Question of the Day: What Does the Lack of Gun Control Say About Our Country?

Senator Chris Murphy (courtesy huffingtonpost.com)

“Here’s the truth,” Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy declares in a fundraising email for the Democratic Party, “will universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, fixing NICS, banning bump stocks and more stop every gun death? Of course not. But I shudder to think what it says about us as a nation if we don’t even attempt to make a good faith effort to try and end this carnage.” For the truth about Murphy’s “truth” we turn to logicallyfallacious.com:

[A false dilemma exists] when only two choices are presented yet more exist, or a spectrum of possible choices exists between two extremes.  False dilemmas are usually characterized by “either this or that” language, but can also be characterized by omissions of choices.  Another variety is the false trilemma, which is when three choices are presented when more exist.

Senator Murphy’s call for universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, fixing NICS and banning bump stocks goes one further: a false quadrilemma.

He presents a list of partial solutions for stopping “gun death” that doesn’t include more effective policing, harsher penalties for criminal firearms use, more effective suicide prevention programs and, of course, “allowing” law abiding to exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

Anyway, let’s turn this thing on its head. What does the lack of Murphy-esque gun control say about our country?

comments

  1. avatar C.S. says:

    I hate monopolies of any kind, especially government monopolies. This is where I disagree with Ben Shapiro, the government should _not_ have the monopoly on the use of force. That’s FREEDOM.

    1. avatar JJ48 says:

      I didn’t think Monopoly Junior was too bad. The smaller board and streamlined rules really helped, I thought.

      …oh, sorry. Thought I was on Board Game Geek for a moment, there.

    2. avatar Brandan says:

      Not to get too semantic, but the state has a monopoly on the use of violence, i.e., the right of revenge…or put softly, the rule of law. The state doesn’t have (at lastly morally anyhow) a monopoly on the use of force. I think that distinction is important to make…even if it isn’t universally accepted. Within that distinction is the right of self-defense…which, unless one is a complete statist drone, is forced to admit is an acceptable use of force.

      I have a right to use force to stop an imminent lethal threat upon my life, I do not however have a right to use violence against he or she (or their family, clan, etc) as an act of revenge for said threat. That right we delegate to the state as a means of defusing the Hobbesian trap.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        I’d like to get the state monopoly on the revenge business over and done with as well. Bring back the code duello. I wonder how many on the far left would still parrot their propaganda if they had to answer for their slander on a field of honor.

        1. avatar YARB0892 says:

          They’d have to know what Honor was, why it’s worth defending, and actually be able to find some first before the Code Duello would matter.

        2. avatar Red in CO says:

          I actually agree. Very strongly. There is ENTIRELY too much weaponization of the courts, particularly from the left (in not just talking about civil or criminal affair either). What are courts, when you really break it down? A way for someone to get others people with guns to go after another person or party. At its most basic level, that’s it, and we’ve gotten to the point where anybody can aim the courts at anyone else for any reason. I would also postulate that such a massively over reaching justice system acts to insulate people from the consequence of their actions. For example: person A goes off on a stranger, let’s say a woman, spewing some of the most caustic vulgarity you can imagine. Person B come up and punches person A several times for being such a raging asshat. Person A sues person B and gets him to pay person A and also go to prison. Person A, who was clearly in the wrong, comes out massively ahead.

          Now, of course this is a massive oversimplification, and I haven’t talked at all about the flip side of having either a massively reduced or entirely disbanded legal system. I’m also not claiming such a scenario would result in a net positive compared to our current one. However, in my opinion, they are some fascinating thought experiments to run, and well worth considering

        1. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

          RE: what Red in CO says

          Seems to me that back in the days when this country was being formed there was a “massively reduced” legal system. And a whole lot more justice.

    3. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      Usually that point is discussed in terms of the government having a monopoly not on the use of force, but rather a monopoly on the initiation of the use of force. To be against a government monopoly on the use of force is simply to say that you believe in the right to self defense. That’s not an especially noteworthy stance to take.

