A Core Gun-control Tenet's "I told you so!"

Jump to Last Post 1-4 of 4 discussions (24 posts)
  1. GA Anderson profile image91
    GA Andersonposted 2 months ago

    Although Pres. Biden is the president that said it, the point isn't to criticize him, but to put a 'See, I told you so.' spotlight on a 'core' rebuttal  argument of the pro-gun-control advocates: 'We don't want to ban all guns, just military-style weapons-of-war assault rifles.'

    But now, Pres. has Biden said:
    "The idea that we still allow semi-automatic weapons to be purchased is sick . . . just sick. It has no, no redeeming social value. Zero, none."
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntk0CT35oak

    For several here in this forum, we have had gun-control discussions and 'debates' for 10+ years. Over and over.

    My experience has been that a core argument of the pro camp is that the anti camp is exaggerating, 'We don't want to ban all guns, just the deadly assault rifle guns.'

    A similarly "core" tenet of the anti folks is that you can't ban cosmetics you will have to ban capabilities, ie. all semi-automatic guns.

    I think Pres. Biden spoke the 'unspoken' of the gun-control movement. For context, he did finish his statement addressing assault rifles specifically but look what he started with. Was it a gaffe or a Freudian slip?

    We 'Righties' have been saying this for years, so the point of the OP is simply to wallow in a sense of, 'See, I told you so.'   ;-)

    1. tsmog profile image78
      tsmogposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      To jump start the thread and with humor while not choosing a side other than I support the 2nd amendment below is a link to best varmint weapons around.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBKVpS0yliQ

  2. Ken Burgess profile image82
    Ken Burgessposted 2 months ago

    I believe the real argument for or against is rarely spoken.

    The 2nd Amendment remains a threat to the Government.

    The right to bear arms, according to Scalia, originated in the sixth provision of England’s 1689 Bill of Rights, which reads: “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” The bill was adopted after James II, the recently dethroned Catholic king, had tried disarmament as one way of quashing Protestant and Parliamentary opposition to his rule. Scalia’s assertion was that, despite this very nuanced historical contingency, the language of the provision nevertheless formed the basis of a natural right to self-protection that had come to be more universally understood by the time of the Constitution’s framing.

    This implies not only to protect oneself from those intent on doing immediate physical harm, but also to protect from a tyrannical government as well.

    This is why gun ownership is so problematic for our government today.
    There is always a threat of a real insurrection, a real people's usurpation of a corrupt and tyrannical government.

    How could our government possibly hope to enforce lockdowns like they have had for years now in China?

    The Chinese have no arms to fight back with, historically they have always been a repressed and abused population, Socialism, Communism has long been part of their society.

    1. Credence2 profile image79
      Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Well it depends on who and which people see the government as tyrannical, Ken.

      I can never understand in a protest environment when Righties come they always come armed, is that to intimidate or shut down reasoned debate, because they have a gun?

      That is the tyranny that I fear most

  3. peeples profile image93
    peeplesposted 2 months ago

    I wish everyone would stop for just a second and understand this topic is not a right or left issue. It's an extremist issue. I am pretty liberal (Though not a dem because I am to fiscally conservative), and I love my right to own guns. Every liberal I know, owns guns. And we don't just own the small ones.

    With that said, certain parts of the topic are very right vs left. I don't know a liberal who thinks 18 year olds should be allowed to purchase ArmaLites. Yet most Rights I know think they should.

    Surely there is a middle ground if we try hard enough? Not letting an 18 year old walk in and buy something that can mow down 100's of people. Making sure all people buying a gun have never been convicted of Domestic Violence (Boyfriend loophole). Making sure all children who gain a gun from their parent due to not securing it are jailed. Etc. I don't know. Just seems if we tried hard enough we could probably find some common ground and be louder than the extremists who want to take guns from us law abiding citizens.

