pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
Idiot article
#1
By a woman living in Toronto, no less. Writing a book about "privilege". And wanting to ban every gun in the country.

https://newrepublic.com/article/125498/i...s-yes-them

Quote:Ban guns. All guns. Get rid of guns in homes, and on the streets, and, as much as possible, on police. Not just because of San Bernardino, or whichever mass shooting may pop up next, but also not not because of those. Don’t sort the population into those who might do something evil or foolish or self-destructive with a gun and those who surely will not. As if this could be known—as if it could be assessed without massively violating civil liberties and stigmatizing the mentally ill. Ban guns! Not just gun violence. Not just certain guns. Not just already-technically-illegal guns. All of them.

I used to refer to my position on this issue as being in favor of gun control. Which is true, except that “gun control” at its most radical still tends to refer to bans on certain weapons and closing loopholes. The recent New York Times front-page editorial, as much as it infuriated some, was still too tentative. “Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership,” the paper argued, making the case for “reasonable regulation,” nothing more. Even the rare ban-guns arguments involve prefacing and hedging and disclaimers. “We shouldn’t ‘take them away’ from people who currently own them, necessarily,” writes Hollis Phelps in Salon. Oh, but we should.

I say this not to win some sort of ideological purity contest, but because banning guns urgently needs to become a rhetorical and conceptual possibility. The national conversation needs to shift from one extreme—an acceptance, ranging from complacent to enthusiastic, of an individual right to own guns—to another, which requires people who are not politicians to speak their minds. And this will only happen if the Americans who are quietly convinced that guns are terrible speak out.

Their wariness, as far as I can tell, comes from two issues: a readiness to accept the Second Amendment as a refutation, and a reluctance to impose “elite” culture on parts of the country where guns are popular. (There are other reasons as well, not least a fear of getting shot.) And there’s the extent to which it’s just so ingrained that banning guns is impossible, legislatively and pragmatically, which dramatically weakens the anti-gun position.

The first issue shouldn’t be so complicated. It doesn’t take specialized expertise in constitutional law to understand that current U.S. gun law gets its parameters from Supreme Court interpretations of the Second Amendment. But it’s right there in the First Amendment that we don’t have to simply nod along with what follows. That the Second Amendment has been liberally interpreted doesn’t prevent any of us from saying it’s been misinterpreted, or that it should be repealed.

When you find yourself assuming that everyone who has a more nuanced (or just pro-gun) argument is simply better read on the topic, remember that opponents of abortion aren’t wondering whether they should have a more nuanced view of abortion because of Roe v. Wade. They’re not keeping their opinions to themselves until they’ve got a term paper’s worth of material proving that they’ve studied the relevant case law.

Then there is the privilege argument. If you grew up somewhere in America where gun culture wasn’t a thing (as is my situation; I’m an American living in Canada), or even just in a family that would have never considered gun ownership, you’ll probably be accused of looking down your nose at gun culture. As if gun ownership were simply a cultural tradition to be respected, and not, you know, about owning guns. Guns… I mean, must it really be spelled out what’s different? It’s absurd to reduce an anti-gun position to a snooty aesthetic preference.

There’s also a more progressive version of this argument, and a more contrarian one, which involves suggesting that an anti-gun position is racist, because crackdowns on guns are criminal-justice interventions. Progressives who might have been able to brush off accusations of anti-rural-white classism may have a tougher time confronting arguments about the disparate impact gun control policies can have on marginalized communities.

These, however, are criticisms of certain tentative, insufficient gun control measures—the ones that would leave small-town white families with legally-acquired guns well enough alone, allowing them to shoot themselves or one another and to let their guns enter the general population.

Ban Guns, meanwhile, is not discriminatory in this way. It’s not about dividing society into “good” and “bad” gun owners. It’s about placing gun ownership itself in the “bad” category. It’s worth adding that the anti-gun position is ultimately about police not carrying guns, either. That could never happen, right? Well, certainly not if we keep on insisting on its impossibility.