      The particulars of how a self defense law should be worded aside, there are very, very few people who outright oppose self defense in all circumstances. Even fewer believe in extending that extreme nonviolence stance beyond themselves personally and imposing it on everyone else.

      Did you mean to say you’re opposed to a government monopoly on the initiation of the use of force? Self defense is a forceful reaction to someone else’s intiation of force. Initiating force means you’re the first one to resort to force.

    4. avatar Guardiano says:

      When did Shapiro say the government SHOULD have a monopoly on the use of force? Pretty sure I’ve heard him say the exact opposite.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        He said it in his Berkeley speech. He said it referencing Max Weber who was a German political philosopher. I haven’t read his work since college, but I’m fairly certain that he was talking about the legitimate use of force outside of some narrow exceptions, such as self defense type situations, and how that is the essence of the state.

        Google Max Weber or, even better, go to your local library if you want to find out more about the concept.

  2. avatar Ron Odom says:

    The lack of Gun Control in America means that America is not a Communist Dictatorship!

    1. avatar Gordon in MO says:

      YET ! The democrat (communist) party is still working on that.

  3. avatar BLoving says:

    That we are a free people. What else would it mean?
    🤠

  4. avatar Ironhead says:

    The lack of gun control in america hasnothing to do with anything.
    Most of europe has strict gun control, and guess what?
    People get shot there. Sometimes in large amounts.
    I dont mean to sound callous, but its the truth.
    With these clowns, its all about control. Disarmed citizens are much easier to control.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Please see Exhibit A in the form of the “red alert” issued by the globalist in chief over at the UN. Apparently nationalism and national sovereignty are now bad things. Any time the rest of the world wants to leave the Pax Americana, they are welcome to. Our first response will be to allow our navy to take any ships sailing under their flags as prizes.

      1. avatar JasonM says:

        Because if you can’t get along with somebody, the best way to deal with them is piracy.

        Maybe it’s time to become an adult and realize verbal or political disagreements neither require, nor justify, violence. Only aggression does.

        1. avatar CZ Peasy says:

          It’s not piracy if you have a government license – a letter of marque and reprisal. The US constitution authorizes such. Just think, a sailing ship armed with state of the art cannons (equivalent to today’s aircraft carriers in terms of relative power) could be privately held and used to attack and capture ships with the blessing of the government.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          There is currently one planetary hegemon. The rest of the world can fall in line, deal with the consequences of being too weak to defy said hegemon, or build themselves up to the point where they are not reliant on the military power of said hegemon to maintain their states. It’s not rocket science.

        3. avatar Garrison Hall says:

          An especially famous American Privateer, Letter of Marque, from the War of 1812.

          http://www.orgsites.com/al/americanprivateer/

          ………………………………U.S. Navy………Privateers

          Total ships……………………..23……………517

          Total guns on ships…………556……………2893

          Enemy ships captured……..254……………1300

        4. avatar JasonM says:

          @CZ Peasy
          It might not be piracy in the eyes of the US government, but I suspect if they started supporting privateers, the rest of the world would look on it as piracy. Technically the Somali pirates were all privateers working for the local government.

        5. avatar JasonM says:

          The rest of the world can fall in line, deal with the consequences of being too weak to defy said hegemon, or build themselves up to the point where they are not reliant on the military power of said hegemon to maintain their states.
          That’s a lot of wrong for just one sentence. You’re basically suggesting that we turn the US government into an extortion racket…but one that only extorts loyalty, not any funding.
          There’s the economic argument that it drains that hegemony dry, while its protectorates thrive. There’s the practical argument that superpowers engender terrorism. And there’s the constitutional argument that it is antithetical to the founding principles of this country. If our ideas are better (and I think they are), then we should exercise them, and not just pay lip service to them like most Americans do today. When we do, we can stand as an example that others want to emulate, rather than be a bully as you suggest.

        6. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yes… because we should continue to pay to secure nearly 100% of the world’s maritime commerce and the provide the entirety of the military security for most of Europe out of the goodness of our hearts…

          Yeah… the only thing worse than a “bully” is a chump.