    1. GA Anderson profile image91
      GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Your points are the same 'debated' points I spoke of. You say an 18-year-old  shouldn't be able to buy an Ar-15, but would you be okay with them buying a Ruger Ranch Rifle, (also called a Varmit rifle)?

      https://hubstatic.com/14683410.jpg

      GA

      1. Credence2 profile image79
        Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

        I am more concerned about capacity and less about aesthetics. Since when do you need a sub machine gun (bump stocks) to defend yourself?

        Gun people want to protect their rights, well I think society has the right to monitor sales of weapons and ammunition to be proactive against people who all too frequently go postal.

        It is only conservatives that treat the endless massacres as if they were an act of God.

        1. GA Anderson profile image91
          GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          "Society" already exercises those rights you say they have a Right to. In the form of 30,000 to 300,000  gun laws, (Google tosses a broad net on the numbers). Surely you don't think we are just one or two laws short of the goal?

          This Conservative doesn't treat gun massacres as an act of God, I see them as an act of man. Fix the man and you won't need any more gun laws. Without fixing the man the only fix is a total gun extinction.

          GA

          1. Credence2 profile image79
            Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

            Obviously, the gun laws are ineffective. I don't want to inundate the country with gun laws.

            It is always the conservatives that say after every massacre, " I want to offers prayers, condolences, etc. You get the impression that it is to be treated like casualties in an earthquake. An earthquake cannot be stopped but this man made version can be at least seen as something that need not be treated in an inevitable fashion at each occasion.

            I know that you and I have spoken on this topic before. The question remains, while we know that self defense and those of you folks that hunt have reasonable justification for firearms. But, do any of you gun people really believe that there needs to be a line drawn as to types of weapons available to general public?

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

              "But, do any of you gun people really believe that there needs to be a line drawn as to types of weapons available to general public?"

              Yes.  The public does not need nukes.  It does not need the modern gatling guns of the Navy (the phalanx system).  It does not need any form of missiles.  It does not need anti-tank weapons.  It does not need grenades.  It does not need biological or chemical weapons.  There are many other weapons the public should not have access to, but I will stop there with the comment that they not only do not "need" them they should not have them.

              Unfortunately the gun control folks don't stop there, although they claim to.  The reality is as has been pointed out here; there is no end to the weapons that control advocates would confiscate and ban.  BB guns and air rifles would be last (after bows and arrows), but I'm pretty sure that they, too, would be taken.

              1. Credence2 profile image79
                Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

                You have provided many examples of weapons that belong to the category of military ordinance. When it comes to AR-15 and semi autos with large magazines, why is that acceptable but a Gatling gun is not, in regards to availability to the general public? There are weapons that are available for self defense from the Second Amendment standpoint, but I can't see any boundary from them as to which sorts of weapons they should not have access to.

                While there appears to be no weapon that control advocates would ban, there also appears to be no limit to the kinds of weapons gun people want to make available along with any restrictions regarding  surrounding possession  to the general public

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  The phalanx system (modern gatling gun) has a range of some 3+ miles and fires 75 20mm rounds per second.  The AR 15 has a range of 600 yards and fires perhaps 2 5.5 mm rounds per second.  The phalanx is strictly a military weapon, used only by the military, while the AR15 is strictly a civilian weapon, used only by civilians.  Does that answer your question?

                  "While there appears to be no weapon that control advocates would ban, there also appears to be no limit to the kinds of weapons gun people want to make available along with any restrictions regarding  surrounding possession  to the general public"

                  And yet I offered, and you acknowledge, a long list of weapons the "gun people" would ban.  How does that work, that the list is acknowledged and then ignored?

                  1. Credence2 profile image79
                    Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

                    So, why can't I have a phalanx system for my self defense? It makes the AR-15 look like a pea shooter in comparison. The gun folks would have no reason not to ask for more. Why would the gun people want to ban this but allow magazine capacities that would choke a horse, or bump stocks? Is the this "being military" just an arbitrary line that the gun people draw? The gun people say they want their weapons to defend against a government that could become tyrannical, would not a phalanx provide much more firepower toward this end?

                    I asked Ken this question without a response, so I am going to ask you.

