Are we making a rational argument?

[JRB]

... I think a background check for gun show purchases is reasonable. I have been personally told by LEO working security at a show in East Texas that known felons were walking around looking at guns, although they didn't try to purchase anything...that is worrisome to me.

I don't know that a background check for any gun purchase is necessarily unreasonable in and of itself.

I'm of the mindset that I think it's insane to view felons as some sort of diseased person that is incapable of obeying the law, and thus requires distinct intervention and sacrifice on the part of lawful folks to 'help' keep them from committing new felonies - such as buying a gun as a felon when they know full well it's illegal for them to do so.

Since the ATF have an abysmal rate of follow-up let alone prosecution of NICS no-gos to begin with, I fail to see how subjecting face-to-face sales to background checks accomplishes anything except create the de-facto national registration that so many gun-grabbers dream of.
Felons, as we all know, vastly prefer to steal them or have their latest girlfriend buy them to buying them in private sales, whether at a gun show or elsewhere. If they're bent on getting a gun, they will get it one way or another.

It seems reasonable to opt for background checks, sure. But these days I simply don't trust the motives of those calling for enhancing such measures, and I have zero faith that they'll ensure that such things like a de facto registration database won't be made from logged background checks. If anything, I suspect that the opposite is true, in that they want to ban face-to-face transfers precisely because they WANT to build such a database.

Personally I think the root of the real problem is that felons and other career criminals enjoy a revolving door of plea bargains and reduced sentences. To the point that the new felony they commit by even trying to acquire a firearm (or any other felony they commit for that matter) does not serve as a deterrent.

[Hatchetman]

Basic problem there, of course, is that while we think the Constitution supports our point of view the other side is just as sure that the Constitution supports their point of view.

Well there is this organization called the Supreme Court that has recently ruled on just this very thing, thus incorporating the second amendment. . . .

And again, we can equivocate endlessly by postulating there are those who hold a belief diametrically opposed to ours and then saying, to be swell fellows, we should meet them in the middle. I don't see how that can do anything but devolve into a tail chase with us doing much of the heavy lifting for our opponents. Indeed, I've been in a lot of arguments with a lot of anti-gun folks who simply could not support their theses and certainly did not have the foundation in early American history to have an informed opinion about the intentions of the founders. If you know of some unassailable argument please post it, but in lieu of that I'm not going to assume anti-gun folks have a cogent argument because I haven't encountered one.

Little in the gun control paradigm is rational. Is it rational that Joe can go to a gunshow, get rejected at Table "A" when he wants to buy a gun, but can then by the same gun at Table "B"? That is the issue as many are looking at it. And I think we should address that issue, personally.

Perhaps I'm merely embracing semantics, but the title of this thread is "Are we making a rational argument?" I'd say yes, and if irrationality is instead under discussion, perhaps it needs its own thread

[BaiHu]

Facepalm of the moment:

http://hotair.com/headlines/archives...ault-magazine/

[David Armstrong]

This doesn't even parse, and I know how to diagram a sentence.

Sorry, Tamara, certainly not the first time we fail to understand each other, probably not the last.

[David Armstrong]

from Hatchetman:
Well there is this organization called the Supreme Court that has recently ruled on just this very thing, thus incorporating the second amendment. . . .

Yes, and the other side is quite certain that the Court ruling allows them to do what they are suggesting should be done, just as our side is equally certain it does not.

...but in lieu of that I'm not going to assume anti-gun folks have a cogent argument because I haven't encountered one.

Thus the problem. They will argue just as vigorously that we do not make a cogent argument.

Perhaps I'm merely embracing semantics, but the title of this thread is "Are we making a rational argument?" I'd say yes, and if irrationality is instead under discussion, perhaps it needs its own thread

Again, rational or irrational is often in the eye of the beholder. Personally I think both sides have some good points, both sides have some bad points, and neither side gains by arguing fringe positions as if they were the main issue.