  5. avatar Nativeson says:

    A more appropriate question to ask is – What kind of nation elects a totalitarian demagogue like Chris Murphy and then takes him seriously?

    1. avatar anonymoose says:

      The Socialist Republic of Connecticut.

    2. avatar AJ says:

      Murphy was “my” representative and then “my” senator when I lived in CT.

      He was an idiot demagogue then and he still is. A nasty man.

  6. avatar million says:

    it means we’ll never reach the pinnacle of socialism and enjoy a toilet paper shortage.

    1. avatar anonymoose says:

      I’ve been there…when I was in college…it was a dark time…

  7. avatar Icabod says:

    Perhaps it will be better to examine the effectiness of the current gun laws. Why not start with the cities of Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore. They all have, on the books, strict gun laws. They all have rates of gun deaths far above other cities. What else do they have in common? Low incarceration rates for gun crimes. By “low’, this means charges for gun violence are dropped, plea bargained away and sentences are reduced due to over crowding.
    The reality is that it’s popular to pass gun laws that impact only the law-abiding. Incaerating those that commit gun crimes costs money, requires more prisons, and results in charges of racism.

    1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

      The very fact that too many “people of the gun” continue to use the totally false terms “gun deaths” and so forth is a big, big problem. Why do we allow these would-be dictators to pollute even the language WE use?

      People who are injured or die by other means are no less hurt or dead. So it isn’t about “guns” at all, but human nature. And more police, more prisons or more draconian persecution isn’t going to change that one little bit. Increasing individual liberty and personal responsibility would.

      1. avatar JasonM says:

        When the person uses “gun deaths” to present statistics in a manipulative way, your argument is valid…like when people point out that “gun deaths” went down in the UK after their ban, but ignore the fact that their overall violent crime rate went up.
        Icabod was pointing out that gun control in large US cities seemingly had no effect at reducing people using guns to murder each other (or possibly helped increase it), so saying “gun deaths” instead of deaths makes sense.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      Wrong. Try again. Of the three, only Baltimore has “strict” gun laws. Chicago had strict gun laws before McDonald v. City of Chicago overturned the handgun ban, and Monroe(?) v. Madigan resulted in state-wide “shall issue” CCW–including Chicago. The only thing “strict” in Chicago is where they allow you to legally carry your concealed firearm (which includes a ban on carry on public transportation). [Yes, Chicago has tried to throw as many roadblocks as it could to limit the number of people with CCWs by banning/restricting gun ranges, making it difficult or impossible for gun stores to open, etc., but those efforts, through litigation, have been largely unsuccessful.] Detroit, as a part of the State of Michigan, has shall issue CCW, and a chief of police who encourages the remaining residents (those who have not fled the blight and crime] to gun up. What the three have in common are city councils controlled by Democrats, large, largely unemployed and under-educated black American populations, gangs, and drugs. Detroit, as you may recall, went bankrupt because of its social welfare programs, and gutted its police force.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        I’d argue that Chicago’s gun laws are strict. I don’t remember all the things needed to get a carry license in Chicago, but they include training. There are no ranges in Chicago. You can’t transport a gun on public transportation. Try being poor in Chicago and getting a carry license.

        Typically, it is the poor that need carry licenses and who benefit the most from them.

      2. avatar Scoutino says:

        So, did Chicago repeal the “assault weapons” ban?

    3. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      How do you explain New York City, then? New York City’s homicide rate has plunged to lows not seen since the 1950s. Is NYC slacking on gun control?

      1. avatar Southern Cross says:

        “Gentrification”. Price the poor out so they take themselves elsewhere, such as Baltimore.

  8. avatar Gman says:

    Question of the Day: What Does the Lack of Gun Control Say About Our Country?
    This in itself is a fallacy. Every law which infringes upon the free exercise of the keeping and bearing of arms, of which there are thousands, is Gun Control; and all are unconstitutional.

