**GW #350** Would you Support A Handgun Ban?

Do you support a handgun ban?


  • Total voters
    31
May 2007
4,641
2,310
your place
Sure you did. Well. You tried. I didn’t let you. Note I never made any statement about any kind of national attempt. You tried to shift the goalposts there. But there has been motive of the left to make serious attempts to ban handguns at the state and local level. So to pretend it hasn’t happened because it wasn’t tried at the national level? That’s you trying to shift the goalposts and making a strawman.

I know. Embarrassing huh? Buh-bye

Trying to speak for “liberals” and then attacking the position that you claim that they have is pretty much the definition of crating a strawman.

There may be a small percentage of democrats who favor a gun grab. There is also a small percentage of republican voters who are full blown white supremicists. Does that mean all republicans favor racist policies?

Even though it is never going to happen, right wingers love to pretend that there is a serious effort to pass laws that give the government authority to confiscate guns or ban handguns.
 
Dec 2018
3,170
1,165
Florida
Trying to speak for “liberals” and then attacking the position that you claim that they have is pretty much the definition of crating a strawman.
You are coming in half way and not addressing what was being discussed. He tried to claim that the topic was DOA because of no national attempt. Which is a shifting goal post. There have been local attempts.

Further. The point of the thread was to address the reality that the obsession on “assault weapons” doesnt address our murder problems. In fact? Mass shootings have happened with handguns. VT is an example.

There may be a small percentage of democrats who favor a gun grab. There is also a small percentage of republican voters who are full blown white supremicists. Does that mean all republicans favor racist policies?

Even though it is never going to happen, right wingers love to pretend that there is a serious effort to pass laws that give the government authority to confiscate guns or ban handguns.
Here is the problem though. You can say “well there is no desire to ban guns,” but that isn’t addressing how a “gun grab” would actually work here. It would be incremental. There has been an effort to ban some type of shotgun, rifle, or handgun. Feel good legislation that doesn’t nothing more than restrict more and more of the 2nd in an attempt to render it nearly impossible to use For the average citizen. They certainly couldn’t amend the constitution and void the 2nd amendment. They just don’t have the power to do it.

So it is disingenuous to pretend that an “outright ban” isn’t an idea that comes from those who push X piece of legislation and then when it doesn’t do enough they push Y. Then when Y doesn’t work we get Z. All the while we get politicians who are nothing more than Neville Chamberlain bringing “peace in our time.”

(In case you aren’t familiar that was from his speech in 1938 with the Anglo-German Declaration that obviously didn’t do what it intended).
 
May 2007
4,641
2,310
your place
You are coming in half way and not addressing what was being discussed. He tried to claim that the topic was DOA because of no national attempt. Which is a shifting goal post. There have been local attempts.

Further. The point of the thread was to address the reality that the obsession on “assault weapons” doesnt address our murder problems. In fact? Mass shootings have happened with handguns. VT is an example.



Here is the problem though. You can say “well there is no desire to ban guns,” but that isn’t addressing how a “gun grab” would actually work here. It would be incremental. There has been an effort to ban some type of shotgun, rifle, or handgun. Feel good legislation that doesn’t nothing more than restrict more and more of the 2nd in an attempt to render it nearly impossible to use For the average citizen. They certainly couldn’t amend the constitution and void the 2nd amendment. They just don’t have the power to do it.

So it is disingenuous to pretend that an “outright ban” isn’t an idea that comes from those who push X piece of legislation and then when it doesn’t do enough they push Y. Then when Y doesn’t work we get Z. All the while we get politicians who are nothing more than Neville Chamberlain bringing “peace in our time.”

(In case you aren’t familiar that was from his speech in 1938 with the Anglo-German Declaration that obviously didn’t do what it intended).

One thing is clear. You are the one who brought up the topic of banning handguns. Now it seems like your goal is to promote the idea that there is a call from “liberals” to create a ban. You are wanting to claim there is a bigger movement for the idea than actually exists. Like I said before it looks like you are attempting to debate with the liberal strawman character who is actively promoting the idea of banning handguns.

I don’t want to go back and forth on this because I don’t agree with the pretext of what you are claiming in terms of the “idea” or goal of legislation attempts. If I want to know what “liberals” are thinking, i am not going to ask an NRA supporter or someone who is likely to think Fox News is fair and balanced.
 
Dec 2018
3,170
1,165
Florida
One thing is clear. You are the one who brought up the topic of banning handguns. Now it seems like your goal is to promote the idea that there is a call from “liberals” to create a ban.
It isn’t an “idea.” It HAS happened. In fact, the last President made a vote in favor of a state wide ban in Illinois. There was also a push for the ban in DC that had to be overturned by SCOTUS. It isn’t an “idea.” It is something that HAS been attempted. Maybe not at the national level, but certainly at state and local.

You are wanting to claim there is a bigger movement for the idea than actually exists.
No. I want to ask if it is something that people would support. If so, why?