The scary thing is that this stuff is being brainwashed into our kids. We have an entire generation of kids being taught that guns are bad.
Error 396: Signature cannot be found.
Reply
#2
I've read many a boring biography on many of our founders.
I've read many historical records on our founding.
I've read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.
I've read many quotes from speeches given during our founding.
The Second Amendment has not been liberally interpreted, it is just that liberals don't understand anything so they make that claim.

First of all, the Bill of Rights is just that, a bill of inalienable rights of the citizen.
Regardless of what the lunatic left claims, it is not about the National Guard.
George Mason, who helped pen the Second Amendment, when asked what is the militia answered it is the whole of the people, except for a few politicians.
It takes a real liberal moonbat to think that right there in the middle of all those rights of the individual is one that is a right of the government run militia.

The writer of that drivel is right where they belong, in Canada and hopefully the asshat does not absentee vote.
Some people need to read this book: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1936976021/ref=...jwbZH1GAZF

Reply
#3
To a liberal, the Bill of Rights is only valid an applicable when it agrees or furthers their personal cause or belief. When it doesn't, it's irrelevant, antiquated, and stupid.
sgtsandman, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Nov 2014.
Reply
#4
sgtsandman;170973 Wrote:To a liberal, the Bill of Rights is only valid an applicable when it agrees or furthers their personal cause or belief. When it doesn't, it's irrelevant, antiquated, and stupid.
On another forum I frequent, there is currently a thread running where a liberal gunowner (oxymoron) is actually making the claim that the Bill of Rights is not absolute and that it contains the right to own slaves.
Some people need to read this book: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1936976021/ref=...jwbZH1GAZF

Reply
#5
39Flathead;171009 Wrote:
sgtsandman;170973 Wrote:To a liberal, the Bill of Rights is only valid an applicable when it agrees or furthers their personal cause or belief. When it doesn't, it's irrelevant, antiquated, and stupid.
On another forum I frequent, there is currently a thread running where a liberal gunowner (oxymoron) is actually making the claim that the Bill of Rights is not absolute and that it contains the right to own slaves.

Wow, what a leap there. Did they state where it infers or states that one could own slaves??? Or are they trying to use some twisted logic concerning personal property?
sgtsandman, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Nov 2014.
Reply
#6
sgtsandman;171034 Wrote:
39Flathead;171009 Wrote:On another forum I frequent, there is currently a thread running where a liberal gunowner (oxymoron) is actually making the claim that the Bill of Rights is not absolute and that it contains the right to own slaves.

Wow, what a leap there. Did they state where it infers or states that one could own slaves??? Or are they trying to use some twisted logic concerning personal property?
Honestly, the guy is so all over the place that it comical.
He claims on one hand to be a Navy veteran of 26 years, a pro-gun American who fights for gun rights, and then goes into saying how the Second Amendment is not absolute, it can have preconditions basically.
He is a Conservative, but we can have "common sense" gun laws that 95% of NRA members support like universal background checks.

When asked to provide a link to this NRA sponsored poll, I got crickets.

He goes into the Constitution saying slavery is a right, when told he is woefully misinformed he calls me out for name calling...

You know, typical a liberal troll.

I frequent the site to use it's trader board, so it's one of the few boards where I'd don't push it too much.
But this guy is a serious joke.
I don't want to post a link here, but if you are really curious PM me and I'll send a link.
Some people need to read this book: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1936976021/ref=...jwbZH1GAZF

Reply
#7
Not that curious but thanks. I can't find humor in people like that and don't want to ruin my day. Thanks all the same.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
sgtsandman, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Nov 2014.
Reply
#8
sgtsandman;171042 Wrote:Not that curious but thanks. I can't find humor in people like that and don't want to ruin my day. Thanks all the same.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I consider it research.
Big Grin
Some people need to read this book: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1936976021/ref=...jwbZH1GAZF

Reply






Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Really Interesting Article about Florida 'Stand Your Ground' Actual Cases dc dalton 1 640 07-18-2013, 07:26 AM
Last Post: Pocketprotector
  the most viewed ny times article today middlefinger 3 667 10-23-2012, 03:18 PM
Last Post: Valorius



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.