Letterman Throws Down on Guns: 'For the Love of Christ! When Are We Gonna Do Something?'

[beevul]

61. Bull.

"Are you really telling me that Jenoch innocently, and without political motive, just wondered aloud?"

Issue motive? Perhaps. But unless you're going to claim right here right now, that posters on DU aren't allowed to be pro-gun, you haven't a point.

If someone with a motive points out hypocrisy, and the person next to him without motive points it out, are they both bad for pointing it out? Unless your answer is yes, it is clear that for you, it is all about who is doing the saying, and not what is being said.

"And you're still trumpeting the idea that Letterman is being a hypocrite. HOW is he being a hypocrite? He enjoys shooting clay pigeons, therefore he should completely oppose gun-control? Come on make your argument."

Aww, isn't that cute. Attributing to me an argument I never made.

Please consult the dictionary for the definition of the word "potential". I used it for a reason.

"So far your argument amounts to "Nuh-uh!".

And the argument I was responding to, was "look what so and so said", which he did not in fact say, so "Nuh-uh!" was both appropriate and correct.

"Now as for compromise where gun-control is concerned, now that would be an interesting discussion. One that must begin with, in my opinion, what exactly ought to be given to gun-owners in return for universal background checks, more demanding written tests or smaller magazines?"

No. First it means talking about evening the scales for the things we've already had taken, and were given nothing for in return. Go back to 1934. The NFA was passed, and gun owners were given nothing in return. Then in 1968 the GCA was passed, and we were given nothing in return. After that, how many states passed strict and often stupid restrictions, and nothing was given in return. New Jersey and the ban on hollow point ammunition, for example. Then the hughes amendment closed the NFA registry in 1986, and very little was given in return, and that which was, is generally ignored. Then the brady bill and AWB. Nothing given in return.

Are you detecting a trend here? Those things might mean nothing to you, but they do to others. That methodology has not changed on the part of people that push push push, has made those that are on the other end of the pushing quite unwilling to be as cooperative as they once were. And it doesn't help when groups like "moms demand action" try to appear as not being anti-gun, then turn around and protest opening of gun stores. You can't have it both ways.

"Let's not forget that these reforms would be lowering gun-violence, something we would all benefit from."

What happened in CA, with the tragedy the other day, and happens there daily, brings into question whether that's really true. Not to mention, that the loud outspoken "gun violence prevention" groups, seem only to be interested in going after guns.

"So if that's not enough, which it ought to be, then what do these people want? No more ten day wait periods between purchasing a gun and being able to pick it up at the store? They want access to bigger magazines?"

Keep in mind, the things below are not my desires. I own few firearms, and have no desire to own any others. I don't argue the pro-gun side out of any desire to own more guns, or that something I own will be banned, or that something I want will be banned before I can get one. I argue out of sheer principle. I deeply value my rights where guns, speech, and every other thing are concerned.


However, I have seen others state some of these things:

Kill the hughes amendment.

Nationwide CCW reciprocity.

And I'm sure there are a number of others.