Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: "Senate Dems introduce 'assault weapons' ban bill on 205 gun models" [View all]friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)13. These are neo-Puritans fighting what they regard as evil. Actual crime stats are almost irrelevant
I hate to have to say it, but they are our version of those Republicans fighting what *they* regard as evil, like:
Brown people voting
Those not white, male, and heterosexual deciding what to do with their own bodies
the mere existence of which allegedly causes harm
The crypto-fascist Robert Bork illustrated the mindset perfectly, with his theory of 'moral harm' :
Dan Baum, in a Harper's article (August, 2010)..
...My friends who are appalled by the thought of widespread concealed weapons aren't impressed by this argument, or by the research demonstrating no ill effects of the shall-issue revolution. "I don't care," said one. "I don't feel safe knowing that people are walking around with guns. What about my right to feel safe? Doesn't that count for anything?"
Robert Bork tried out that argument in 1971, in defense of prosecuting such victimless crimes as drug abuse, writing in the Indiana Law Journal that knowledge that an activity is taking place is a harm to those who find it profoundly immoral.
Its as bad an argument now as it was then. We may not like it that other people are doing things we revilesmoking pot, enjoying pornography, making gay love, or carrying a gunbut if we arent adversely affected by it, the Constitution and common decency argue for leaving it alone. My friend may feel less safe because people are wearing concealed guns, but the data suggest she isn't less safe...
Robert Bork tried out that argument in 1971, in defense of prosecuting such victimless crimes as drug abuse, writing in the Indiana Law Journal that knowledge that an activity is taking place is a harm to those who find it profoundly immoral.
Its as bad an argument now as it was then. We may not like it that other people are doing things we revilesmoking pot, enjoying pornography, making gay love, or carrying a gunbut if we arent adversely affected by it, the Constitution and common decency argue for leaving it alone. My friend may feel less safe because people are wearing concealed guns, but the data suggest she isn't less safe...
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
63 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
"Senate Dems introduce 'assault weapons' ban bill on 205 gun models" [View all]
krispos42
Mar 2021
OP
Yeah, "they" are a real pain in the ass for you gun enthusiasts, aren't "they"? (nt)
Paladin
Mar 2021
#6
I'm not a gun enthusiast, but banning weapons based on appearances doesn't accomplish anything.
MichMan
Mar 2021
#7
Not true: it makes the self-righteous feel better, and gives the GOP a handy wedge issue
friendly_iconoclast
Mar 2021
#11
These are neo-Puritans fighting what they regard as evil. Actual crime stats are almost irrelevant
friendly_iconoclast
Mar 2021
#13
Gun controllers are every bit as puritanical as some of the various subgroups in the GOP
friendly_iconoclast
Mar 2021
#19
"No more compromise" I was waiting for the "no loaf is better than half a loaf" crowd to show up
friendly_iconoclast
Mar 2021
#18
So rather than have the government confiscate all handguns, you would have them confiscate "only"
Dial H For Hero
Mar 2021
#23
You're advocating that the government consficate about 200 million firearms from private hands.
Dial H For Hero
Mar 2021
#29
I would estimate that roughly 75% of privately owned handguns are semiautomatics, and of those
Dial H For Hero
Mar 2021
#31
"Take part or sit back and let people like me do it for you." Forced teaming? Really?
friendly_iconoclast
Mar 2021
#33
"Take part or sit back and let people like me do it for you." There is a third alternative.
Dial H For Hero
Mar 2021
#34
People have been arguing that massive gun control is just around the corner for *decades*.
Dial H For Hero
Mar 2021
#39
"Talking points": The gun-control version of "Widespread voting fraud"
friendly_iconoclast
Mar 2021
#40
Yup. Because, you see there's this funny thing where the party in power gets to do shit
krispos42
Mar 2021
#52
You've declared "No more compromise" and "take 'em all, and round up the people that don't comply"..
friendly_iconoclast
Mar 2021
#24