I get drawn into these "discussions" with lying anti-liberty, gun-hating bigots. I know I shouldn't try to reason with them, but I do. I am tired of pretending that their ideas have any validity, and tired of pretending that they are anything other than mass-murder enablers. I try to be civil, but they are so incredibly dishonest and ignorant that it is really difficult.
Anyway, here is a recent exchange from
Opposing Views/Facebook:
_____________
"You have a curious concept of the word compromise."
No, that's the anti-liberty bigots' concept of compromise. My idea of compromise is "
I give up something and you give up something". The gun haters have never given up anything at all, but have only demanded "just one more little 'reasonable' law" each time they got gun owners to "compromise". Screw that.
"... the 20K number was completely invented and has no connection to reality"
You're probably right- it is undoubtedly much higher now. And although any single individual might not be subject to all of those "laws"- and many of them are the same "law" imposed on different places- each of those "laws" gets a veil of legitimacy from the existence of all the others, and they ALL hurt everyone. I don't want a person in NYC to be victimized by an anti-gun "law" any more than I want to live under one. Because I value EVERYONE's liberty. Even one anti-gun "law" is too many. The exact number doesn't matter.
"...how about you suggest a few gun laws that you think should be eliminated..."
I want ALL anti-gun "laws" eliminated. "Compromise" is your Trojan Horse. In any compromise between poison and food, or between liberty and oppression, only the poison and oppression win.
"Let's start by closing the gun show loophole."
There is no such thing. Gun sales at gun shows are subject to the *exact same* counterfeit anti-gun "laws" that gun sales anywhere else are subject to. Stop lying.
"I hope we can all agree that felons with a history of violence shouldn't be allowed to buy guns."
No, I don't agree to that at all. Because there is no way to stop violent felons from buying guns, no matter what "the law" is. And if they can't buy them they will steal or build them. Plus if someone can't be trusted with a gun, they can't be trusted, period. Once someone has been released from prison they should not have their rights continuing to be violated. Many "felons" did not even commit acts of violence in the first place. Plus there are plenty of false convictions. Nope. I'll gladly take my chances with other people's liberty, rather than give a criminal gang the "authority" to decide who may or may not exercise a fundamental human right.
"So, why would we allow people to bypass the background checks needed to check if someone is a violent felon?"
"We" don't. Not from gun dealers. What you want to do- the reality of the false "gun show loophole" lie- is to ban ALL private gun sales unless they are government approved. Stop lying.
"Next how about a mental health background check."
Ever thought about who is permitted to decide what constitutes a "mental illness"? I have, and I don't trust them to not use political measures, just like the Soviet Union did. It has already been proposed that the desire to own a gun constitutes a "mental illness". Convenient, huh.
"If this was required 'Batman' shooter would have been unable to buy all of those guns."
Only through gun stores. And wait, wasn't it illegal for him to *shoot* people? Why would he be willing to break that BIG law, but be stopped by some minor "law" that is supposedly about stopping him from buying or possessing a gun? And even if he was somehow magically prevented from possessing a gun, would a crazy person be unable to build explosives? Or grab a machete and start hacking? Why is being murdered by a gunshot supposedly worse than being murdered in some other way? He was a killer with a captive victim pool which was disarmed by "law" and which had limited ability to escape.
"I hope we can agree that he was clearly not mentally stable enough to buy a gun and had a clear history of mental health problems that would have shown up on a check."
Just because he was not mentally stable the day he committed the murders doesn't mean he wasn't mentally stable months before. Things change; people snap.
"There, 2 reasonable gun laws."
Not "reasonable" at all. Try again.
"Of course we can show that places with more permissive gun laws have more gun related deaths so that would indicate that they do prevent tragedies..."
Except that it doesn't work that way. Places with stricter anti-gun "laws" have higher rates of murder and violence. Even with guns. You know this as well as I do. Stop lying.
"How about you tell me some times that gun owners (not the police) have prevented a tragedy with their guns."
I could give you several examples, a couple that I have personal knowledge of. Without a shot being fired, by the way. I could also direct you to websites that collect stories of armed people stopping attacks. It happens more than you know because most of these incidents never get reported to the police. But a lot still do get reported. If you were serious about wanting to know about those you could find them easily. There are lots of them.
"Can you give me any examples of mass shootings that were stopped by a private citizen with a gun?"
Yes. Pearl High School, Pearl Mississippi. October 1, 1997. But, like all stopped mass shootings, it was stopped before it became too "massive". And there are many more. Look at all the cases where an armed assailant with lots of ammo and multiple guns is stopped before the body count gets anywhere near where it could potentially go. It never becomes a "mass shooting" precisely because someone with a gun stops it. Therefore the news coverage is muted. But if you want to know, you can find out about them.
"You mention that the second amendment says that the right to bear arms 'shall not be infringed' but you and I both know that's not true."
