Your Best Arguments and Talking Points against Anti-gunners and Fence-Sitters

[jimpeel]

xer

... do you think that felons should be allowed to own guns?? Should kids be allowed to buy bullets?? No?? Well guess what -- you believe in gun control.

The question here is not whether Michigander does, or does not, believe in gun control; but whether you believe in laws written in prior restraint. All firearms laws, with the exception of those concerning threatening, brandishment, discharge, etc., are written in prior restraint.

There are laws against running a red light but if those laws were written in prior restraint, you would be disallowed the operation of your vehicle lest you run a red light.

We have all heard the argument regarding the shouting of "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Prior restraint would require that all theater patrons be muzzled lest they utter the offending word.

In the absence of an overt act on the part of any person, however, you wish the criminal to be denied a firearm lest he offend again. You wish the child to be denied ammunition lest he do something wrong.

If a man carries a concealed firearm in a bad neighborhood where he has been victimized several times, the prior restraint law that forbids that carrying of a firearm will send him to jail. Even though he had no intention of using the firearm to harm another person who is not trying to harm him. The reason he carries that firearm is fear. Would you condone putting a person in jail, the loss of their home, employment, and chattel for the crime of fear?

You, Sir / Madam, are in favor of laws written in proir restraint whereas the Founders of this country wrote laws which provided punishment for contravention of the law.

 

[xer]

fine then

Ok michigander, we can play this the hard way. Do you think that prisoners IN JAIL should be allowed to own guns ?? How about people in mental institutions -- or illegal immigrants ?? The point is NOT that I am in favor of gun control, but that ALL people are in favor of gun control, it's just a question of degree. I was not trying to make specific assumptions about you as an individual - I intended to make a point rhetorically, something I will try to avoid in the future, though it will definitely make this thread a lot longer if we can only pose questions to one another and await replies before constructing arguments.

jimpeel - your reasoning is sound and sensible, though at no point in my posts do I recall saying WHAT i believe in specifically. I guess I could take this opportunity to call you arrogant for presuming to know how I feel, but I'd rather just get back to my original point -- that idiotic arguments such as "Democrats are just dumb" and "all liberals want to take away all of our rights" are not going to do you any good when it comes to "gaining converts." Take it from one who has been preached to by many advocates from your side of the political spectum -- the flawed arguments that people in this forum complain about coming up against are also available in abundance in these very same threads.

For the record, I have no problem whatsoever with prohibiting violent felons from owning guns, so in that sense, I am a supporter of prior restraint, yes. Then again, I would be willing to bet that a lot of other people on this board are ALSO in favor of this same principle to various degrees. What about drug laws -- shouldn't I be allowed to manufacture meth as long as I don't sell or use it? How about treason? -- have I REALLY committed an offense against the state if I encourage rebellion and no one actually acts on it ??? Again, my point is that these issues doesn't seem as obvious and straightforward to me as I am CONTINUALLY told they are by people on both the far left AND right.

As for the shouting fire in a crowded theatre thing, I'm not in favor of that OR trying to say that anyone else on this board is, though I do have my suspicions

 

[Michigander]

OK xer

Define "Gun Control" for me so we are both writing about the same subject.

 

[jimpeel]

xer

jimpeel - your reasoning is sound and sensible, though at no point in my posts do I recall saying WHAT i believe in specifically.

Thank you.

I guess I could take this opportunity to call you arrogant for presuming to know how I feel, but I'd rather just get back to my original point -- that idiotic arguments such as "Democrats are just dumb" and "all liberals want to take away all of our rights" are not going to do you any good when it comes to "gaining converts."

It is hard to claim arrogance when your admission to the accuracy of my statement is contained in your final paragraph.

I do not believe that if you go back in this thread you will find anything authored by me which resembles what you ascribe. I welcome persons of your stripe to the boards as it is truly refreshing. I don’t like preaching to the choir. Take THIS THREAD for example.

Take it from one who has been preached to by many advocates from your side of the political spectum -- the flawed arguments that people in this forum complain about coming up against are also available in abundance in these very same threads.

There are those who will dig in their heels regardless of the lucidity of argument; or however compelling the evidence. There are those who simply can’t stand to be wrong on an issue. We call them the “Don’t try to confuse me with facts; my mind is made up.” types.

For the record, I have no problem whatsoever with prohibiting violent felons from owning guns, so in that sense, I am a supporter of prior restraint, yes.

I believe that ex-felons -- heavy on the EX -- should not be restricted from the ownership of firearms. We should not relegate these people to having to rely solely on the police and 911 for their protection. The courts have ruled that the police have no duty to protect any individual or prevent any crime. They are, the court ruled, for the protection of society at large.

If you want to see the extreme level of this thinking, see THIS THREAD The hero ended up in jail even though he saved five lives including his own.

Question: Do ex-felons have a higher duty to die rather than to use a firearm in their defense and the defense of others?

Many ex-felons live in crime infested areas where sometimes even the police will not go. On top of that, 911 is unreliable. People have died while on the phone with 911 operators. Why, just the other day, a motorist called 911 and told them that a beam on a bridge was sagging and looked like it was going to fall. The 911 operator thought they were talking about a sign so they did not send out a crew. One hour later, the forty ton beam fell onto I-70 crushing and cutting in two a Dodge Dakota and wiping a family of three from the face of the Earth.

Then again, I would be willing to bet that a lot of other people on this board are ALSO in favor of this same principle to various degrees.

Not a good bet.

What about drug laws -- shouldn't I be allowed to manufacture meth as long as I don't sell or use it? How about treason? -- have I REALLY committed an offense against the state if I encourage rebellion and no one actually acts on it ???

Your argument is specious. All drug laws also exist in prior restraint.

As for treason, it is narrowly defined as:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

You would more likely be tried for sedition or inciting revolt than treason.

Again, my point is that these issues doesn't seem as obvious and straightforward to me as I am CONTINUALLY told they are by people on both the far left AND right.

Not quite so. The Constitution and BoR were written for an eighth grade education. Take the Second Amendment, for example.

Some people are confused by the number of commas. Some people are confused by the number of clauses. But when all is stripped away, and the modifying clauses removed, there survives one clause that exists in its own right as a complete sentence: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

As for the shouting fire in a crowded theatre thing, I'm not in favor of that OR trying to say that anyone else this board is, though I do have my suspicions.

The theater fire was used as an example of what type of prior restraint law would be necessary to prevent it from being uttered. There is no criminal act in shouting “Fire!” in a theater if there actually is a fire. A prior restraint law requiring the muzzling of patrons would not only prevent the offending word from being uttered falsely; it would also prevent it from being uttered in the event a fire actually occured.

 

[LAK]

It is the right of all free men and women to be able to defend themselves, their families and property. That means they must have unihibited access to, and have at hand at all times the means to do so. The handgun is perhaps the modern equivalent to the dagger or short sword, as the rifle is to the spear or longbow. They are the logical means of personal self defense.

This right is recognized and codified in this country's Constitution. If you don't like that - there are plenty of countries where this is not the case, and some of them are open to people of like-minded ideology.