                    Why do Right wing oriented groups bring and brandish their firearms in what otherwise would be a peaceful meeting at city Hall?

                    Is it an attempt to intimidate, shutting down debate because I have the gun?

    2. Ken Burgess profile image82
      Ken Burgessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Protests erupt across China in unprecedented challenge to Xi Jinping’s zero-Covid policy

      By CNN's Beijing bureau and Nectar Gan
      Updated 11:36 PM EST, Sun November 27, 2022

      Chinese leader Xi Jinping on Monday faced unprecedented dissent after thousands of demonstrators protested in cities across China over the weekend against his zero-Covid strategy – with some daring to openly call for his removal in the streets.

      “Step down, Xi Jinping! Step down, Communist Party!” some protesters yelled among hundreds who gathered in the financial hub Shanghai – one of multiple major cities where protests broke out.

      Such widespread scenes of anger and defiance – some of which stretched into the early hours of Monday morning – are exceptionally rare in China, where the ruling Communist Party ruthlessly cracks down on all expressions of dissent. But three years into the pandemic, many people have been pushed to the brink by the government’s incessant use of lockdowns, Covid tests and quarantines – as well as ever-tightening censorship and continued onslaught on personal freedoms.

      The ratcheting-up of restrictions in recent months, coupled with a series of heartbreaking deaths blamed on an over-zealous policing of the controls, has brought matters to a head.

      Chinese stock markets and the yuan tumbled in early trade Monday amid concern about the government’s potential response to the protests, which varied from city to city and in some areas became more heavy-handed as the weekend progressed.

      Though the protests made headlines in international media, Chinese state media carried stories and opinion pieces stressing the severity of the Covid outbreak and the need to persevere with methods to stamp it out.

      “Practices have proven that our Covid measures can stand the test of history, they are scientific and effective,” said an opinion piece published by the Xinhua news agency on Monday. “Perseverance prevails.”

      ==================================

      That would be us, that would be America, if not for the fact that an overwhelming number of citizens have weapons that, if such severe inhumane treatments were forced upon us, a substantial number of Americans would take arms up against such a tyrannical government to remove it.

      Maybe after another 30 years of destructive teachings and propaganda, of brainwashing children and villainizing weapons and anyone who would own one, they can instill such draconian control here in America as well.

      Then again, after what they did to the Truckers in Canada, it is pretty clear they can take away all your assets from you and anyone that would dare support you.  But when you do that too often you destroy the illusion people have that they are free, that they have some control over their lives.

      Take that away from too many people who are used to believing they are free, and you definitely will have a serious revolt of some sort.

      1. DrMark1961 profile image96
        DrMark1961posted 2 months agoin reply to this

        I think the ability to own weapons and defend yourself is part of it, but I also think it is an independence mindset that the government might eventually destroy in the majority of people. Where I live about 50% of the people have already gone down that woke road. I do not think it is that high in the US at this point but based on the latest election results I am not so sure.

        1. Ken Burgess profile image82
          Ken Burgessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          As I said, another 30 years of propaganda and programming will take care of the matter in America.

          America is far from the rugged, independent, hard working, be-a-man, take-responsibility, gun owning and father-dad hunting country that we used to be 50 years ago.

    3. Credence2 profile image79
      Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

      I don't know if I like the idea of anyone being able to purchase a weapon with magazines large enough to mow down scores of people before they are stopped.

  4. Kathleen Cochran profile image79
    Kathleen Cochranposted 2 months ago

    All we have to do is adopt the policies of countries that don't suffer the losses we do - now daily. But we won't do that. It is a problem with a solution. We just won't put the solution into practice.

    1. DrMark1961 profile image96
      DrMark1961posted 2 months agoin reply to this

      You mean like Communist China? There are reasons that those policies are not adopted elsewhere.

    2. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      If you could only show that banning guns would reduce the murder rate you might find the US banning them as others have done.

      But you can't do that, with the result that removing freedoms, and guaranteed rights, result in no gain.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)