston]

6. Please explain how this is far right or even right?

They post the most hideous crap and the moderators delete posts that even mildly respond to it.

That is total bullshit, The mild ones stay. What hideous crap to we post? Facts and statistics? Reality?

Mild responses like these?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=438205&mesg_id=438209
The only ones I see deleted are childish references to penis size or similar nonsense.

[gejohnston]

4. constantly? Hypocrites?

It is historical fact of past gun laws, mostly in the south, that antis defend today. That is historical fact. For example, when Florida banned open carry in 1893 or when South Carolina banned handguns from 1902-1965. Granted, you motivation is different than those who passed the laws. I get that, but you can't rewrite history.

ad hominem? The vast majority of the arguments on your side are just that, so what is your point?

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[baldguy]

7. Game. Set. Match.

[gejohnston]

12. Thank you, although it feels strange accepting contrats from you

but at least you are honest to see the better argument.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gejohnston]

19. no, but I am a smart ass

and no, he did not destroy me because he chose references were out of context, half of them were from your side, and none were "my own words". One link was his own post. So, no.
And you posted your score before I replied pointing out that fact to him.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eqfan592]

14. Wrong again, baldguy. ;) nt

[aikoaiko]

29. You didn't actually click on his links, did you?

:rofl:

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BryanDavis]

9. Disagree

I don't think it's true that the "loudest gun owners today are racist southern rednecks", there are a number of states in the Northeast that have very lax gun laws, such as Vermont.

Vermont is one of the 3 states that is legal to carry concealed without a license.

More than that, the concealed carry movement is a very modern issue. Prior to the 1980's when Florida began allowing concealed carry it was practically unheard of.

Now you've got organizations like Concealed Carry on Campus growing at an alarming rate.

http://concealedcampus.org/

I hardly think college students are right-wing, fanatical or anti-liberal.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SteveM]

53. Yeah, some folks bitch about Arizona -- yet "forget" Vermont. Jeeeez.

[SteveM]

52. Ah, now I see some of the reference: "...racist southern rednecks"

Sounds like some regional hatred going on here. How can the Dems ever appeal to others, even as they decry "racism?"

[gejohnston]

10. context my good man

one of them is your own post. A couple comes from your side. Did you read the thread for he context? Or did you adhere to the level of intellectual dishonesty your ideology demands? The child porn one was not comparing to child pornographers, slackmaster was asking sharesunited a question for clarification because shares made compared guns ownership to owning child porn.

I think gun prohibitionists are like anti abortion fanatics in many ways. Criminologist Gary Kleck compares prohibitionists with the Women's Temperance Society.


Like this one here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4535785&mesg_id=4535785

its a historical fact that the loudest gun owners today are racist southern rednecks. You can't rewrite modern history.
And the vast majority of your side's arguments are nonsensical, right-wing, anti-liberal, and fanatical.

Your side's arguments are nothing but nonsensical, absurd, and I would argue anti liberal. There is more than a little bit of regional bigotry thrown in. What modern historical fact can you point to? You mean like Trent Lott who voted for the AWB? Show me evidence of this modern history.

what does liberalism mean to you?

[TPaine7]

11. The very first cited OP doesn't make any comparisons whatsoever. It gives a

historical account.

Why do you think it is wrong to speak truths that many are unaware of--to say that blacks defended themselves from rabid racists with guns and that they were aided by NRA training?

Should posters on this site be shielded from truths inconvenient to your ideal of what it means to be a Democrat, a liberal or a progressive?

Fearing the truth is not supposed to be a Democratic value.

[provis99]

20. Gejohnston's Journal: Who Says All Gungrabbers are Liberal?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/gejohnston/1812

Good thing this guy is opposed to ad hominem attacks, eh?

[gejohnston]

23. first point out the ad hominem attack?

One that I made. There is a piece of recent Canadian history, which is verifiable. Another is equally verifiable US history and a quote by a sociologist.

Did you mean this:

His conclusions are obvious when one reads the vile anti rural and working class bigoty expressed in "progressive" fourms whenever the gun issue comes up.

They tend to get deleted quickly around here but places like Think Progress, Crooks and Liars, etc. that pretty well defines most of the conversation. Sorry, no ad hominem attacks here.

[provis99]

25. whaddaya know? All antis graduate from the Free Republic school of debate!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/www/://filmladd.com/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x429021

You keep those anti-gun nuts in line!

"When you find yourself in a hole, quit digging."
— Will Rogers

[eqfan592]

28. That's not an attack, it's a demonstrable fact.

;) :hi:

[gejohnston]

31. once again, context if fundimental

the concept escapes you. so does this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question

Here is the context, I was replying to this:http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/www/://filmladd.com/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x429021#429023

Actually, some of you do. Are you still digging?

[provis99]

38. i'm laughing at you. That is really weak sauce. You should be embarrassed.

but I get the impression that arguing with pro gun people is as pointless as arguing with a sock puppet.