    There is only one law which is Constitutional – the 2nd.

    What Does this Gun Control Say About our Country?
    That we have given up freedom and liberty.

    1. avatar Scoutino says:

      Yeah, if US and particularly Connecticut lacks something, its not gun control. Murphy’s proposed further infringement “solutions” would not save any lifes and are not meant to. His aim is control of the disarmed population.

  9. avatar Ralph says:

    Murphy is just Whitey Bulger in a nice suit.

    1. avatar Rusty Chains says:

      I would have said Vladimir Lennon with better hair and without the facial hair.

  10. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    It says we haven’t let criminals like him have full control of our country. Yet. For all the crime issues, we should be more concerned about the state. Historical precedence dictates that.

  11. avatar dlj95118 says:

    Lack of gun control? LACK?! What is this “lack” of that you speak, Mr. Murphy?

    Everywhere I turn I’m restricted from:
    – certain types of handguns
    – certain types of rifles
    – carrying
    – ammunition via the InterWeb
    …and that’s just a few.

    Lack of control? Methinks not.

    From the shining socialistic cesspool, Kalifornia.

  12. avatar AlanInFL says:

    It means that we are a free country. Not a drone out slave state like California.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      How can we be a free country with states like CA and NY? Are we freeish? Are we free if we don’t drive into NJ?

      1. avatar adverse5 says:

        The “United States” are not united, there are free states and there are socialist states/city states. That’s the broad answer. Varies by region.

  13. avatar Joe R. says:

    1) Murphy needs help.

    2) CT, and other POS (D), is lost

    3) [AND MOST IMPORTANT] ‘Murica

    4) FTW (hard, w/o lube)

    1. avatar CTstooge says:

      CT is circling the drain, and all this FLAME DELETED can talk about is gun control.

  14. avatar pieslapper says:

    “Question of the Day: What Does the Lack of Gun Control Say About Our Country?”

    We need more practice and range time?

  15. avatar David says:

    That American exceptionalism is a thing! Those Founding Father’s knew what they were doing when they refused to be tyrannized and set up a new government unlike any other before or since. You’d think at least one country would try to copy us and come up to our level! But most people want to regress to slavery just like the Hebrews wandering in the desert with Moses wanted to go back to Egypt! Probably, the closest country to the U.S. is Switzerland.

    1. avatar GunDoc says:

      Hate to break it to you, but the Hebrews WERE the Pharaohs.

  16. These types of incidents don’t happen everyday in Europe, Canada, Japan or Australia.

    Got back from my lovely xmas vacation from the dutch netherlands and saw no violence, mass shootings or violent crime rising like that nuts on here claim and i’ve been all over the island to find it and found not a single problem with it which again proves nuts like you full of bovine excrement.

    At-least the dutch have the common sense to keep guns out of the hands of extremists, criminals and the mentally disturbed. Saw no stabbings, vehicle rampages or other types of assaults you people lied about.

    So how is keeping these prohibited by law from owning a gun “infringing” on your “rights”?

    How is requiring you prove that your not a criminal or a mental defective a “infringement” on your “rights”?,

    These things don’t violate the constitution or the bill of rights.

    1. avatar Ing says:

      I spent the Christmas holiday here at home in America, and I didn’t see a single crime of any kind (violent or otherwise). Your perception of America as a place of constant, seething violence is therefore absolutely wrong.

      Unless maybe the lack of crime had something to do with you being gone…

      1. avatar Huntmaster says:

        Me too!

    2. avatar TwoJohnsonsAreBetterThanOne says:

      I bought a new gun a lot of ammo just last week. What have YOU done for your country recently?

    3. avatar GunDoc says:

      My question:

      Why did you come back from the Dutch Netherlands? It sounds like you hate it here.

      Honestly, part of freedom is choosing where you fit best.

      Psychology is not my area of specialization, but I’m pretty sure you have some moderate to severe issues that could be dealt with by sitting down with a specialist.

