Please help me with these arguments.

[LiberatedUSA]

I was directed to post this in gun control instead of general. There are two gun controls, so I will post in both.

I am from Missouri and I would like to discuss what I have picked up from the mostly GOP around here pertaining to gun control and police violence.

How do you counter some of this:

1 - You are a hypocrite, if you both protest police violence and want to ban assault weapons but your gun control allows the same cops you protest to keep assault weapons? If they are only for war, and the cops are not at war, why do the cops get to keep weapons of war? Do you want a group you don’t trust not to be abusive to be better armed than you?

2 - If your state gets to ignore federal drug laws by legalizing weed in your state, then red states can do the same in the face of an assault weapon ban.

3 - If your local government can refuse to enforce federal immigration laws, then don’t complain when our local government refuses to enforce your ban.

I guess they do have a point about it being extremely difficult to enforce a law local rural towns refuse to enforce. All the red between KC and STL won’t enforce a ban and the state (along with other states are saying they won’t.)

How do we deal with this?

Also, they seem to feel red flag laws are easily abused as the person is assumed guilty. Some have suggested that, since Missouri has no registration (and then therefore Biden would not know who as what), they could preemptively hide a good portion of their guns off site for that and/or a federal ban. Just registering a few to give the impression they are going along.

That will be hard to deal with. I don’t have an answer for being able to detect if someone has a cache of hidden guns in some site away from their home in the event of a 3am raid. How do you force someone to prove a negative (prove you didn’t hide some guns)?

Anyway, after years of hearing chatter over gun laws and now with President Biden saving this country, I thought I would see what you all have to say about some of this.

Thank you.

[Walleye]

1. Just tell them nobody is coming to take their precious guns Never have never will

Hiding their weapons because they think the government is going to take them is just plain paranoid. They’ve been believing this propaganda for so long they won’t admit it never has happened and never will.Sort of like outlawing abortion. I can’t imagine how they are going to carry it out.

[LiberatedUSA]

2. Agreed.

Especially Missouri. This state is as gunny as one can get. There is no way the local law is going to enforce a ban on guns they own and shoot with the people they live with. It won’t happen. So hiding guns is paranoid.

As for hiding some of them just in case one is the target of a red flag law.... first Missouri doesn’t have one and second, I would think they would make the target of said law sign something under penalty of felony stating they have handed over all their guns; making that a very risking thing to do.

I do agree that red flag laws should have stiff penalties for false claims. False reports to the police should not be tolerated.

[yagotme]

7. Hmm, rehashing a point well hashed already...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=122091

Yes. They do plan to come for your guns. Register them first, so they know who has what. CA shows precedent.

[blm]

3. How have you been countering it?

[LiberatedUSA]

4. My own thought on the matter of...

...having an issue with the police having an exemption to a semi-auto ban, is it implies gun ownership can stop police abuse, which itself implies guns can be used to stop police violence.

I can’t envision a single scenario where that would end well for anyone. I can’t see police back- up showing up and then asking “ok, did you all abuse and violate the shooter’s civil rights” before deciding which side they will be on.

As far as everything else, well it is hard for me to say “your state has to follow a federal law we want you to even if some states have ignored federal laws they see as unjustifiable.”

[sanatanadharma]

5. They are not arguments, they are excuses

What you seek to counter are not arguments but rather 'apologetics', justifications for guns.

A common theme seen in gunners (so-called) arguments is the suggestion that gun restriction laws will not work because (so-called) law-abiding gun owners will break the laws.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

6. re: "How do you counter...

Point 1: Good point. I don't want cops assigned to neighborhood patrols or traffic duty armed with an AR-15. I'm still on the fence about whether cops assigned to any non-tactical duty should be unarmed or armed only with a revolver.

Point 2: I think "assault weapon" bans are a bad idea and the term "assault weapon" is meaningless. I'm thinking, other than import/export restrictions, there should be no federal drug laws. If a state deregulates pot, the feds have no voice.

Point 3: If the feds would stop fighting a major war on drugs in multiple countries, maybe they wouldn't need to depend on the local PD and the county sheriff to do them favors and do their job for them. Local law enforcement isn't really trained for that work.

Registration: I don't believe in registration. TRO and other red flag subjects should have 24 hours to surrender restricted weapons or be charged appropriately when/if found in possession. I don't believe in federal red flag laws. Red flag laws should be at the state level.

Welcome to DU and the group.

[The Mouth]

8. I'll add another one

If a red state has to recognize a same-sex marriage under the Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article IV, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State), then blue states have to recognize the concealed carry permit and legal ownership of a citizen from a non-gun-grabbing state.


I think anything that makes it easier for law-abiding citizens to own and carry firearms is good, and the people who want to restrict firearms (with the exception of those convicted of violent crimes and/or under a TRO) to be no better than, and deserving the same scorn as, racists and homophobes.