Ban bombs

[Brownslave688]

I will attempt to help you.



whenever any gun control talk comes up, it inevitably gets the short hand of "banning guns". Even when the aspects are explained, it always goes to the emotional "banning guns" and "2nd Amendment infringement". If that fear isn't enough,then it is the fear of "what comes next".



in this case, "banning bombs" is the ludicrous straw man for the assumed banning of guns argument that isn't being made.

So we just need to limit the size of the pressure cookers. So you can't harm
As many people at once with them?

 

[soberups]

I will attempt to help you.



whenever any gun control talk comes up, it inevitably gets the short hand of "banning guns". Even when the aspects are explained, it always goes to the emotional "banning guns" and "2nd Amendment infringement". If that fear isn't enough,then it is the fear of "what comes next".
in this case, "banning bombs" is the ludicrous straw man for the assumed banning of guns argument that isn't being made.

I'm going to make an analogy here. Not a straw man, but a good old fashioned analogy.

Black people in Mississippi in the 1950's were not "banned" from voting. There was no law on the books that specifically prohibited them from casting a ballot based upon race. In theory, they had the same rights as white people did.

The reality...was a whole different story. There were "reasonable" poll taxes and "common sense" literacy tests...administered by whites of course...that had the practical effect of disenfranchising an entire race of people which was the intent all along. It was a de facto ban rather than a stated one, but in the end the result was the same.

A similar situation exists today with regards to gun rights. No sane politician would ever call for an outright banon gun ownership, even though that is in fact the underlying goal of the Bloombergs and Feinsteins and Pelosis and other like-minded dipsticks in Congress. Their bigotry and hatred of guns runs deep, but rather than calling for an outright ban they instead seek to bury our 2nd Amendment rights under such an overwhelming tangle of "reasonable, common sense" rules and regulations and taxes and fees as to render those rights meaningless. A "right" that exists only in theory is no right at all.

 

[bbsam]

yeah... no wanting guns gone here

Cuomo - 'No One Needs 10 Bullets To Kill A Deer!!' - YouTube

Is Joe Biden advocating the banning of guns? President Obama?

 

[bbsam]

pretty good guess he wants many guns banned

Biden: "Buy A Shotgun, Buy A Shotgun" - YouTube

Even if Biden does want some guns banned



1. He doesn't have the votes.

2. If he does have the votes, it wouldn't be unconstitutional.

 

[trplnkl]

I'm going to make an analogy here. Not a straw man, but a good old fashioned analogy.

Black people in Mississippi in the 1950's were not "banned" from voting. There was no law on the books that specifically prohibited them from casting a ballot based upon race. In theory, they had the same rights as white people did.

The reality...was a whole different story. There were "reasonable" poll taxes and "common sense" literacy tests...administered by whites of course...that had the practical effect of disenfranchising an entire race of people which was the intent all along. It was a de facto ban rather than a stated one, but in the end the result was the same.

A similar situation exists today with regards to gun rights. No sane politician would ever call for an outright banon gun ownership, even though that is in fact the underlying goal of the Bloombergs and Feinsteins and Pelosis and other like-minded dipsticks in Congress. Their bigotry and hatred of guns runs deep, but rather than calling for an outright ban they instead seek to bury our 2nd Amendment rights under such an overwhelming tangle of "reasonable, common sense" rules and regulations and taxes and fees as to render those rights meaningless. A "right" that exists only in theory is no right at all.

I beg to differ to a degree with part of this post. "the Bloombergs and Feinsteins and Pelosis and other like-minded dipsticks in Congress." do not hate guns. What they do hate is an armed citizenry that is capable of protecting themselves on a personal level. Gun control isn't about guns, it is about people control. A person that has no means to protect themselves is much more controllable than one that can protect themselves.

​

 

[soberups]

Even if Biden does want some guns banned



1. He doesn't have the votes.

2. If he does have the votes, it wouldn't be unconstitutional.

Bit of a double negative Freudian slip there, eh?

If the Bidens and Bloombergs and Feinsteins had their way, maybe we would still get to "keep" arms....but those "arms" would be single-shot shotguns kept disassembled in 4 seperate pieces, locked up, with an allowed maximum of 3 rounds of ammo in seperate locked and alarmed storage. There would be permits, there would be fees, there would be expensive mandatory licensing and training and mental evaluations and liability insurance and enviornmental regulations regarding where when and how often we would be allowed to shoot said guns. Our "rights" would exist in theory only. Unfortunately, the people who are talking the loudest about being "reasonable" and having "common sense" are incapable of either. A "right" that exists only in theory and that can only be excercised under strict government oversight is not a "right" at all.