      But that presumes that you are not a paid schtroll, come to fling excrement like an ill-trained monkey. In that case, I’ll sum up my rebuttal to your “modest proposal:”

      “No.”

      Now run along. The adults are having a conversation.

    4. avatar Yellow Devil says:

      Then why come back if it was so great in Euro-topia? I’m guessing even the Dutch couldn’t stand your smug attitude and kicked you out.

    5. avatar Southern Cross says:

      (YAWN) Copy and paste usual text.

      Our mass killers are more refined and find cars more effective than guns. Just before Christmas a persom of “Middle Eastern Appearance” ran down 18 people with car. Once since died and charges have been upgraded to murder, multiple attempted murder, and reckless endangerment. Authorities will not describe the action as terrorism even though the accused is “known to police”.

      The accused’s lawyer will probably plead the person had a psychological disorder known as “spontaneous jihadi syndrome” and after being confronted with overt displays of Christianity felt compelled to act putting the infidels back in their place according to the Uma and Hadiths.

    6. avatar AFGus says:

      I’ve been to the Netherlands several times, and just the fact that you are trying to equate that very, very small country with the United States shows what a total moron you are.

    7. avatar pwrserge says:

      You should have taken the train down to Paris for New Year’s. All the blatant gun control and cultural enrichment you could want.

    8. avatar Scoutino says:

      I spent last two weeks working in Chicago and I didn’t witness a single act of violence, not one criminal act. According to your logic Chicago got the gangs licked and has no more crime!

      Why, oh why did you come back to that terrible US overflowing with guns from idyllic, bucolic, peaceful Europe? Do you have a death wish?

      Just because Dutch laws forbid people owning and carrying of firearms doesn’t mean that Dutch criminals don’t have and carry them. Just like French laws did not prevent bunch of muslims from killing dozens of people with full auto rifles.

      Proving that I’m not a criminal before I can legally buy a firearm IS against Constitution. The 2nd amendment says that government must not infringe on our right to own and carry arms. Not a word about any exceptions, not even for criminals. Which other constitutional right should require proof of sanity and of non-felon state before exercising it? Free speech? Assembly? Religion? Maybe we can enslave everyone with fellony conviction since constitutional protection doesn’t apply to them?

  17. avatar Bob Watson says:

    Little Chrissy is a fine word murderer. He could use a few lessons in generating hysteria from a professional like the Hysterical Mother.

  18. avatar S.Crock says:

    I’m from commifornia… I do not understand the question.

    Side note… WHY DO I HAVE TO WRITE MY USERNAME AND EMAIL EVERY TIME I COMMENT?!?

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Try double clicking where each goes. Your name and email should pop up on a drop down menu.

    2. avatar adverse5 says:

      Why not? Too much of a strain?

      1. avatar Scoutino says:

        It used to self-fill before ttag improved the site. Before all the pop up ads and sharing bars covered half the screen on my phone. We were even able to jump sideways to next or previous post without going back to home page. Those were the days…

  19. avatar Chris Morton says:

    It says that we’re not a nation of pathetic, disarmed victims, ripe for the slaughter like the Brits, reduced to throwing glasses at 10th century subhuman beasts… or being murdered, cowering and begging for our lives.

  20. avatar Brandan says:

    The lack of significant gun controls in the United States says to me that the U.S. (on the whole) is one of the few (classically) liberal countries left in the world, the others perhaps being Switzerland and arguably the Czech Republic. Baring individuals from lawful self-preservation and/or prohibiting the ownership of the tools necessary to exercise self-preservation (i.e. guns) is profoundly illiberal, that’s some feudalist shit…and when viewed on the long scale of history is a horribly regressive phenomena.

  21. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    Except that gun control is not a good faith effort to end the carnage. By desire and design, gun control is only a cynical, devious effort to end freedom in America. He knows that.

    The only public policy initiative of the past thirty years that both expands individual liberty and reduces violent crime is concealed carry. Sounds win-win for everyone, no?

    For such a reptant little worm, Murphy sure has difficulty finding common ground.

  22. avatar MyName says:

    What does it say?

