Skip to main content

View Diary: America has never had a Background Check System for Gun Purchases (184 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I Argue Against Dumb Shit That Accomplishes (4+ / 0-)

    Nothing positive and criminalizes otherwise law-abiding citizens. Show me a single thing I've argued against that has a snowball's chance in hell of actually improving things.

    Largely what we're looking at is people who don't like guns using the "saving lives" bullshit to try to get their way, and to Hell with how many citizens they fuck over to get it.

    Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

    by The Baculum King on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 06:37:58 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Well you have spent this entire (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      thread arguing against background checks that would be effective ...

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      Who is twigg?

      by twigg on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 08:36:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, arguing against this one measure... (0+ / 0-)

        ...and explaining, in quite some detail, exactly why he believes that it would not only work, but be detrimental.

        I didn't see him, at any point, arguing that we do nothing whatsoever.

        I'm certainly not directing this at you, personally, but it is not at all uncommon, when someone argues against one particular suggested measure, then someone claims that they are against everything.

        That is very often not the case.

        Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

        by theatre goon on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 03:48:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So bring up another possible solution (0+ / 0-)

          and see what happens.

          "We refuse to fight in a war started by men who refused to fight in a war." -freewayblogger

          by Bisbonian on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 06:33:21 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I do it all the time. (0+ / 0-)

            For instance, I have several times stated that I support most of the executive orders that President Obama has discussed regarding gun control (with the possible exception of the opening of mental health records -- that one may not fit with existing law, depending upon specifics).

            I have gotten quite a bit of agreement with that statement, from other gun-rights supporters.

            Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

            by theatre goon on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 07:01:32 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  What happens? (0+ / 0-)

            I can tell you what happens from my experience taking seriously a comment to propose other possible solutions. I had someone say great, add all that in addition to, rather than instead of, the harsh and ineffective proposals I was arguing against. No desire to discuss compromises, no acknowledgement of my points, no willingness to admit that anything but outright bans of AR-style semiautomatics was a possible solution.

            I also received a so-what-are-you-doing-about-it remark, which I again treated in good faith (despite my suspicions to the contrary). I responded that I write my elected officials (actual letters, not just emails) and I make proposals.

            And that was it. Never mind that I was doing exactly what the commenter was doing, i.e., arguing in an online forum: no, I had to justify myself as being an extraordinary advocate or else my opinions were meaningless and I should shut up and accept whatever anti-gun ownership legislation was proposed.

            But that was a useful experience, as have been the other dialogues I attempted to engage in here and elsewhere.  I realized something important: I don't have to propose other solutions.* It is for the people proposing new laws to justify them; further, they need to do so with more than emotional appeals or snide remarks about gun owners being rednecks/small-penised/militia nuts/etc.

            When someone who will be affected by new laws explains clearly and honestly what his or her objections are, the onus is in people like you to present evidence supporting your position in like fashion. If you cannot or choose not to (and I mean general you here, not necessarily you specifically), then you rightly remove your argument from serious consideration.

            * That said, I do want to at some point see a rational discussion about revising gun laws in this country. But that would mean anti-gun ownership people engaged in genuine compromise. In other words, they would have to accept that in some areas, the laws would become more relaxed in exchange for being tighter in other areas. That would also mean at least considering a sea change in the law: chucking out almost everything and starting over with a new body of legislation.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site