Conservatives Make Inaccurate Arguments Against Gun Control

[misconfig]

Conservatives Make Inaccurate Arguments Against Gun Control - Newsweek

So many fallacies in this story - really ticks me off.

 

[eldirector]

If the facts don't support your argument, make them up.

 

[misconfig]

It upset me so much I actually posted a comment - I don't do that often.

 

[88GT]

That's the second time this week I've read that the courts have upheld a militia-only justification for the 2nd. What gives with these idiots?

 

[misconfig]

Did anyone notice the ban on high-cap "CLIPS"?

 

[eldirector]

The sad thing is, the general population believes them. I had that exact comment made by a friend/co-worker yesterday. "The 2nd is only about militias". She quickly followed up with "You and I may have to respectfully disagree on that", and changed the subject.

I really wish these so-called "news" outlets would do a better job distinguishing opinion pieces from actual factual news. I have no problem with someone voicing an opinion (even if based on incorrect information), but I do take issue with someone stating fantasy as fact and selling lies as truth.

 

[Eddie]

It upset me so much I actually posted a comment - I don't do that often.

The comments after the article are great.

 

[murphy45]

This type of rewriting the facts to suit an agenda makes me furious too but we shuoldnt be too suprised when a liberal magazinel like Newsweek publishes this type of report. We aren't suprised when ducks quack are we? The media is not going to support our position on the 2nd Amendment because it does not support their agenda. We will not win this debate through the TV or written media outlets. We will win this debate one person at a time by continuing to explain our posiion to our friends, our families, and those we interact with each day (face to face and on INGO).

 

[38special]

I hope they ban high-cap clips. All I have are magazines.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Did anyone else notice that the weapon tweaker use in Arizona is being referred to as a "police-style assault weapon". Priceless.

 

[CarmelHP]

Ben Adler wrote it, what do you expect? He's came to Newsqueak from the George Soros outfit "Center for American Progress.' He's as an America hating left wing wacko as they come.

 

[Kutnupe14]

That's the second time this week I've read that the courts have upheld a militia-only justification for the 2nd. What gives with these idiots?

Honestly, I believe militias were the original intent of the 2nd. I think the original intent has been emasculated due to the civil war (speaking of a states rights perspective).
As a southerner (Alabama), ok, we have warped views, I believe that militias spoken of, were state militias, and that the federal govt prohibiting their "right to bear arms" was unconstitutional.
I mean lets be honest, no group of people are going to seriously overthrow/challenge the federal govt. States are akin (today), to the colonies. When govt falls out of line, it's the independent states that would come to the rescue. Obviously, those days are long past, and the Civil War ended that debate. Anyway, that just my opinion. I think it's interesting to consider.

 

[down3green]

Honestly, I believe militias were the original intent of the 2nd.

.

And I think that because we need a "militia" for the outside security of the nation, the right of the "ordinary" people to keep and bear arms is guaranteed. This was intended to assuage the legitimate concerns about a police or military-run state. Which, by the way, we have slipped into anyway.

If you have read the language of our forefathers, you know that they were of extreme intelligence, but they didn't necessarily script things the way we would today.

Our present obligation is to reject the decay of our right and freedom, fight it, reverse it, and restore our rights as they intended.



.

 

[Bond 281]

Honestly, I believe militias were the original intent of the 2nd. I think the original intent has been emasculated due to the civil war (speaking of a states rights perspective).
As a southerner (Alabama), ok, we have warped views, I believe that militias spoken of, were state militias, and that the federal govt prohibiting their "right to bear arms" was unconstitutional.
I mean lets be honest, no group of people are going to seriously overthrow/challenge the federal govt. States are akin (today), to the colonies. When govt falls out of line, it's the independent states that would come to the rescue. Obviously, those days are long past, and the Civil War ended that debate. Anyway, that just my opinion. I think it's interesting to consider.

Not to be mean, but you're mistaken on all counts pretty much. Look at all the writings of the founders and they make it explicitly clear that they wanted citizens, not militiamen, armed in order to defend themselves and their liberty. I can't recall a specific article that explains the whole concept in more detail but if you look you can find it.

