Mother Jones recently put a list of gun myths that I'm going to spend the next few days highlighting. Before we get started, we should all remember the scientific method, critical thinking, and the definition of genetic fallacy:)
First up is that ol' chestnut "they's a comin' to git muh gun."
Myth #1: They're coming for your guns.
Fact-check: No one knows the exact number of guns in America, but it's clear there's no practical way to round them all up (never mind that no one in Washington is proposing this). Yet if you fantasize about rifle-toting citizens facing down the government, you'll rest easy knowing that America's roughly 80 million gun owners already have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of around 79 to 1. (Sources: Congressional Research Service, Small Arms Survey)
There isn't any feasible way to seize the guns that people own. I'd say it's nearly impossible given the numbers. So, when your strange uncle starts making strange comments about the government as Easter, just say, "79 to 1."
16 comments:
There isn't any feasible way to seize the guns that people own. I'd say it's nearly impossible given the numbers.
That's why registration has to be implemented first; thus the push for "background checks" which requires registration to be enforceable.
BTW, is something really "impossible" if it has already been done successfully?
Good old Mark. 30th floor: so far, so good. 20th floor: so far, so good. 10th floor: so far, so good.
----------
Given the following…
This first part of the 2nd Amendment establishes the intention to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, and locally enforce the law.
— Markadelphia
and this…
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
… how is the militia supposed to "repel invasion, suppress insurrection" and prevent "representatives of the people [from] betray[ing] their constituents" (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 28) if you have taken away the weapons they need to succeed at those purposes? (33 days and counting)
Of course this is a liberal myth about gun owners. You don't hear gun owners saying "they're comin' to take our guns".
Obviously, NMN's comment above illustrates that it's not a myth.
NMN, No one is talking about confiscation. No one is talking about universal registration. Your reluctance for universal background checks is in direct contradiction with your anti-terrorism support.
You probably didn't track down where Kevin's latest post at TSM came from, but I did. And in the process I found this:
Obama's gun strategy falling short in Senate
[Sen. Chuck] Schumer [(D - N.Y.)] and [Sen. Joe] Manchin [(D - W. Va.)], who are in regular contact with gun control groups, say any bill without a records provision would be as toothless as an honor system.
Refusing to have a discussion with someone unhinged from reality isn't running away, NMN. It's common sense.
It may be common sense, but that's okay. I'm willing to set it aside and keep putting up with your denial in hopes that you might someday escape your bubble.
Gun rights organizations are often criticized for not "compromising" or not agreeing to "reasonable" gun controls. Gun owners are chided for being paranoid, after all nobody wants to take away their guns.
ome proponents of gun restrictions mock this: No-one is talking about gun bans, they say
Oh and BTW Mark - If MNM's questions or statements were not legitimate or reasonable - and you had made the case for why that was so - then perhaps he could be called unhinged.
But his questions are not unreasonable and you have not made a case for why they need not be answered. You simply will not deal with issues you don't like. That may not make you unhinged, but it does make you a weasel. And it does not promote faith that anything you say has merit.
You keep digging the hole that buries your credibility.
Experience has taught me that answering these types of questions leads to the same place all the time...more obsessive insanity directed at yours truly with no real assertions made by any of you let alone based in the very framework you guys claim to adhere to...critical thinking and the scientific method. Quite frankly, it's a fucking joke that you guys think so highly of yourselves in this manner.
His questions are more than illegitimate and unreasonable. They're baiting, leading, weaselish, bullying, shallow, lacking in intelligence, and child like. And your comment is this...again...
3. Projection/Flipping. This one is frustrating for the viewer who is trying to actually follow the argument. It involves taking whatever underhanded tactic you're using and then accusing your opponent of doing it to you first. We see this frequently in the immigration discussion, where antiracists are accused of racism, or in the climate-change debate, where those who argue for human causes of the phenomenon are accused of not having science or facts on their side. It's often called upon when the media host finds themselves on the ropes in the debate.
and this...
7. Bullying. This is a favorite technique of several Fox commentators. That it continues to be employed demonstrates that it seems to have some efficacy. Bullying and yelling works best on people who come to the conversation with a lack of confidence, either in themselves or their grasp of the subject being discussed. The bully exploits this lack of confidence by berating the guest into submission or compliance. Often, less self-possessed people will feel shame and anxiety when being berated and the quickest way to end the immediate discomfort is to cede authority to the bully. The bully is then able to interpret that as a "win".
But that's how you guys roll. Thankfully it's not working anymore.
http://www.straight.com/news/dr-cynthia-boaz-14-propaganda-techniques-fox-news-uses-brainwash-americans
Yes, they are leading and baiting. That's because they're intended to get to you think. (You know, that whole "trying to get your dog to take a pill" thing.
In fact we've been over this ground before. "Leading question" is not a fallacy.
