Skip to main content

View Diary: The NRA's Wayne LaPierre is back, and as crazy as ever (214 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  From what I can see . . . (6+ / 0-)

    there's nothing that will reassure a lot of the people who own guns.  They have something bordering on a paranoid fear that the government is coming to take their precious death machines, when in reality, we can't even get the mildest forms of gun regulation passed.  

    So I don't think there's much that can be done on that front.  The fear of confiscation is utterly irrational.  No amount of reasoning is going to make it go away.

    "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

    by FogCityJohn on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 03:40:46 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  No, it is not irrational. It has happened before (0+ / 0-)

      in other countries.  Of course it started with taking them away from people who were deemed to be a danger or otherwise undesirable and no, this is not the same as denying one to someone who has demonstrated a violent history.

      Besides, why is there such a hangup with wanting a registration anyway.  Do you think every murdering criminal is going to march down to the local police station to register their illegal weapons?  No.  Registration serves one purpose: to make those who don't like guns feel safer even though they won't be any safer.

      •  Easy solution (2+ / 0-)

        Make the penalty immediate and meaningful.  You don't register your gun and you get caught with an unregistered gun, you pay a hefty fine, you lose the gun, and you spend 90 days in jail.  

        Of course there will be bad guys with unregistered guns who use them to commit crimes but what do you care if you have your registered gun in your home to protect you from the bad guys?  

        It's paranoid hooey to say the big bad gubmint wants you to register your guns so they can one day confiscate them.

      •  Sigh. Same old NRA talking points: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DefendOurConstitution
        Besides, why is there such a hangup with wanting a registration anyway.  Do you think every murdering criminal is going to march down to the local police station to register their illegal weapons?  No.  Registration serves one purpose: to make those who don't like guns feel safer even though they won't be any safer.
        The flaw in this argument should be readily apparent to anyone who thinks about it for a moment, but since you appear to have missed it, I'll spell it out for you.  In essence, your argument is that since some people will break laws, we shouldn't have laws at all.  By your logic, then, EPA should stop regulating emissions and releases of toxic substances, since it is undeniably true that there are companies that violate EPA regulations.  Likewise, OSHA should stop trying to ensure the safety of people's workplaces, since there is abundant evidence that many employers deliberately try to skirt OSHA's standards for health and safety.  The IRS should similarly stop all efforts to enforce laws requiring the payment of taxes, since as we know, determined tax cheaters aren't going to comply voluntarily.

        Thus, your argument is one that effectively opposes all laws.  Although you obviously don't frame it in those terms, that's its necessary consequence.  Perhaps you really believe that society is completely powerless to regulate harmful activities.  If so, I have no idea what you are doing on a progressive web site.  In fact, however, what I suspect is that it is only when it comes to guns that you suddenly believe we must throw up our hands and wave the white flag of surrender.

        I disagree.  Unlike you, I don't believe that we should let lawbreakers enjoy an effective veto over what laws we pass and how we enforce them.  And if we were talking about anything other than guns, I strongly suspect you'd agree.

        "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

        by FogCityJohn on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 01:03:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •   Your jumping to conclusions, incorrect ones (0+ / 0-)
          Thus, your argument is one that effectively opposes all laws.  Although you obviously don't frame it in those terms, that's its necessary consequence.
          If you have followed any of my posts on this matter, I have been very consistent.  I opposed gun registration.  I support a permit process.  I oppose an AWB and magazine capacity limit because I don't think that they will accomplish what it is hoped they will do while creating a lot of issues for ordinary citizens.  I support funding the BATFE, background checks, etc.  I also support having a tiered permit system which allows people who desire the ability to go through an enhanced training and vetting process to permit carry in places that are off limits to most citizens.  My position is a far cry from the No Rules that some would advocate for.

          As far as why am I on a progressive website, perhaps it is because I believe in and support many other Liberal concepts, both socially and economically.  I also don't see supporting ones rights as declared under the Constitution, including the right to keep and bear arms being at odds with those ideas.  In fact, I believe it to be part of them.  The difference between me and Conservative gun owners is that I think that the govt has a valid role to play in the process.

          •  I pointed out what happens . . . (0+ / 0-)

            if one follows the logic of your argument.  I am not jumping to any conclusions.  That you favor a few other rules only shows that you don't recognize the inconsistency I discussed.

            "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

            by FogCityJohn on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:31:03 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site