"Framing" gun control debates in liberal terms shuts down leftists. Examples inside.

[illspirit]

This idea is kind of long, so in practice one would probably want to expand upon the basic concept in the short version here.

First, the setup, based loosely on the Miller case:

------------

"Imagine that the Bush administration and his big-oil cronies in the 109th Congress wrote a law banning a powerfully compelling book about global warming. Their reasoning was that because they felt global warming is a hoax, it isn't protected by the First Amendment. After the law is passed, an environmental activist is arrested for reading the book, but dies just as her legal challenge reaches the Supreme Court.

"Being that she wasn't there to argue her case, the Supreme Court states that 'In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or reading of books about global warming has any reasonable relationship to a free press, we cannot say that the First Amendment guarantees the right to own and read such a book,' and remanded it back to the lower court for fact finding.

"Now imagine that, following the Supreme Court's non-ruling, several Circuit Courts misinterpreted that case as being "settled," and suppressed or ignored all evidence on further challenges that the Supreme Court never heard. Imagine that each time someone else was arrested for reading about global warming, they were denied due process, and simply found guilty based on the chain of events above."

-----

Let that sink in for a moment, then ask them:

"If all that happened, would you agree or disagree that the First Amendment does not protect the right to read any book?"

When they shout 'NOO!!' in response, tell them to replace books with guns, and the First Amendment with the Second..

 

[ilcylic]

MattB000: I've heard that one a lot, actually.

Heck, I'm 6'5" and 240 lbs, and people have said it would happen to me!

I've offered to let them test this theory, with me even willing to use just a paint ball gun, so no one gets more than a few bruises, but no one has taken me up on it yet. Actually, none of them have taken me up on it when I offered to let them shoot at me, instead, either. Oh well.

 

[squinty]

Well, it's entirely appropriate to frame the debate in liberal terms because the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right. So it's more than just a semantic trick. The ACLU's interpretation of the second amendment is bizarrely out of step with their interpretation of every other amendment in the bill of rights, and the RKBA should not be solely a conservative cause. We need more pro-gun liberals!

 

[Sage of Seattle]

"Gun owners should have to pass a test in order to own a gun."
Response: "Isn't that the equivalent to requiring a literacy test in order to vote? Doesn't that disenfranchise minorities?"

I would take it a step further and say something like the following:


Anti: "Gun owners should have to pass a test in order to own a gun."

Gunnie: "So you're saying that civic rights should be limited? Well, it is well known [whether or not it is, but I believe the following to be true] that the First Amendment was passed mainly to protect political speech, not just speech in general. So tell me: what's the name of the local sheriff? [provide the name] Name the two state senators. [at the state, not federal level. provide the names] Name a few U.S. territories or protectorates. [name some] Can't do it? You fail. You now no longer have any First Amendment rights."

 

[jlbraun]

Which makes you... MORE DEADLY THAN ANYTHING IN MY COLLECTION! lol

Riiiiight. Moving along then...

 

[kludge]

illspirit, very insightful, really.

 

[tosler]

The ACLU's interpretation of the RKBA

Actually, I thought that parts of the ACLU's interpretation of the RKBA was rather well-thought-out and accurate, oddly enough. I was quite surprised. Their "collective ownership" parts are crap, but this part is the underpin to the rest:

"Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

"The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide."

I thought this was very nicely put, and explains why we have a very long process ahead of us to get the RKBA re-instated. Most people against gun control do agree that some control of heavy weaponry / artillery is warranted. As soon as that point is reached, the RKBA is abrogated and becomes a privilege (the government says what arms you may or may not have.)

Democracy sucks, people. Two wolves and a sheep voting what's for lunch. We're supposed to be a Constitutional Republic.

I may split this into another thread.

 

[squinty]

"If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide."

But that question isn't left open by the constitution.

 

[benEzra]

"Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

"The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide."

"Most opponents of book control concede that the First Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own child porn or classified nuclear weapons manuals. Yet these, like novels, encyclopedias, and repair manuals, are books.

"The question therefore is not whether to restrict books, but how much to restrict them. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide."

The thing is, that kind of specious argument can be made for pretty much any of the bill of rights.

"Child sacrifice and ritual prostitution are illegal, so Congress can outlaw going to church."

"The Shriners have to get a permit to throw a parade, so Congress can abolish the right of free assembly any time it chooses."

Same argument, and just as disingenuous.

 

[sacp81170a]

"Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

How disingenuous of them to include a WMD with small arms. The argument that we have a right to own nuclear warheads and nerve gas ignores the rights of our neighbors to be safe from items whose very nature poses a danger to their lives. No one argues that the right to use your property as you see fit allows you to start a toxic waste dump in your basement or store ebola in your refrigerator. WMD's should be regulated because of the danger they pose by their very existence. On the other hand, my safe full of guns can sit and quietly rust over a period of centuries and no on will be harmed unless someone makes a conscious decision to pull a trigger.

The two classes of weapons get lumped together for the purpose of denying our basic civil rights. Don't let 'em do it.

 

[tosler]

ACLU position

You are correct, the Constitution forbids any kind of legal infringement on the RKBA.

The problem is, America is running as a democracy, and the vast majority of people, including most gun owners (and of course the NRA), believes that artillery and heavy weaponry (bombs, mortars, missiles, nukes) ought to be regulated.

The RKBA allows us to own the above items. There is no way around it that I know of. You can finagle around that fact with legalese, but then you are no better (in principle) than the ACLU.

Please tell me if I am wrong, but as far as I can tell, the RKBA allows me to own a 105MM howitzer without restriction. Anybody that says others would seem to be advocating a limited suspension of the RKBA.

Once we limit the RKBA in any way, then the whole thing becomes untenable. It becomes a grey line that can be altered at the whim of government, media, or voters.