Read it again if you believe that isn't true.
"We both agree that violent gang members should not be allowed to own guns right?"
I don't agree to that at all. Let them be armed, and let their neighbors be armed, too. They'll either calm down or die. We outnumber the violent bad guys overwhelmingly, and had government not been so successful at convincing people that armed self-defense is somehow "unseemly", and criminalizing it, there wouldn't be a gang problem.
"That's infringement."
Yes, and it's illegal.
"We both agree, I assume, that people should not be allowed to own fully automatic military grade machine guns right?"
No, I don't agree. People CAN own fully automatic military-grade machine guns now; they just have to pay an illegal "tax" and go through an illegal "approval process". The Second Amendment makes it clear that this regulation is illegal. What difference does it make how fast a gun shoots? The bullets still come out of the barrel one at a time. And it's expensive to shoot an automatic. Your petty thug isn't going to use one, and if he does he'll run out of ammo really quick.
"I hope we can both agree that people should not be allowed to own surface to air missiles or RPG's."
Why not? And why bother? How many people would risk abusing them, knowing that those they target would also have access to the same things? The State owns them, and misuses them. "The People" should always be in possession of superior arms over and above what The State possesses. That is why the Second Amendment was written.
"That's infringement of your right to bear arms. In other words, we all agree that the right to bear arms has to be infringed."
No, actually we don't. Yet, even if we did, it would still be illegal to do so.
"It's just a question of where the line is drawn. So, maybe we should have a 'national conversation' to discuss where to draw that line."
Sure. That's very easy. The "line" is drawn at misuse, not possession. Possession of ANYTHING can't be a legitimate "crime". Yes, that includes "drugs", too.
And, I'll fill you in on another inconvenient detail. The right to own and to carry any kind of weapon we desire, everywhere we go, openly or concealed, without ever asking permission from anyone predates the Second Amendment. You could repeal it and the right would still exist just as it has since the first human evolved. It exists in Texas, New York City, Tehran, Beijing, Sydney, Tokyo, BFE, and Washington DC whether the local "authorities" respect the right or not. A right can be respected of violated- there is no other option. I choose to respect everyone else's rights because I only deserve the liberty I respect in others. And because I am not a pathetic, whimpering coward begging Big Brother to save me from all the scary people and their tools.
*** Next comment***
"See, I assumed you were a rational human being with a grip on reality."
Funny how your kind sees "rationality" to mean that I'll give up my liberty to the
most murderous gang on the planet. No thanks.
"...but since you were unable to give evidence..."
I did give evidence, but people like you are not worth my time. I am not writing these responses to you, but only to show others how dishonest and evil the anti-liberty bigots truly are. I could give case after case, all day long, and you'd deny it ever happened.
"I could again ask you to give one shred of evidence to the widely spread claim of 20K gun laws in this country but you couldn't before and you can't now because it's a blatant lie."
As I said, the exact number is irrelevant. Even one anti-gun "law" is one too many. You Mass Murderer Fan Club folks would rather see a woman raped in an alley than see her standing over the body of her attacker, a smoking gun in her hand. And if you deny it you are lying again. Each and every one of your "reasonable gun laws" will lead to this inevitable result.
"I could point out that your idea of compromise, that I give up everything and you give up nothing, is the exact opposite of what the word compromise means."
And as I have pointed out, this isn't my idea of compromise, it is the anti-liberty bigots' idea. This is what they have been demanding of gun owners since the first of their kind got the notion to pass the very first anti-gun "law". First it was just that they'd only ban machine guns. Few refused to comply. Then it was any gun that wasn't suited for war. Then it was any gun that could be used in war. Then it was guns by mail, and guns without getting government permission, and then it was sport utility guns- oh, I'm sorry, that would be "assault weapons" to you. Then it was background checks and waiting periods. And cheap revolvers. And normal capacity magazines. And the list goes on and on and on. Each time your kind has said if we just compromise this time... and each time the anti-liberty bigots lied. The goalposts keep being moved away from liberty and closer to a total gun ban. Enough! Not one more inch!
"I could even re-post the link that shows that gun deaths are considerably more common in places with more lax gun laws but you clearly ignored it the first time so why bother this time?"
A lie from a well-known anti-liberty organization is still a lie no matter how many times you post it. And the results have been the same for hundreds of years- places where the people are armed are safer than places where only the government is armed.
"...anybody who thinks that any individual, whether they be a criminal, a terrorist or mentally insane, should be able to walk into a store and, with no background check whatsoever walk out with surface to air missiles is a f***ing moron who is so disconnected from reality that clearly having a rational discussion about gun rights in this country will be impossible."
The rational discussion is: Not one more inch. You try to take our guns and we will defend ourselves to the death. Are you ready? How many guns will you personally try to steal? Or will you only send thugs with guns to steal the guns? Bring it on, Liberty Haters.
