3 Common Arguments Against Gun Control That Have Serious Logic Problems

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

2. The logic problems with that article about logic problems

Any gun regulation will result in the abolition of all firearms.

Sure all gun owners believe that.
In reality, if one in a thousand actually old enough to own a firearm really believes that, I'd be shocked. I'd be just as shocked if someone really proved that, as George Carlin once said, "Beer leads to heroin." Now you might ask yourself why some pro-gun folks would work against all and every new firearm regulation. I'll propose an answer; some, though not all, of the same folks who work to getting less restrictive gun laws passed also say they favor laws like an AWB or Australia style confiscation. Anyone would acknowledge the logic in "just working against anything those folks favor". And, let's be real, opposing people who oppose what you advocate is not a bad idea. Doing that doesn't make you a Teaparty or NRA member. Additionally, taking a lesson from the Clinton/Kerry state department, the enemy of my enemy is not my enemy and might be my friend. Maybe I should help them.

Constitutional rights are absolute.

As an exercise here, for those who might believe that any pro-gun folks believe that one, ask any RKBA advocate if they think criminals in prison should be allowed to own guns. A right IS absolute but may, at any time, be denied or limited by, as the 5A in the Bill of Rights states, due process of law. The idea of absolute is what needs to be clarified. Rights are both absolute AND subject to due process restrictions. Just because the court restricts your liberty due to a criminal conviction does not mean that any of your human rights have magically disappeared. You have a right to free speech. Nothing will stop you from inciting a riot or mayhem by yelling fire in a theater or stabbing and killing someone. Subsequent to those actions, the justice system will come after you and, hopefully, due process your ass into prison.

Laws that cannot prevent mass shootings are not worth passing.

We have finally hit upon an argument that is occasionally brought up but not as quoted in that article. Some pro-control folks will, in the wake of a major news making "mass shooting", use that event to justify the passage of new laws that would have had no effect on the event or its outcome. Further, when a pro-RKBA points that out, they are usually countered by accusations of parroting the NRA, having no compassion or "not being a true Democrat".



[center]Now for the final word on this specious collection of straw-men[/center]
The first phrase in this article claims "Extreme advocates of the right to own guns believe three principal errors:". In general, I don't believe any of those "three principal errors". What does that say about me? Am I not "extreme" enough? I don't think I know anyone at all that believes any of those three turd statements from the pro-control punch bowl. It's offensive to be even be accused of believing any of that nonsense. Furthermore, it is accusations such as this which alienate the two sides in this debate and serve to justify the anti-control mindset of anyone even mildly pro-RKBA. How's that stupid rhetoric working for ya?