    It says “Murcia!”, that’s what.

    1. avatar adverse5 says:

      Who shot your coon dog?

  23. avatar adverse5 says:

    It means the democratic socialists haven’t taken over yet, but they are still trying.

  24. avatar Carl B. says:

    What’s it say about a country that elects, then re-elects in perpetuity, moronic demagogues the likes of Chris Murphy?

  25. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    Well, obviously the only method is to politically Ban the Democratic Party…Crush it completely…Purge all the RINOs from the RNC…Bring in independents constitutionalists, Libertarians,etc….And throw out all the EU NWO Globalists…

  26. The lack of gun control is as it should be because the Constitution grants every male the right to keep and bear arms as members of a well-regulated militia.

    Who is the militia but the people themselves? That is exactly who will comprise the militia of American citizens. that will rise to put an end to the aggregation of human garbage that has lost all respect for the Constitution (each took an Oath-of-Office to preserve, protect and defend it from all enemies, both foreign and domestic) and has become power hungry and self-serving to the extent those things have become their only concerns. Until elections come up, that is. Then they remember that they have to convince constituents to vote them back in office yet again so they can continue their abusive and party centered agenda for taking control of governing the United States from the people.

    We have two tools for turning a run amok governing body back to the CONSTITUTION.

    The first is by using the lengths of time that the Framers established for Senators, Members of the House of Representatives and the President to serve before voters either refuse to reelect them, or, choose to reelect them. It is our responsibility to remove everyone from office that has demonstrated that they have no respect for us, no respect for the office they hold, no respect for the Constitution and no respect for the United States of America.

    If you manage to pay attention to what the people we have chosen to represent us in management of our country have been doing now, and over the past several Administrations, each getting worse than the one that preceded it, you will be quite aware of the fact that your control over your government is getting less with each Administration.

    Please, for the sake of God, Country and the peoples of the World, DO NOT REELECT ANYONE that has not worked to always preserve, protect and defend the Constitution no matter the risk to himself or to the party with which they affiliate.

    Do not reelect someone because of the favors that you think they have done for your community, your industry, your charity or other organization. Everything done for anyone is done only to get them reelected. Not for the benefit of anyone but themselves. Don’t be fooled, don’t be suckered into reelecting them if they have not performed to the letter of the law, ALWAYS!

    The second way to bring our country back to the Constitution is provided in the Constitution. The entire reason for the Second Amendment is for use by the citizenry of the United States to resort to whatever means necessary, including bloodshed, to save the American people from tyranny at the hands of those they have elected to function as government.

    Please read the Declaration of Independence and you will see the very reasoning behind our use of every tool at our command to protect the Constitution, the foundation law set upon which our System of Laws depends for authority and structure. We must declare our independence from control by nefarious politicians comprising political corporations whose only bent is controlling the wealth of the United States for their benefits, and for themselves and their ilk. We the people are nothing but necessary tools for their continuance in the positions they need to continue their agenda. When they rest control of our country from us we will no longer be necessary to them. We will then become slaves, or, extinct.

    The choice is yours but make a choice. Do some research first so you understand that you are in control of the United States. Learn all about the tools that are in place for your use to manage our country. Learn the difference between a Constitutional Republic and a Democracy. Learn how we are nearly a Democracy now. In a democracy the majority rules everything. See how the minority loses in America today as well as in Congress.

    During the Obama Administrations and now in the Trump Administration the majority rules and its their way or the highway. The Constitution demands that parties having differing views of a matter are supposed to negotiate an agreement that both sides can accept that is good for the people and for the country. This allows consideration of the concerns of the minority and their inclusions in resultant activities.

    We are not seeing the legislative process work as Constitutional Law requires it to function. We are the ones that must fix it by insuring that we elect responsible, principled, honest, loyal and patriotic people to serve us. No others should be considered, ever.

  27. Chris Murphy starts from a false premise.

    M<urder is illegal in every state, as well as the District of Columbia.

    We stop the carnage by prosecuting those who cause the carnage.