Like I said before it looks like you are attempting to debate with the liberal strawman character who is actively promoting the idea of banning handguns.
There is never a liberal “actively looking to ban” because it is a losing cause for them. They will only try incremental restrictions. They DO have the ability to ram through these restrictions. Be it an “assault weapons” ban or a “magazine” ban or a “tax stamp.”

I don’t want to go back and forth on this because I don’t agree with the pretext of what you are claiming in terms of the “idea” or goal of legislation attempts. If I want to know what “liberals” are thinking, i am not going to ask an NRA supporter or someone who is likely to think Fox News is fair and balanced.
“I’m not going to ask the person I disagree with, I’m going to ask the source that confirms my bias.”

Here is a simple point. Is there a level of gun control that you would ultimately stop at? That you believe anything beyond is unacceptable? Do you think that those who push gun control would agree? And would there be no further attempt beyond those measures?

Ps

Trying to criticize an “NRA supporter” for supporting the only organization that is effective and active in lobbying against the anti gun/pro gun control politicians/Lobby is kind of...well? Nonsensical. It would be like telling a pro union person that they are partisan or bias for supporting a teacher’s union. Even if they dislike their union but only contribute because of the things the union pushes.
 
May 2007
4,641
2,310
your place
It isn’t an “idea.” It HAS happened. In fact, the last President made a vote in favor of a state wide ban in Illinois. There was also a push for the ban in DC that had to be overturned by SCOTUS. It isn’t an “idea.” It is something that HAS been attempted. Maybe not at the national level, but certainly at state and local.



No. I want to ask if it is something that people would support. If so, why?



There is never a liberal “actively looking to ban” because it is a losing cause for them. They will only try incremental restrictions. They DO have the ability to ram through these restrictions. Be it an “assault weapons” ban or a “magazine” ban or a “tax stamp.”



“I’m not going to ask the person I disagree with, I’m going to ask the source that confirms my bias.”

Here is a simple point. Is there a level of gun control that you would ultimately stop at? That you believe anything beyond is unacceptable? Do you think that those who push gun control would agree? And would there be no further attempt beyond those measures?

Ps

Trying to criticize an “NRA supporter” for supporting the only organization that is effective and active in lobbying against the anti gun/pro gun control politicians/Lobby is kind of...well? Nonsensical. It would be like telling a pro union person that they are partisan or bias for supporting a teacher’s union. Even if they dislike their union but only contribute because of the things the union pushes.

I didn’t “criticize” anyone for “supporting the NRA”. I said if I wanted to know what “liberals” think wouldn’t ask an NRA supporter.

The bottom line is that you are trying to characterize “liberals” as being in favor of a handgun ban. That is a strawman an I don’t want to play along. I don’t find you to be a go to person for providing an accurate portrayal on the legislative goals of a political group that you oppose.
 
Dec 2018
3,170
1,165
Florida
I didn’t “criticize” anyone for “supporting the NRA”. I said if I wanted to know what “liberals” think wouldn’t ask an NRA supporter.

The bottom line is that you are trying to characterize “liberals” as being in favor of a handgun ban. That is a strawman an I don’t want to play along. I don’t find you to be a go to person for providing an accurate portrayal on the legislative goals of a political group that you oppose.
I’m not “characterizing them.” I asked a basic question at the start. I have pointed out that the idea of handgun bans have come from those left of center. That is an objective fact. That’s just reality.
 
Jan 2016
51,655
47,882
Colorado
Flame Baiting
1. This is not my thread.

2. I did not "Summon you"

3. I call you a chicken hawk when you call me 'phony pastor' or other names without provocation, like "Jerk"

4. STOP LYING, Chicken hawk.

5. Using your deceased mother as a prop on a political forum is pretty sick.
(1) Yeah. I see that.

(2) LIAR. You DID summon me to this thread, apparently for the SOLE purpose of insulting me. This was you, in post #198, back on page 20 of this thread:

correct. you try to come off as an intellectual, but you come off like your buddy @BigLeRoy as educated but not very smart pseudo-intellectuals.

I had NOT participated in this thread, in any way, shape, manner, or form, until you used the CALL function to SUMMON me here. LIAR.

(3) You've been falsely calling me a 'chicken-hawk' for at least a year now. I don't think we should be in Afghanistan. I don't think we should be in Iraq. I don't think we should be in Syria. I don't think we should be in Yemen. I NEVER evaded the draft, because it ended the year before I graduated from high school. The ONLY reason you call me a chicken-hawk was because I CHOSE not to go to West Point when I was accepted there. My MOTHER did not want me to go to West Point. You've had this explained to you at LEAST a DOZEN times. I've explained WHY. She lost THREE brothers and THREE nephews to America's wars. I was her ONLY son. America was almost ALWAYS at war during her teenage and adult life. But you don't fucking care, because you are a soulless $#@&^%($*. That's why I call you a phony pastor. No TRUE pastor would urinate on the grave of a dead mother like that.

(4) YOU are the liar. See (2).

(5) YOU are the one who is always dragging my mother into the conversation by calling me a 'chicken-hawk'. See (3). Why the forum allows you to get away with breaking the rules like that is utterly beyond me.