Where some Dems are getting it wrong on gun control

[Common Sense]

After reading the news and watching various Dems and pundits talk at these town halls and on news programs, it is clear that some Dems and liberal pundits are making mistakes regarding gun control issues.

It's unfortunate that some Dems are using hyperbole to describe so called assault rifles. While it is true that guns like the AR-15 are variations on weapons of warfare, it's clear that many don't realize that less threatening looking firearms are essentially the same as the rifles they want to ban.

A Ruger mini 14 doesn't look threatening, yet it does virtually the same thing as an AR.

That being said, I do agree with the idea of limiting magazine sizes. How effective that would be, I'm not 100% sure, but certainly high capacity magazines make it far easier for these nutjobs.

Essentially, I just wish both sides would drop the hyperbole and if Dems want to be critical of these weapons, I wish they would do so from a more informed position.

As Conservatives should be open to discussing gun control as one of the many measures that should be looked at, Dems should also not focus all of their attention on guns alone.

[stjames1_53]

nope. gun control is merely a back door to confiscation. We've already witnessed that in CA and NYC.
Living where you live, under the control of your government, without the Right to self-protection all you have is a privilege wherein youseek government approval to engage we declare is our Right.
Vast difference, because there's no comparing a Right to a privilege.

[Chris]

After reading the news and watching various Dems and pundits talk at these town halls and on news programs, it is clear that some Dems and liberal pundits are making mistakes regarding gun control issues.

It's unfortunate that some Dems are using hyperbole to describe so called assault rifles. While it is true that guns like the AR-15 are variations on weapons of warfare, it's clear that many don't realize that less threatening looking firearms are essentially the same as the rifles they want to ban.

A Ruger mini 14 doesn't look threatening, yet it does virtually the same thing as an AR.

That being said, I do agree with the idea of limiting magazine sizes. How effective that would be, I'm not 100% sure, but certainly high capacity magazines make it far easier for these nutjobs.

Essentially, I just wish both sides would drop the hyperbole and if Dems want to be critical of these weapons, I wish they would do so from a more informed position.

As Conservatives should be open to discussing gun control as one of the many measures that should be looked at, Dems should also not focus all of their attention on guns alone.

That being said, I do agree with the idea of limiting magazine sizes. How effective that would be, I'm not 100% sure, but certainly high capacity magazines make it far easier for these nutjobs.

How does that address the problem? Heck, what, to you, is the problem?


The problem with most liberals is they don't know what the problem is and so just jump to some/any solution. I understand the emotions but emtions need to drive logical analysis of the problem before coming up with solutions that address the problem.

[Common Sense]

Two inane responses.

Huh...

[Chris]

Two inane responses.

Huh...

^^The inane response. Kind of dickish too--the response.

[Common Sense]

^^The inane response. Kind of dickish too--the response.

I posted a thread criticizing Dems and their ignorance on the issue. You responded to one side point and a the usual cry about liberals.

Dickish? Yeah, I agree. Your response was indeed dickish.

[Chris]

I posted a thread criticizing Dems and their ignorance on the issue. You responded to one side point and a the usual cry about liberals.

Dickish? Yeah, I agree. Your response was indeed dickish.

How creative, repeating my criticism of your post.

What I posted about liberals is generally true. You offer solutions without first analyzing the problem. Not having a clue you propose emotional solutions that address nothing. Add to that, when this is pointed out, you lash out at those who point out your illiberal illogical non-solutions. Thanks for demonstrating.

[Common Sense]

How creative, repeating my criticism of your post.

What I posted about liberals is generally true. You offer solutions without first analyzing the problem. Not having a clue you propose emotional solutions that address nothing. Add to that, when this is pointed out, you lash out at those who point out your illiberal illogical non-solutions. Thanks for demonstrating.

I offered no solutions. I contemplated the effectiveness of magazine sizes as an aside to my main point.


The point of the op was my criticism of the left and their mischaracterization and ignorance of certain firearms. But instead of commenting on that, you ranted against liberals and mischaracterized what I said.

[Common Sense]

This is what happens when you try to have an honest discussion about this issue.

[Chris]

I offered no solutions. I contemplated the effectiveness of magazine sizes as an aside to my main point.


The point of the op was my criticism of the left and their mischaracterization and ignorance of certain firearms. But instead of commenting on that, you ranted against liberals and mischaracterized what I said.

Magazine sizes is a solution you offer. How does it address the problem--wait, what is the problem?


Don't like my criticism, tough beans.