  28. avatar DerryM says:

    It means “the thin veneer of civilization” is steadfastly held in place by those intelligent enough and moral enough to keep and bear firearms (and other weapons) without without intentionally choosing to harm or intimidate other Humans for purposes of control, wanton personal gain, anger or lust unless forced to do so by savage acts initiated by said other Humans.

  29. avatar Dave in SoCal says:

    I’m more disturbed about what it says about our country that an absolute moron like Chris Murphy is a United States Senator.

    We currently have the worst political class in US history.

  30. avatar cisco kid says:

    Lets face facts we are not a Democracy and never have been. We missed the chance for a Parliamentary system and elections by popular vote because the original “swamp rats” were the Founding Fathers who feared the people and feared true democracy so they created a nation for the rich and by the rich through a disingenuous representative government complete with an Electoral College and also the corrupt gerrymandering outrages that lets corrupt politicians pick who votes for them rather than the reverse. Gerrymandering is so outrageous in some states like South Carolina that a new study found shockingly that Iran actually has more democracy than South Carolina does.

    No other civilized nations on earth permits lunatics and criminals to walk into gun shows and buy all the guns and ammo they could ever want or need.

    No other civilized nations permit unsafe storage which lets criminals and nut cases steal all the guns they want from gun stores or private dwellings.

    No other civilized nations permit unsafe storage that results in 10,000 children being maimed and killed by guns left unattended.

    No other civilized nations fail to vet out people from buying guns who have a history of mental problems and erratic behavior.

    Failure to address these problems only will result in both parties knuckling under to draconic anti-gun laws and confiscation due to public pressure and mass hysteria in regards to the almost weekly mass shootings by maniacs with assault rifles. Last year the Supreme Court did just exactly that due to public mass hysteria and completely trashed both the Scalia ruling and the entire Second Amendment by refusing to hear the Maryland Assault Rifle Ban law which gave a blessing to California’s draconian confiscation law now being put into effect as well as its ammunition restriction law as well.

    And the false idea by ignoring history leads to the absurd idea that the Republicans have not also been behind the banning of weapons too as Ronald McDonald banned ownership of new full auto weapons, George Busch supported banning semi-auto rifles and Paul Ryan trashed the silencer bill just to name a few times Republicans bent to public pressure to do something about gun violence and death and stabbed gun owners in the back. So think about that next time you start screaming vote Republican because it is only they that will save you rather it is passing laws that actually will stop people from getting guns that should not have them to commit crime and mass murder. Now if none of this makes any sense to you than you are one of the ones that should also not be permitted to own a weapon because you are obviously a deranged nut case as well.

    1. avatar adverse5 says:

      You smooth typer you.

    2. avatar Ing says:

      I’ll try to summarize the main points for all of you tl;dr folks:
      1. The Founding Fathers set up a republic with democratic elections, therefore the the US should have a parliamentary system.
      2. All the cool kids are doing gun control.
      3. Both political parties will eventually collude and turn on us, so we should preemptively kill our Constitutionally protected freedom right now.
      3. No, you’re deranged! I’m the only sane one in this asylum!

  31. avatar racer88 says:

    “will universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, fixing NICS, banning bump stocks and more stop every gun death? Of course not. But I shudder to think what it says about us as a nation if we don’t even attempt to make a good faith effort to try and end this carnage.”

    Effectively, a straw man argument. Nobody has suggested that we should discard an idea (bans, background checks, etc.) simply because it wouldn’t stop EVERY death.

    But, also a false dilemma, as mentioned by the OP.

    1. avatar racer88 says:

      That said, I think it would be fair to ask the senator if banning those items or enacting more laws pertaining to background checks would save ANY lives (even one).

      If you are to enact laws that affect me, the law-abiding citizen, by curtailing my lawful activities, then you must prove the effectiveness of those laws (as it pertains to public safety or benefit). They cannot be justified with the old canard, “at least we’re doing something.” No. Something for the sake of something is not acceptable.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email