What do people in this country not get about “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”?
I found this article (apparently I misread the title) thinking it might show some new light on some arguments against gun-control. Wait, first let me say I HATE the term “gun-control”. Period. It’s not gun “control” its gun LIMITATIONS. SO, let’s just call it what it is, ya? Ya.
I’m going to copy and paste and pick this trash apart. The pieces in the sub-set are from the article. Click the link to take you to the article on salon.com
12 rational responses to irrational gun arguments
This article originally appeared on AlterNet.
In a recent discussion about gun control on Thom Hartmann’s program, my opponent suggested that gun control advocates like me really have a cultural aversion to guns. That’s a standard ploy for the gun set: when reason isn’t on your side, deploy emotional and personal arguments instead.
“Anti-gun”? I could’ve brought up my own recreational gun use, or even brought out the firing range pass I carry in my wallet. But I’ll admit that I’ve lost a little of my taste for it as our national killing spree continues unabated. What’s more, that would’ve been disrespectful to the millions of Americans who do have an understandable aversion to guns. Personal habits should have no part in a rational policy discussion.
Now that President Obama has made his initial gun control proposals, the crazy’s being ratcheted up to a new level. Rational Americans in all walks of life will be confronted with these kinds of arguments. We’re going to need a playbook. Here are 12 responses you can use when you’re confronted with some of the standard illogical, irrational and emotionally overheated statements that gun extremists use.
1. I’m not anti-gun, I’m pro-kindergartner.
After Newtown, what person in his right mind thinks it’s irrational to propose some common-sense measures to prevent similar tragedies in the future?
What the stuff? I have never heard this argument, but my argument would be to arm the staff. Wait, hasn’t some school district in Ohio already do this? Sounds good to me!
2. Saying “If we have gun control only outlaws will have guns” is like saying “If you outlaw drunk driving, only outlaws will drive drunk.”
Rush Limbaugh’s recent variation on the old “only outlaws will have guns” line went like this: “If you have gun control laws, the law-abiding will be the only people that don’t have guns.”
This anti-gun control cliche makes absolutely no sense. We lose our driver’s license if we’re arrested for drunk driving, or if we commit too many other moving violations. But law-abiding people are free to drive. Gun control laws aren’t any different.
Um… I’m pretty sure people who have no regard for society or themselves do drive drunk. If driving drunk is illegal, and if “out law” means people who live outside the law, I’m pretty sure that only “outlaws” drive drunk by definition.
3. If dead children are a “distraction,” what subjects are important enough to be worthy of your attention?
As Media Matters reports, an increasing number of gun-extremist righties have suggested that attempts to prevent more deaths, including the deaths of young people at Newtown, Aurora, Columbine and elsewhere, are really just a “distraction” from more important matters.
Try convincing the parents of dead kids that their personal tragedies aren’t important. And if dead kindergartners don’t deserve your attention, what does?
I don’t think I’ve heard any Pro-2nd Amendment-er (yeah, I just made that up, you are welcome to take it ;)) has put that statement so bluntly or harshly. Maybe that is because us in the “right wing” DO value human and children’s lives. The overall point is, though, that all the media attention on “gun-limitation” IS a media circus that is diverting our emotional attention to trying to prevent and eradicate something that isn’t a pandemic in the first place. Did I say that all ok? Here it is, the “gun crisis” we are experiencing is nothing more than a bloated media cluster FUCK (yeah I just dropped the “F” bomb… even us good girls get pushed over the edge) that is distracting the American public from the underlying problem Gun “control” legislation that is in place NOW obviously isn’t being enforced. What should be done? Stricter penalties on those who DO violate current laws, and make it illegal for the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO TRAFFIC GUNS TO KNOWN DRUG CARTELS! HOW ‘BOUT THAT??
4. So you’ve got “Second Amendment” rights? Where’s the rest of your militia?
The text of the Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Where are the other soldiers? Who’s in charge? And which state are you protecting?
Don’t get me started on WHO THE MILITIA REALLY IS! Here‘s my post dissecting the 2nd Amendment with sources to Supreme Court rulings. If you are lazy (like me) I’ll fill you in (Skip the next few sentences if you have already read the post). Legally speaking, there are 2 forms of militia: organized and unorganized. The ORGANIZED MILITIA is the state level of the National Guard, and the UNORGANIZED MILITIA is every able-bodied male from 17-45 (64 if you are a former service member) and females in the National Guard. Why is it that any idiot with a mouth, a laptop, and a mediocre ability to use both wants to voice their opinion about gun-limitations? Why don’t they close the first and use the latter to research our founding fathers and READ THE CONSTITUTION AND THE FEDERALIST PAPERS to be more educated?? It’s not that hard, I promise. In fact, send ME your questions and since I obviously have nothing else to do (I’m a stay at home mom who home schools, cleans, cooks and takes care of 3 kids, 3 dogs and 2 chickens, CLEARLY I am bored). I would love to address anybody’s questions and post my answers. All liberals are encouraged to ask questions. Please. (after thought: I’m so glad that the only part of the 2nd Amendment you focused on was the word “militia” ::rolls eyes:: and you have no thoughts on “shall not be infringed” or “necessary to the security of a free state” ::sigh::
5. Oh, and congratulations on keeping the Lanza kid so “well-regulated.”
Along with Crazy New York Hermit Dude, the Columbine killers, the Tucson shooter, and all the other members of your “militia.”
Please refer to above. Congratulations on YOUR ability to diagnose and properly treat these people who have obviously mental problems. All your prescriptions from Big Pharma are obviously working.