As for being able to overthrow the government...if there were a widespread enough uprising you can be sure that a good portion of our military would rather turn on the government than kill citizens. Even aside from that, our experiences in Vietnam and Afghanistan etc. show that it an extremely good fight can be put up by any armed resistance.

 

[Eddie]

Not to be mean, but you're mistaken on all counts pretty much. Look at all the writings of the founders and they make it explicitly clear that they wanted citizens, not militiamen, armed in order to defend themselves and their liberty. I can't recall a specific article that explains the whole concept in more detail but if you look you can find it.

As for being able to overthrow the government...if there were a widespread enough uprising you can be sure that a good portion of our military would rather turn on the government than kill citizens. Even aside from that, our experiences in Vietnam and Afghanistan etc. show that it an extremely good fight can be put up by any armed resistance.

I think that is a relevant point. All of the guns in the hands of private citizens create a formidable fifth column. Our country would be a terrible place for a foreign army to occupy.

 

[patience0830]

Oath to defend

My personal oath to defend the constitution of the US against all enemies, foreign and domestic only expires when I do. Expecting the government to pass out kit to defend against the domestic enemies is like expecting the squirrels to pass out rimfire rifles. I'll be sure to have my own supplies if the need arises.
I hope it never does but history puts the lie to that hope.

 

[Stschil]

The sad thing is, the general population believes them. I had that exact comment made by a friend/co-worker yesterday. "The 2nd is only about militias". She quickly followed up with "You and I may have to respectfully disagree on that", and changed the subject.

I really wish these so-called "news" outlets would do a better job distinguishing opinion pieces from actual factual news. I have no problem with someone voicing an opinion (even if based on incorrect information), but I do take issue with someone stating fantasy as fact and selling lies as truth.

Not to be mean, but you're mistaken on all counts pretty much. Look at all the writings of the founders and they make it explicitly clear that they wanted citizens, not militiamen, armed in order to defend themselves and their liberty. I can't recall a specific article that explains the whole concept in more detail but if you look you can find it.

As for being able to overthrow the government...if there were a widespread enough uprising you can be sure that a good portion of our military would rather turn on the government than kill citizens. Even aside from that, our experiences in Vietnam and Afghanistan etc. show that it an extremely good fight can be put up by any armed resistance.

And also remember that the Militia's at the time of the framing of the Constitution were almost entirely made up of private citizens. The early days of the 'National Guard' so to speak.

Of course our founders INTENDED for the protections of the 2nd Amendment to be extended to ordinary citizens. They intended that our Liberties should be kept sound and defensible by the populace. Unfortunatley, the populace has become complacent, lazy, greedy, selfish and stupid.
We are the frog in the pot and the heat has been steadily and incrimentally increased over and over.....and very few of us ever even noticed.

 

[Astrocreep]

Newsweek?! People still read that garbage?

Not directed at the OP; it just makes me laugh when halfwits like the writers at Time and Newsweek pretend to be 'serious' journalists.

All these anti-gun nuts dancing in the blood of innocent victims makes me sad.
Pathetic how they must rush in to capitalize on a tragedy in order for anyone to lend an ear to their bad ideas.

 

[gunowner930]

Did anyone else notice that the weapon tweaker use in Arizona is being referred to as a "police-style assault weapon". Priceless.

Yep. this writer seems to "interpret" the 2nd Amendment how he sees fit. Just another wannabe tyrant that wants to ban guns, yet show a striking lack of basic knowledge regarding guns.

 

[bertenshaw]

I think that is a relevant point. All of the guns in the hands of private citizens create a formidable fifth column. Our country would be a terrible place for a foreign army to occupy.

Reminds me of a story I heard about the Japs at a meeting of their military leaders during WWII. One of them suggested invading the US. Another Jap chap turned to the guy who suggested it and said "Don't be stupid, there will be a rifle behind every blade of grass 8>)
I say "KEEP IT LIKE THAT"!