[Hatchetman]

Again, rational or irrational is often in the eye of the beholder. Personally I think both sides have some good points, both sides have some bad points, and neither side gains by arguing fringe positions as if they were the main issue.

I'm sorry this is devolving into circular silliness. Again, if you are aware of a rational argument gun banners are making please post it. I have had numerous arguments with numerous banners in numerous venues and have yet to find one able to make a rational argument, defaulting instead to terms they can't define, appeals to emotion, sundry sorts of hyperbole, or other fallacies easily identified here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

If fallacious arguments are all they have then by definition they can't make a rational argument regardless of how strong their feelings are regarding the subject, and so that is game, set, match as far as the subject of this thread is concerned. It appears you want to take an "everything is relative" approach--a fallacy in and of itself--claim that for every sound argument on our side there is a similarly strong one on the other side that for some odd reason you won't cite, and then declare it's therefor in our interests to meet folks who have never proven to be particularly accommodating in the middle and surrender to them something ill-defined in the hope some nebulous process will lead to gains for gun owners. I find little rationality in that construct and hence, in lieu of any rational pro-ban arguments being posted, am quite comfortable saying that yes, indeed, we are making a rational argument. The burden of proof would appear to be on you to demonstrate that either we aren't or the others side does indeed have stronger rational arguments. If you can't do that, there is very little reason to take an additional lap around this track.

[cclaxton]

Yes, and the other side is quite certain that the Court ruling allows them to do what they are suggesting should be done, just as our side is equally certain it does not. Thus the problem. They will argue just as vigorously that we do not make a cogent argument.
Again, rational or irrational is often in the eye of the beholder. Personally I think both sides have some good points, both sides have some bad points, and neither side gains by arguing fringe positions as if they were the main issue.

The Supreme Court has ruled recently in Heller and McDonald that: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." http://www.lawnix.com/cases/dc-heller.html This is now the law of the land and gun "bans" are now overturned. Local governments may craft reasonable rules to govern the use of firearms within their jurisdictions. Those rules are subject to judicial review, but the SCOTUS has ruled in other cases that governments have rights to pass gun control laws such as prohibiting concealed carry, prohibiting possession by the mentally ill, etc.

Now you or I can disagree with the SCOTUS, but that is the law of the land. There were those that argued that gun ownership was tied to being a member of a militia and they lost...that argument is settled. They can continue to argue that SCOTUS got it wrong, but that does not change the law of the land. Just as we can argue that the SCOTUS didn't go far enough and that doesn't change the law of the land.

SCOTUS also left a number of questions unanswered as to how scrutiny will be applied and how far legislatures may go in limiting the right. I think they did this on purpose because they want more litigation to work its way through the lower courts and will force Constitutional Issues to bubble up to SCOTUS where they can then rule on where the line is for those limits. Could Black Rifles be considered a protected class of arms that citizens are entitled to possess? Could any citizen who is not otherwise prohibited from possessing and carrying a firearm be entitled to carry in public places where the government can't show justification for the prohibition, and will SCOTUS interpret that under strict scrutiny? We don't know, and to me that is where we should focus our debates and discussions.

But to argue that the right is absolute or that the right only applies to militias is moot. SCOTUS has ruled and we are wasting our pixels debating those settled matters.
CC

[RoyGBiv]

C.Wooly makes a rational argument. Several.
And he says only "Girly-Men".don't know the difference between an assault rifle and an assault weapon.



Yes, you've seen it before, but, it's Friday, you needed the chuckle, and it's worth noting that if C.Wooly and Ice-T get it, then everyone else can get it too.

[Shellback]

Interesting.

A cornerstone of President Barack Obama's drive to check gun violence is gathering bipartisan steam as four senators, including two of the National Rifle Association's congressional champions, privately seek compromise on requiring far more firearms purchasers to undergo background checks.

[SeriousStudent]

Interesting.

I'm surprised and disappointed to learn that about Coburn.

Time to call my friends up in Oklahoma, and have them send more letters.