[gejohnston]

39. If it makes you feel better, fine.

At least you know how it must be like for someone trying to convince Paul Krugman the brilliance of supply side economics. Why should I be embarrassed? You provided links out of context, from your own side, and and even one written by you. Maybe if you put more thought in your arguments instead of off the top of your head nonsense and easily debunked talking points. That might help. Of course one thing begs the question, are you sure you are not the sock puppet? After all, you chose the personal attack instead of answering the question with "weak sauce".

On the bright side I am happy you found some humor. I am guessing you decided to screw with me is because I am a "wild and crazy guy". Most of my comedy attempts attracts comments like "20 thousand comedians out of a job, and you are trying to be funny."

[eqfan592]

43. Perhaps if your arguments were more....

...compelling, like being based in reality. ;) :hi:

[SteveM]

55. You're not laughing, you are still digging that hole.

[SteveM]

54. When are you going to stop digging that hole?

[Hoyt]

8. Fine -- ban them in public for EVERYONE, including white guys trying to "take their country back."

[gejohnston]

15. take their country back from whom?

That said, I'm still waiting for my Tavor from Canada. Have you registered and paid the transference tax on your pen gun yet?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

32. Not so fine; no so fast. Let's not. n/t

[SteveM]

56. Well, you don't discriminate when pulling the race card! nt

[oneshooter]

58. Including LE? Still waiting for that picture, if you ain't to skeered to show it. n/t

[safeinOhio]

13. 2 things on this board.

1. Registration of handguns is not anti-RKBA as it allows all legal citizens to own and carry handguns. Then anyone that supports this is personally attacked by the pro crowd here.

2. The use of right-wing news outlets as links along with support for the crazy ideologues on the right.

Other than that, no problem..

[BryanDavis]

16. .

Registration of handguns is not anti-RKBA?

In most states you can already own a handgun without the additional restriction of having to register it, how is an additional restriction not anti-RKBA?

That's like saying magazine capacity limits aren't anti-RKBA.

[gejohnston]

18. If I may

Registration can be, but is still expensive and pointless theater

As long as the information is accurate, so fucking what? By that logic, we are all supposed to belive that congress repealed NFA because many of the progressive sites copied and pasted (including the same headline) the Al Qaida "you can legally buy a machine gun without background checks" bullshit. Crooks and Liars did a half assed retraction, but used a "gun control advocate" as a sole source instead of a neutral party and still got it wrong. In other words, where ever there is an ideological bias, journalistic competence and integrity go out the window. That is true of both the left and the right.
If that crazy ideologue does something I happen to agree with, I give credit where credit is due. If someone on our side is wrong, we should call them out.

[safeinOhio]

21. As a person that may legally buy and carry a handgun

registration would not affect that right for me in any way.
Expensive? Most likely much less than a car and would only have to be done once at purchase and not every year like a car. I don't think registration of cars that are driven on public roads has lowered ownership or use. It does help in recovery of stolen cars. It does make it more difficult for someone not licensed to drive to be on the roads, making the roads safer for those that are legal.
You have your opinion and I respect that. I still don't think you showed how handgun registration is anti-gun. I see it as a way to protect gun ownership and discourage the illegal transfer of handguns. I'd imagine that a one time registration would cost no more than a few boxes of 45 ammo.

[gejohnston]

24. in principle maybe,

of course, the problem is that local jurisdictions raising the price beyond what the average person could afford. That is the problem. Car registration is tax revenue to pay for the roads. It is annual and costs hell of a lot more than a couple boxes of ammo (another way for Rick Scott to pay for the corporate tax cut, which he did). In principle, I am against pointless theater and giving anything up to the state without an overwhelming and demonstrable public interest need.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

33. re: "...giving anything up to the state...

...without an overwhelming and demonstrable public interest need."

I couldn't have said it better. :)

[BryanDavis]

30. .

Registration would not affect that right for you?

Who pays for this registration scheme?

Do I have to pay for it? Like a voting tax?

Do the American tax-payers pay for it? Somehow I think the Brady Campaign et al would have a problem with just registration and no registration fee, forcing "non-violent" citizens to foot the bill for gun-owning Americans.


Why stop there? Why not just ban all handguns?

Problem with comparisons to cars is, there is no constitutional amendment concerning cars, maybe there should be, but currently there isn't.

All handgun registration would do would be to discourage gun ownership in general, which probably explains NYC's gun licensing restrictions and their insanely high fees. ($340 for 3 years)

No one needs to show that gun registration is anti-gun anymore than they need to show that gun bans are anti-gun. That's the whole point of anti-gun legislation, to be anti-gun.

[PavePusher]

37. "registration would not affect that right for me in any way."

Maybe not today.

Can you make a long-term (50-100 years) guarantee?

