View Single Post
  #14  
Old 12-19-2012, 8:31 PM
Agro's Avatar
Agro Agro is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 802
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

I had this same discussion (more like a yelling argument) with my girlfriend a couple months ago. She asked me the same thing about a "rocket launcher" (as she called it) and said "why not a grenade"? I felt very boxed in and instantly felt myself losing the strong spot I felt I had. I tried to work around the argument, but I was weakening. Just simply my lack of knowledge on things I suppose. She feels none of us should have the need for any firearm, especially my AR's and AK's. She thinks it excessive, borderline psychotic. she says the police are there to protect us. I sometimes wonder how I am going to make it work with her when we are such polar opposites on things. But 95% of the time, we enjoy each others time and do the norm.

I think we are polar opposites and the argument is pointless. Like trying to have Stephen Hawking and the Pope battle it out and see if one can get the other to switch stances. She is a single Mom who voted for Obama and is extremely excited for Obamacare and while I didn't like any of our republican candidates, I did take the lesser of two evils and vote red.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylarz View Post
Everyone, of course, is talking about the CT shooting that killed 24 children. As you know, a number of measures are being proposed in response, most notably a revival of the federal assault weapons ban and a number of new laws at the state level.

Of course, we know that such measures will not only be futile in preventing attacks like this, but actually may be counterproductive. A common argument from our side, additionally, is to simply say, "The Second Amendment guarantees private gun rights, as validated by SCOTUS cases in 2008 and 2010." However, if you point this out to a gun-grabber (or even a political moderate) the common response is a strawman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) consisting of the following or some similar rhetoric:

"Oh, okay. So does that mean the Second Amendment guarantees my right to a bazooka then? Can I mount artillery on my pickup? Do you really think we have an unfettered right to tanks, jet fighters, and battleships as private citizens?"

It's an attempt at boxing us in: the classic Catch-22. If you say yes, you're written off as a loon. If you say no, then you're called a hypocrite and your antagonist then demands to know why the government can't take away everything down to the hobby knives, if it wishes.

Of course, you and I know that's utter nonsense. The conversation isn't about tanks and battleships or even bazookas...it's about small arms and how far government can go in restricting them (if at all). Most of us would say it doesn't matter much, as the cost alone would put mechanized military equipment well out of reach of most of us. (Some people do in fact argue that we have a right to anything the military has, if we can afford it.)

My question to you, however: How do YOU respond when someone says this?

For the record, I have always maintained that all ballistic, non-explosive weaponry should be available for private purchase, including fully-automatic small arms. (It's worked out fine in Switzerland.)

Last edited by Agro; 12-19-2012 at 8:34 PM..
Reply With Quote