6. If I can’t drive without decent vision, I shouldn’t be able to purchase weapons of mass killing after beating my grandmother to death with a hammer.
Maybe I’m off base here, but that just seems like common sense to me.
In fact, you shouldn’t buy a hammer either, let alone breathe. Let’s bring back the death penalty and this person wouldn’t be alive to do harm again. :0)
7. “Freedom to own a gun”? I have the freedom to own a car. But I don’t have the freedom to buy an M1A1 Abrams tank, or the many kinds of rounds — armor-piercing, incendiary, point detonation, delay, airburst, and shotgun-like antipersonnel tungsten balls — manufactured for its 120mm smoothbore cannon.
And I’m okay with that.
If our laws had permitted that, I’m pretty sure we would’ve wised up the third or fourth time somebody drove one up to a school, parked in the school bus lane, and started lobbing cannon rounds into the gym, music room, cafeteria, and classrooms — while fending off law enforcement with a rain of fire from its three auxiliary machine guns.
Speaking of… I actually would very much like to own these. All of them. And yes I just “googled” all of those.
8. The only other country besides the United States that considers unrestricted gun ownership a fundamental human right is Yemen …
… and Yemen’s having second thoughts.
From the UN’s Small Arms Survey: “Only two—the United States and Yemen—is ownership of firearms a citizen’s basic right. Figures published in the Small Arms Survey 2007 show that the USA and Yemen also have the highest rates of firearms per civilian, with an estimated 90 guns per 100 people in the US, and 55 in Yemen.”
There’s a slogan for you: “More extreme than Yemen.”
I really hate the U.N. Can someone please tell me why their surveys are in our country? I’m pretty sure that our involvement in the U.N. is unconstitutional anyway. Perhaps if Yemen had a structure and constitution like ours, things would be different. The top 5 most dangerous countries are as follows: 1. South Africa, 2. Brazil, 3. Columbia, 4. Russia, and 5. Somalia. I’ll stick to the U.S. of A.
9. Why is it that the people who think our “freedom to own guns” is absolute and inflexible are always the first ones to attack our other freedoms — of speech, of assembly, of worship (a religion other than their own), of privacy — in the name of national security?
We have the data which shows that our supposed “gun freedom” is causing thousands of needless deaths each year. Most “gun rights” advocates don’t care — and are more than eager to sacrifice other fundamental freedoms even when the evidence suggests it’s unnecessary and even wasteful.
Unconstitutional surveillance? Check. Unconstitutional suppression of Wikileaks and other information outlets? Check. Unconstitutional suppression of demonstrators’ rights? Check. Constitutional and rational gun control?
Never.
I am personally not willing to sacrifice any “security” for “safety. I’m not willing to bend on any of my fundamental rights, actually, and am against surveillance, any suppression of information outlets or demonstrator’s rights, the NDAA and the Patriot Act. BTW my right to guns IS inflexible. Hence the “shall not be infringed” part of it.
10. You say guns make us safer, but we already have more guns per capita than any other nation on Earth.
We also have the highest gun homicide rate of any developed nation. Our rate is 32 times that of Great Britain’s, for example.
Are we safe enough yet?
Great Britain also has pretty strict gun control laws. That’s the most ridiculous comparison. Just sayin.
11. “Recreational gun use”?
Which sports, exactly, require an assault weapon that fires 850 rounds per minute?
And is there any mass-killing capacity that would be too much for your recreational activity? 5,000 rounds per minute? 10,000 rounds per minute? Or is the recreational value of high-speed gunfire infinite and unbounded?
You know, I don’t see the point, really in passing a ball back and forth, or swimming laps in a pool either, but I’m not trying to say that NOBODY can do these sports just because I don’t see the point. Speaking of sport, anyone know when or if Top Shot will be on again? I LOVE that show.
12. Statistics show that states with more guns also have more homicides. Have you considered starting your own state?
That would allow you, for the first time, to use the Second Amendment for its true and stated purpose: to protect the security of a state.
All the other gun extremists could join you there. Wouldn’t that be great?
Most of us are getting tired of reading the obituaries of public servants, moviegoers, shoppers, schoolchildren, and other innocent bystanders in our local papers. Now we can be safe, you can be happy — and Wall Street investors can keep profiting from guns and the misery they cause.
Why the hell are we labeled as “extremists”?? Can someone please answer that? I’m not bombing buildings or setting myself on fire or convincing people to do suicide missions to get my point across. I just don’t want to give up my right to guns! And I’m sure the most of us so-labeled “extremists” would LOVE to star our own state (cough cough TEXAS cough couch MISSOURI) BUT then your big huge overbearing government would have us all in once location to bomb the hell out of us with their damned drones!
The state of “Guntopia” isn’t a perfect idea. We would worry about your children’s safety — but then, we already do.
HA HA HA HA!!! Yes, you worry about my children’s safety. I bet you would squirm if you knew I don’t vaccinate, take any medications, refuse anti-biotics and take pro-biotics instead, make my own toothpaste and laundry soap, eat organic/non-GMO (the best i can), co-sleep with my babies and breastfeed beyond 6 months (I VEHEMENTLY DISLIKE formula and the companies who make it), baby wear and attachment parent too. I know you worry about my children’s safety, I see what your Child Protective Services do to people with children here and in Great Britain. But, that is talk for another day.
What would YOU say to each of these arguments? Do some arguments ruffle your feathers a little more than others? Let me know what you think!
I apologize for any errors in spelling and grammar, but I’m tired and not going to proof read. Thank you for NOT commenting on my errors in advance 😉
old site- 