The ACLU's argument is disingenious, but it happens to be true.

Also, it is not legal to own child porn. The 1st amendment is therefore abrogated. The socialist left has simply done a better job propagandizing the populace against guns. Once the guns are gone, then the other rights are easy prey.

Trost

 

[tosler]

WMDs

There is a legal term which I do not remember which refers to something that creates an unacceptable risk for an unacceptably large number of people, and is therefore outlawable even if it would otherwise be legal according to someone's normal rights.

You can, in principle, ban ebola / smallpox / nuclear weapons using this principle.

Two arguments.

1) Say you ban nukes. Where do you draw the line? A SAM can kill many hundreds of people if fired against a civilian airliner. A large caliber artillery shell can kill tens of people in a crowded area. A properly-operated machine gun can kill tens or hundreds of people in a very short period of time. A micro-nuke might easily fall within this scale. Where's the line? Many of these weapons are necessary for conducting effective guerrilla warfare against a tyrannical government or China. A clean micro-nuke doesn't even leave much environment radioactivity behind, which many current military munitions do because of the widespread use of DU.

2) Let's say you effectively handle "WMDs". Where does that leave you? Most people, including gun owners, seem to think civilians should not be allowed to own artillery without regulation, yet that is unquestionably allowed under the second amendment. More people probably would support unrestricted civilian machine gun ownership, but I don't think the figures would be much different.

I do not believe the second amendment can be up for vote, and be anything more than an amusing statement of archaic sentiment.

Awkward questions, to be sure!

Trost

 

[bill larry]

JLBraun, I think your idea is great. I think some here are missing the point...if you use their own "pc" language against them, they will have nothing to say. You are taking the words out of their mouths.

 

[Sir Aardvark]

"Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms."

Well... when the constitution was written they did not have bazookas, missiles, or nuclear weapons - but they did have firearms.

 

[Autolycus]

I dont understand. How you assume that only gun control is a leftist cause and a liberal thing.

Some of you who dislike politically correct terms are not exactly understanding what politically correct means.

 

[Autolycus]

Originally posted by velojym: The left is fond of phrasing things to reflect perceived inadequacies in ethnic minorities. They really believe nobody would hire blacks without 'affirmative action' (they must really think black folks are inferior), and that other brown people are incapable of learning english.
Naturally, they'll claim their opposition is racist... but are we?

The left will claim what opposition is racist? And are we? You assume that everyone here is on the same side.

 

[Autolycus]

Originally posted by Fletcher: I think this is a play on the same kind of junk liberals complain about whenever some sort of restriction is placed on voting or what have you. No matter what it is, it is somehow "disenfranchising minorities".

Its not junk. Do you understand what restrictions on voting does? You make it sound as if your indifferent to the fact that minorities dont get an equal vote in many regards.

 

[ConfuseUs]

"Gun owners should have to pass a test in order to own a gun."
Response: "Isn't that the equivalent to requiring a literacy test in order to vote? Doesn't that disenfranchise minorities?"

I would change that to:

"Gun owners should have to pass a test in order to own a gun."

"Well then public schools should require all students to learn how to safely handle guns. Otherwise only the wealthy elite would be able to afford the education necessary to pass the test."

 

[serrano]

Which they'll probably counter with: "But guns are useless against tanks and stuff!"
Response: "So you're saying our victory in Iraq is imminent then? After all, the insurgents only have small arms and crude, home-made bombs."

I actually used this just this weekend at my grandmother's house - my many aunts are all very anti-gun - they just folded their arms and let out a huff.

"Why do you need a gun?"
It's a free country; I don't need to justify my life decisions to anyone.

I don't like this answer - I think the last one you posted is much stronger, although it may not necessarily be why you choose to own a gun(s).

"Guns are for cops and the military only."
The Bill of Rights was intended for protection against such corruptible groups.

 

[Vader]

deleted

 

[chrlefxtrt]

Liberal response for anything on this board:

It's different guns are bad.


You will find it difficult to ever change a liberal's mind. You should always concentrate on the folks riding on the fence. How can you ever win an argument with someone that refuses to use logic?

 

[Sapanther]

[My ghetto qoute system]


"chrlefxtrt
Liberal response for anything on this board:
It's different guns are bad.


You will find it difficult to ever change a liberal's mind. You should always concentrate on the folks riding on the fence. How can you ever win an argument with someone that refuses to use logic? "

:banghead:
change Liberal to Anti please ... just because someone is Liberal doesn't mean they are anti gun ... the right doesn't have a monoply on the 2A ...



ETA: could someone PM me the location of the qoute button, can't seem to find it

 

[Warren]

ETA: could someone PM me the location of the qoute button, can't seem to find it

There isn't one. In an ironic twist, a huge group of people that can be counted on to use firearms in a responsible manner, could not quite manage the same with a tiny quote button.

When you hit the reply button the little dialogue balloon next to the envelope will give you quote tags when clicked on. Just paste the text you want between the two quote tags and you are good to go.

 

[BBroadside]

tosler wrote: "Please tell me if I am wrong, but as far as I can tell, the RKBA allows me to own a 105MM howitzer without restriction. Anybody that says others would seem to be advocating a limited suspension of the RKBA."

The reasoning I heard was that late 18th Century terminology would have described a fighting implement that could be borne (carried by a single person) as an "arm", and one that could not (a crew-served weapon) as a "weapon of war". This wouldn't allow the regulation of, say, an M72 Light Anti-tank Weapon, but anything above a certain weight could be regulated under Article I Section 8 Clause 16.

Not sure everyone would agree though.

 

[alexanderplatz]

So what was the legal status of artillery in the 1700s? Were individual citizens allowed to own cannon, or were they soley the domain of governments?