Leading question:
Leading questions are distinct from loaded questions, which are objectionable because they contain implicit assumptions (such as "Have you stopped beating your wife?" indirectly asserting that the subject has beaten her at some point).
…
Leading questions are the primary mode of examination of witnesses who are hostile to the examining party, and are not objectionable in that context.
Please explain what feature of simple questions makes them inherently flawed.
The questions I've been asking you are about obvious, self-evident features of reality. Your refusal to address them either by answering them or showing what is either factually or logically incorrect about the questions demonstrates your rejection of reality.
In fact, I'm still waiting (34 days and counting) for you to explain how to break through the "Well, I don't want to learn" mindset without pulling out the internet version of a pill canon.
As for "weaselish", please identify what these questions obfuscate, or define the term. As you use the term, it means "questions which, if answered truthfully, would cause an honest man to reevaluate his position."
----------
Now here's another question to get back on topic:
Since the leaders of the Democrat's effort to implement universal background checks say that "any bill without a records provision would be as toothless as an honor system", do you still assert that "[n]o one is talking about universal registration" and/or that it can be implemented without registration?
And since you brought up these questions, I suppose I should remind everyone of exactly what those so-called "baiting, leading, weaselish, bullying, shallow, lacking in intelligence, and child like" questions are.
----------
Simple questions Mark refuses to answer:
Is the Constitution law? (48 days and counting)
Even Joe Biden admits that the administration's gun control actions won't stop the shootings. So why do those things? (34 days and counting)
Given your reasoning that any "inconvenient" check and balance can now be discarded to deal with the current crisis du jour, what makes tyranny Not Possible in this country? (16 days and counting)
Is "false" equal to "truth"? (10 days and counting)
Bonus question:
Why would an uninsured person going to the ER cause insurance rates to go up? (8 days and counting)
One more thing…
If these questions really are "lacking in intelligence" and as "child like" as you claim, then why can't you answer them like the über-intelligent adult you claim to be. After all, it should be easy for you!
Well, the answer to that is that your very predictable, NMN. I already know what you are going to say after each of my answers (and why you ask them). That's excluding the false-truth one which I think I heard someone taunting my son with the other day. He's in fifth grade.
His questions are more than illegitimate and unreasonable. They're baiting, leading, weaselish, bullying, shallow, lacking in intelligence, and child like. And your comment is this...again...
Really?
You argue for the position of gun control. Guns being mentioned in the constitution, by default such argument MUST at some point discus the legalities of gun control as it applies to the constitution. That fact alone makes the SIMPLE question of Is the Constitution law? not only legitimate but crucial to any discussion of such. Your refusal to answer has effectively ended any meaningful conversation. YOUR decision to do so stopped the discussion. NMN pointing it out does nothing but illuminate your lack of honesty in debate.
You argue that we 'need to do something' about guns. Yet the very things you argue in favor of the administration itself admits will not accomplish the stated goals. So the question Even Joe Biden admits that the administration's gun control actions won't stop the shootings. So why do those things? is absolutely relevant to your argument. Your refusal to answer that question is nothing more than refusal to back up your very own position. NMN's highlighting your refusal only points out how hollow your own argument is.
You argue that guns are not needed to prevent tyranny because we have checks and balances. You also argue that because of a 'crisis' we should discard certain of those very same checks and balances. Thus the question Given your reasoning that any "inconvenient" check and balance can now be discarded to deal with the current crisis du jour, what makes tyranny Not Possible in this country? is relevant to your stated arguments. This is in direct response to your arguments and MNM's question left unanswered by you only underlines the lack of reason inherent in your VERY own, undefended, arguments.
You argue that we need the government to interfere in the 'free' market because 'if an uninsured person is treated in the ER then all of our insurance rates go up'. The question Why would an uninsured person going to the ER cause insurance rates to go up? is DIRECTLY related to and relevant to your argument. Your refusal to answer that does nothing but show you are unwilling or unable to critically examine the underlying basis of your conclusions.
All these questions are relevant to arguments and statements YOU have made. Your refusal to address them does nothing to enhance your arguments. In actuality your refusal only weakens your own argument as even if you could or would be able to address them adequately the refusal to address questions DIRECTLY responding to your OWN arguments only makes your argument appear unsupported and unable to withstand scrutiny. MNM highlighting this only shows that YOU are unable or unwilling to support you own position. If you are unable to unwilling to support your own position then how much credibility can you expect your position to carry?
So trying to put off your own inability to support your own argument on others is really you committing said projection/flipping.
Didn't I just read something on TSM where YOU complained about not discussing substance. So let's get back to that shall we?
Since the leaders of the Democrat's effort to implement universal background checks say that "any bill without a records provision would be as toothless as an honor system", do you still assert that "[n]o one is talking about universal registration" and/or that it can be implemented without registration?
You can lead a horse to water,
and you can lead M to think,
the horse of course may not drink,
and M will say why bother?
Post a Comment