[safeinOhio]

40. Not to worried, I'll be dead in 20.

Then that is another thing about the gun room. Very anti-government and anti-taxes and fees, almost sound like teabaggers.

[PavePusher]

42. Anti-goverment interference in Civil Rights? Damn right.

Anti-taxes and fees for Civil Rights? yup

Teabaggers? nope

"dead in 20"? So what? What about future generations? You kids or grand-kids? Jebus, that sounds just like the anti-EPA folks....

:toast:

[safeinOhio]

46. I see handgun registration as

a protection of that civil right and a small fee as a user fee. We have the right to firearms and the responsibility to pay for the choice to own and carry a handgun. Next thing you know, you'll want others to pay for your handgun as it would be a cost of a civil right. Makes about as much sense and good luck with that. The paranoia about the state taking away guns is laughable to most sane people.

no kids or grandkids. support the EPA and protecting the environment from the dangers of lead poisoning by making those that pollute pay for the clean up.. I expect to pay taxes as a cost of civilization.

[DWC]

47. Remarkably similar to a poll tax isn't it. n/t

[PavePusher]

48. "The paranoia about the state taking away guns is laughable to most sane people."

Well, except for the fact that it has happened repeatedly... sure, whatever.

"User fee" for a Civil Right? Poll tax, anyone? Seriously?

[PavePusher]

49. "...you'll want others to pay for your handgun as it would be a cost of a civil right."

WTH? Where did you pull that from? I want to ensure no-one can take my rights or property without due process. I don't want free stuff at someone elses expense. (Yes, I pay taxes on my salary and real estate.)

[SteveM]

57. Oh, really. Another unsubstantiated attack...

"Then that is another thing about the gun room. Very anti-government and anti-taxes and fees, almost sound like teabaggers."

"anti-government" when most of us support guaranteed health care, social security (not some privatized junk), strict environmental standards and protections, etc. That description is wholly disingenuous. Most here do NOT support measures which put the government in charge of restricting the BOR.

"anti-taxes and fees?" Who here opposes setting the tax rate at least at the Clinton era levels? Fees (esp. at the state level) are the result of crappy tax bases to begin with.

I should point out that any tax (or fee) which is designed to make ownership/use of firearms prohibitively expensive will surely be viewed by most jurists as a restriction of 2A, much as the subterfuge behind the Texas poll tax was found to be.

The teabagger stuff is just more stuff that won't stick to the wall.

[PavePusher]

36. "attack"?

No. Pointing out, with historical evidence, why it's a bad idea, why it will most likely not pass and will cost Democrats votes when they are needed to accomplish things that will have effects on real problems....

This is not an "attack".

[safeinOhio]

41. Thank you for not personally attacking me

this time. I appreciate it.

[Glassunion]

44. Hmmm...

"1. Registration of handguns is not anti-RKBA as it allows all legal citizens to own and carry handguns. Then anyone that supports this is personally attacked by the pro crowd here."

I am a legal citizen who owns and carries without any form of registration. Registration does not allow me to do anything. As a legal citizen, both the constitution of the US as well as my state's constitution refer to my possession and carrying as a right not to be infringed or questioned.

I can only speak for myself, but on several occasions I have challenged your idea of registration, however I have never, not once personally attacked you. You and I have personally beat the registration horse to death... repeatedly. I feel that we should just agree to disagree.

Out of curiosity I went through and did a search back to Jan for people "personally attacking" whenever you brought up the topic of registration, and could find one personal attack, the majority of folks were challenging or disputing the argument. I feel that you may be exaggerating a bit.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=433875#433911
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=424192#424200
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=427430#427446
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=411451#411454
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=339915#339969
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=404742#404817
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=395020#395159
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=386824#386868
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=316554#338959
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=374792#374823
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=367268#367349
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=359607#359665

Here is the post with what I assume is a personal attack, as there was a post deleted. I do not know what was said.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=316554#338960

But overall, I see folks going after the idea, not the person.

[petronius]

26. There is a myth that RKBA is not a liberal position - I guess if I had to choose a peeve

it would be that one...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

34. Lies only undermine people.

The truth will be unaffected. :)

[DWC]

45. Denial of individual rights and individual responsibility

Civil Rights and Individual Rights are not a group function but belong to each and every adult citizen of the USA. Civil Responsibility is Individual Responsibility to exercise those Rights within the guidelines of the Law.

The actual or potential failure of others to comply with that Civil Responsibility shall in no guise limit or restrict my Individual Civil Rights.

Restriction of Civil Rights is not a Democratic or Republican or Independent precept. Neither are communism, socialism, or fascism.

RKBA including armed, self defense is one of my Civil Rights. Proper exercise of that Right is my Civil Responsibility. I have never failed to meet that Responsibility and, unless I do fail, I will vigorously oppose anyone that attempts to limit or restrict that Right.

Semper Fi,