Posted on 02/16/2013 9:30:15 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
What many Americans consider “common sense” efforts to curb gun violence and ownership of military-style assault rifles and high-capacity magazines is met by much criticism and the claim that it is merely the first step toward confiscation.
The rhetoric sometimes seems to border on hysteria, and the “facts” and “quotes” mere fabrications to bolster an argument. There really should be a rule that if you are going to disseminate information be it a quote, a picture or a fact it should be accompanied by sufficient citation allowing the average reader to verify its veracity. Otherwise people on both sides of the argument are descending into the bowels of a propaganda campaign they claim to be sworn to oppose.
It is doubted that anyone or any side will claim that our current system is functioning. There are claims that hammers kill more than firearms, that the problem is medications do not control behaviors, etc., but there is little acknowledgment that the system is broken. We have had limits on the sale of military assault rifles previously without progressing to confiscation and we can again. Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to bear arms is just that, a right, but please read the entire opinion as it also ruled that restrictions were not without merit.
There is overwhelming support for bans on assault rifles, high-capacity magazines and universal background checks. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible. However, there are too many who are “straw buyers” for non-qualified purchasers; there are too many unlicensed dealers who sell literally hundreds of guns per year without any knowledge of the buyer. There are too many private and gun show sales to whomever appear with cash in hand. It has become true that some “legal” gun owners have indeed become outlaws...
(Excerpt) Read more at gjfreepress.com ...
There really should be a rule that if you are going to disseminate information be it a quote, a picture or a fact it should be accompanied by sufficient citation allowing the average reader to verify its veracity.
If this was the case not one newspaper, including this one, could print anything. And the democrat party would be shut down.
This guy is a clown and his “reasoning” in this piece screams liberal agent provocateur.
I just love how liberals just pull this crap out of their @ss and print it as fact. They seem comfortable that no one will challenge them for any sort of evidence for the claims.
What is distressing is that this is from a Grand Junction paper? That is some fine Colorado country. I lived in CO for six years growing up. What the hell has happened to that fine state?
to = too
they omitted the two words at the beginning of their sentence.
they are “Among liberals,”....
History teaches that the road to gun confiscation is also the road to extermination of a whole people.
This Hoffman is a seig-heiling stooge of the MarxoFascists and needs to be treated as such.
The time for talk is over.
You cannot reason with the unreasonable - so let’s get this inevitable fight and war going and get this over with. We’re waiting for you clowns to make that last mistake.
The author needs to get his med balance checked.
He admits there may be to many criminals but thinks the way to address the issue is to take away the rights and defenses of law abiding citizens.
This guy must be a riot to watch in the kitchen, when a knife is needed.
Does he pick up a butter knife to cut the roast?
Ahh.. he probably orders out so he doesn’t have to get his head in a fuss over thinking about where food comes from and how it is dispatched and prepared.
Perhaps he is a vegan..
Wait! they still use sharp and pointy implements to process that too!
Does this guy quake when he shaves? Those razors are pretty sharp and its right there beside your jugular!
I suppose he doesn’t have that problem, upon further refection, I have realized this fellow doesn’t have a hair!
My goodness Jim, Life is terminal, but stupidity robs you of the brilliant bits along the way.
a barackobama.com poll I guess
Do you even have a working concept of what this issue is?
The "overwhelming majority" of people didn't approve of Dick Cheney, or Halliburton.
But we know that a huge number of people don't know who the current VP even is.
And I'd lay money that not 1 in ten people even knows what Halliburton actually does.
But they don't like it, strongly.
On the assault weapons issue, the first question should be: do you know what an assault weapon is?
Again, I'd wager that you won't get a coherent answer.
The pollee, however will be against them. Strongly.
Assinine "polls" of stupid people who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground should be laughed at. Strongly.
I recall a political cartoon back in the sixties showing a woman berating her husband, who was sitting in a chair hugging an armload of rifles. “They just want to register your guns, not take them away.” she said. I guess this could be verified historically, as I recall there was a big deal about “registration” at that time. I don’t know why I should have remembered this particular cartoon, however inaccurately. I think some kind of BS detector I didn’t even know I had went off.
Why not? No system is perfect but ours works pretty well (in spite of the demonetization that the left attempts). Punishing law-abiding people because of the actions of law-breaking people is unacceptable and I reject it.
So what? That "overwhelming support" may very well be the fictitious creation of statist pollsters and media.
Even if were a true measure of public sentiment, so what? It would be shallow, uninformed sentiment ginned up by the lies of the statist media, and therefore an unsuitable basis for policy.
Even if it is a true measure of public sentiment AND were based on reasons those holding those opinions have considered carefully and could articulate, as opposed to being based on the lies of the statist media, so what?
Are we now in the business of abrogating civil rights based on a plurality of public opinion? Would it be OK to bring back slavery if a majority of the public wanted it? No, there's a Constitutional amendment prohibiting it. Would it be OK to bring back segregation if a majority of the public wanted it? No, SCOTUS has said it violates the Constitution.
Why are liberals so stupid, and why do the factors they'd never accept as justifying policies they disagree with ample support for ones they like?
Yep. This guy laments the fact that people making arguments on either side of the issue need to provide citations for their arguments...then he just throws this out there and hopes it is taken as fact.
He also thinks that if it were true, it would mean something. Our laws aren't supposed to be based on "overwhelming support", we have a Constitution.
If there were "overwhelming support" for outlawing the Press, would this guy be on board?
All of them are now centered on those three, so the word is out to them to stick with these three and get them through the Senate and the House.
“If this was the case not one newspaper, including this one, could print anything. And the democrat party would be shut down.”
That’s a fact.
“I lived in CO for six years growing up. What the hell has happened to that fine state?”
California happened to that fine state.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.