Best Gun Buyback Program Ever

This is a very long, but a very good read.

The point that the cartoon misses, as well as other arguments asking why people on the left aren't seeking to restrict access to cars, knives, pieces of rope, hands, and other things which have been used to kill people is that those things are not designed for the express purpose of killing and/or injuring people.

I'm not certain why this seems to be so difficult for gun folks to comprehend. Argue all you like for guns on their own merit, but the argument that we're also not looking to ban cars and rope is specious at best.

Of all firearm deaths less than 4% were committed with the rifles that gun control advocates want to ban.  So why are the gun control advocates not calling for restriction on handguns?  It's the same argument.

Because this isn't about really trying to help anyone it is about slowly chipping away at banning most firearms and this is just one step to that goal.

Hey TL, I would really like to know your opinion of the article. Sorry it's so long, but find it interesting.

What I quoted was not the whole point of the article. I will be the first to tell you that guns are most certainly lethal weapons, and I only own one for that purpose. But the reason one chooses to employ such weapons it what makes the difference.

Oy vey... keep drinking that NRA Kool-Aid.

I'm not a part of the NRA or do I read their literature so try again what else do you got?

Ok in all seriousness how do you personally think banning something that causes a small fraction of the problem they are going to solve is a good solution for the overall problem?

Stating the obvious goals of those that said it is not kool aid... it's just reality.

Rather than being snarky please answer the question.  (Big Appa also asked it just above..)

If only a tiny fractions of gun deaths are caused by "assault rifles" why are these the focus of the ban?  It's not about reducing gun deaths...

  " Yet when it comes to gun ownership, or responsible measures to possibly prevent and/or reduce gun violence, lots of those same folks SCREAM "NO-Obama is trying to take our guns."

I don't get it......"

Really? pro-2A BTer's want gun deaths? Sheesh.....we are certainly bad people.

The logic from pro-choicers is that restricting the availability of legal abortions isn't going to reduce the number of abortions. So why is restricting the availability of legal firearms the logic behind reducing gun violence?

Let's ban both abortions and guns and look at the amount of innocent lives we save! 

I don't think that's what the left is saying.

They are arguing that guns are a more common avenue for both mass killings and accidental killings.  I don't think I'm going to "accidentally" strangle someone.

How you want to address those problems, well, I'll stay out of that argument.

bcart1991 - 2013-02-15 5:26 AM That's the same argument that's coming from many on the other side of the argument as well. Here's a summary of the problem with the arguments coming from many on the left:

"Millions of people own firearms who have neither the training, character make-up or emotional temperment to do so safely."  - jeffnboise

Do you have a source for that?  I could argue that there are folks on one side of this issue that don't have the "emotional temperment" for it, but I don't think we'd agree which side those folks are on. 

I understand the emotion when someone you are close to is murdered....probably better than most, but it's never a good reason to make a decision based on that emotion.  I've seen how badly that tends to turn out as well.

I have guns.  The constitution of my country grants me the right to keep them.  The highest court in the land has upheld that right.  The argument is over.

The other thing you need to know is that the louder you proclaim that guns (any of them) should be outlawed the more guns there are being sold......now at an almost unbelievable rate due to the latest rantings.  I'm just saying.

^^ This!! Law is supposed to be without emotion or it is nothing more than a popularity contest.  That goes for all Law!

^^NO.  Law/Justice is BLIND.  It certainly is NOT without emotion.  Freedom of Speech, Gun Rights, Civil Rights Act. These laws were not passed 'without emotion'.  DC v. Heller determined that 2A rights are NOT infringed by certain gun control measures.  The NRA knows this; that's why THEY are courting the emotional response to the issue.

You and I will have to disagree.  Emotion is anathema to reasoned decision making.

Is everyone still OK with this?

Actually the constitution does not specifically grant the right to an abortion where as it does specifically grant the right to bear arms.  The right to an abortion is based on privacy rights but is a manufactured right sitting on some pretty shaky justification.  If the government does not have the right to tell me what I may or may not do with my body why does it have the right to tell me I can't do drugs or that I must wear a seatbelt?

Actually the constitution does not specifically grant the right to an abortion where as it does specifically grant the right to bear arms.  The right to an abortion is based on privacy rights but is a manufactured right sitting on some pretty shaky justification.  If the government does not have the right to tell me what I may or may not do with my body why does it have the right to tell me I can't do drugs or that I must wear a seatbelt? 

I actually read most of the article.   It is very well reasoned, and I tend to agree with most of it.  It does go a bit overboard at points, which lessen's it's  affect IMHO.

In a nutshell (no pun intended), this sums it up:

"it is about empowering the citizen relative to the state"

To me, the article in short, states the second amendment is more about  empowering the citizen relative to the state, so that if that state becomes oppressive, the citizens have a means to empower change, by force, if necessary.  Take away gun ownership and the second amendment, and it becomes much more possible for the government to eventually become more oppressive of it's people, or opens the means for it to happen, and possibly properly pointing out that those left with guns will be the 1%'s that everyone finds oppressive right now, our government and criminals.

The author seems to make the argument more from an anti-government control standpoint, which I tend to agree, even at points, advocating for legalization of drugs, etc. making a correlation between more government control, which is equal to more oppression by the government of it's citizens.  There were points where he lost me, but overall I tend to agree.  I'm a little more moderate than what the article portrayed, as government has to control and regulate some aspects, otherwise we would have anarchy.

Are the steps our government is trying to take to ban an AK47 (just an example, as I'm not really a gun owner myself) proper regulation?  Maybe.

Is the end game for the left pushing this control, the eventual banishment of guns?  I believe so.

Will that ever happen?  I have no idea, but it's possible, which is why we are where we are.

WHAT?...(head spins around ala Linda Blair's Exorcist)..Roe v. Rade has proven to be pretty SOLID legal justification.  OTOH-Gun Control Act of 1968, Brady Bill, DC v. Heller.  All have shown that the SCOTUS is willing to acknowledge 2A with limits.