Please help me with these arguments.
I tried to start this in GD, but was told to self delete. I guess this is where the thread belonged:
I am from Missouri and I would like to discuss what I have picked up from the mostly GOP around here pertaining to gun control and police violence.
How do you counter some of this:
1 - You are a hypocrite, if you both protest police violence and want to ban assault weapons but your gun control allows the same cops you protest to keep assault weapons? If they are only for war, and the cops are not at war, why do the cops get to keep weapons of war? Do you want a group you don’t trust not to be abusive to be better armed than you?
2 - If your state gets to ignore federal drug laws by legalizing weed in your state, then red states can do the same in the face of an assault weapon ban.
3 - If your local government can refuse to enforce federal immigration laws, then don’t complain when our local government refuses to enforce your ban.
I guess they do have a point about it being extremely difficult to enforce a law local rural towns refuse to enforce. All the red between KC and STL won’t enforce a ban and the state (along with other states are saying they won’t.)
How do we deal with this?
Also, they seem to feel red flag laws are easily abused as the person is assumed guilty. Some have suggested that, since Missouri has no registration (and then therefore Biden would not know who as what), they could preemptively hide a good portion of their guns off site for that and/or a federal ban. Just registering a few to give the impression they are going along.
That will be hard to deal with. I don’t have an answer for being able to detect if someone has a cache of hidden guns in some site away from their home in the event of a 3am raid. How do you force someone to prove a negative (prove you didn’t hide some guns)?
Anyway, after years of hearing chatter over gun laws and now with President Biden saving this country, I thought I would see what you all have to say about some of this.
Thank you.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
pwb
(12,197 posts)Last edited Sat May 8, 2021, 03:03 PM - Edit history (1)
But you got it out there.
LiberatedUSA
(1,666 posts)And don’t get me started on the meth problem rural Missouri has.
billh58
(6,641 posts)discuss how to reduce gun violence and promote sane laws aimed at that goal. It is NOT to defend the NEED for gun violence control, nor to answer right-wing NRA-inspired questions designed to promote unregulated gun ownership and usage.
You may want to take this garbage to the other Group.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)manhood with gunz. I'm not exactly sure what the deal is with Marjorie Taylor Greene or Boebert, etc., but maybe someone does.
I believe the vast majority of gunners are racists who don't like minorities and/or are paranoid that minorities are out to get them. Hence, the rubes take tactical urban warfare training, and the like. They are big into shooting targets -- that look like people -- at 50 or more yards. Obviously, that has nothing to do with self-defense, unless shooting someone in the back fleeing is considered self-defense.
They are also into intimidation -- "My gun is bigger than yours" type BS.
I hope we wise up and pass some serious gun laws before the MFers start killing thousands of innocent people.
AndyS
(14,559 posts)I see you've posted this in RKBA as BillH has suggested but these straw men are so easy to knock down I just can't pass it up.
As to point one which is the same straw man rephrased three ways. One simple answer: remove all semi auto guns with removeable magazines from circulation. I just said ALL. The only reason the police have these weapons is that civilians had them first. The fact that all these 'law abiding citizens' were out gunning the police is why the .38 service revolver was retired. The police have them because the gunners started an arms race that finally resulted in the police having MRAPs for fucks sake.
As to point two, address point one and it's a moot point.
Point three is a regurgitation of point two and it is also moot once point one is addressed.
About the fear of red flag laws being used against you, if you're such a dick to your family that they use red flag against you then you probably are a menace to yourself or others. In the event it really is unjustified there are laws against filing false reports to a judge. It's covered, okay?
Caches of hidden guns are everywhere and if/when some idiot gets himself on the radar for an action serious enough to warrant confiscation they won't do much good from a jail cell. I read about such caches being found after an arrest all the time so it's just more gunner bull shit. It's also a logical fallacy to argue in the extreme and not worthy of rebuttal.
So, there ya' have it. I just set fire to the straw men your imagined.
LiberatedUSA
(1,666 posts)I like that.
As for my own post, I have my own thoughts on it I have not shared (with anyone not just here).
My thought is:
How will gun ownership help against police violence? Even if the police violate your civil rights, shooting at them will cause back up to come and back up isn’t going to ask if the shooter’s rights were violated first.
So that sums up my thoughts on having the same guns as the police as an answer to police abuse; though you are right about the idea of everyone going back to before semi-auto.
AndyS
(14,559 posts)semi auto guns.
Want to get rid of police violence? End the 'thin blue line' and 'brotherhood of the blue' culture. Change that and the problem will take care of itself as an internal police issue.
LiberatedUSA
(1,666 posts)...a poster brought up that states with legalized marijuana have to manufacture it in their own state. So at the very least, any non-compliant states would have to go through the trouble of manufacturing their own semi-autos for sale. That would be a big road block for them.