Firearm Memes? Let’s share!

[The Heretic]

 

[The Heretic]

 

[lucusloc]

So we have a right to keep and bear them, but not to shoot them? I could maye see the practicality of a hunting license, although I'm not great with the way it's applied. But a license to shoot at a public gun range? Absolutely not.

Who says you don't have a right to shoot them? You can shoot them however you want, but if you want to do it at a public range you have to do so in a way that does not abuse that public space and leaves it intact for everyone else to use too. Those public ranges will have to be regulated somehow. Registration of the devices used at those ranges is one way to do that. Again, it may not be the best way, but it is a way, and since the free unfettered utilization of public property is not a "right" this would not implicate the right to keep, bear and use in general. In general you can keep, bear and utilize as you see fit, just like with a car. It is only when you want to use them on public right of way that registration is required.

This is 100% consistent with other rights too. It was long ago decided that the registration of the public airwaves did not implicate the 1st amendment right of free speech. Those airwaves are a limited resource and unfettered access would quickly destroy their utility to everyone. Hence licensing and other restrictions on their usage. This is a nearly perfect analogy for what I am talking about with gun use on public land, the only difference being that there probably is enough land to accommodate everyone if they spread out, whereas the airwaves are much more limited.

 

[Flopsweat]

Who says you don't have a right to shoot them? You can shoot them however you want, but if you want to do it at a public range you have to do so in a way that does not abuse that public space and leaves it intact for everyone else to use too. Those public ranges will have to be regulated somehow. Registration of the devices used at those ranges is one way to do that. Again, it may not be the best way, but it is a way, and since the free unfettered utilization of public property is not a "right" this would not implicate the right to keep, bear and use in general. In general you can keep, bear and utilize as you see fit, just like with a car. It is only when you want to use them on public right of way that registration is required.

This is 100% consistent with other rights too. It was long ago decided that the registration of the public airwaves did not implicate the 1st amendment right of free speech. Those airwaves are a limited resource and unfettered access would quickly destroy their utility to everyone. Hence licensing and other restrictions on their usage. This is a nearly perfect analogy for what I am talking about with gun use on public land, the only difference being that there probably is enough land to accommodate everyone if they spread out, whereas the airwaves are much more limited.

Range rules would be fine at a public range. Registration would be neither necessary nor appropriate. As it's unnecessary and intrusive, it probably runs afoul of some other law, but this is becoming exhausting. Why are you arguing so hard for registration?

 

[TTSX]

Range rules would be fine at a public range. Registration would be neither necessary nor appropriate. As it's unnecessary and intrusive, it probably runs afoul of some other law, but this is becoming exhausting. Why are you arguing so hard for registration?

Because he likes to argue in general

 

[lucusloc]

Range rules would be fine at a public range. Registration would be neither necessary nor appropriate. As it's unnecessary and intrusive, it probably runs afoul of some other law, but this is becoming exhausting. Why are you arguing so hard for registration?

I was merely pointing out that registration like they have for cars but for guns would be a massive improvement over what we have now. It basically means no registration save for one very specific use case which could easily be avoided but the vast majority of owners. Who wouldn't be for the complete deregulation of everything up to old battleship cannon?

 

[Flopsweat]

I was merely pointing out that registration like they have for cars but for guns would be a massive improvement over what we have now. It basically means no registration save for one very specific use case which could easily be avoided but the vast majority of owners. Who wouldn't be for the complete deregulation of everything up to old battleship cannon?

Because compromise is how we got to where we are now.

 

[TTSX]

Because compromise is how we got to where we are now.

Something about a cake belongs here...

 

[lucusloc]

Because compromise is how we got to where we are now.

So if you have a quarter of your cake left and someone says they can get you back 99% of what was taken from you, you would not take that because it's a compromise? I don't know about you but a compromise like that seems like an awful good deal at the moment.

 

[Flopsweat]

So if you have a quarter of your cake left and someone says they can get you back 99% of what was taken from you, you would not take that because it's a compromise? I don't know about you but a compromise like that seems like an awful good deal at the moment.

Wait, are you presenting that as a viable scenario, or is this theoretical?

 

[Flopsweat]

 

[lucusloc]

Wait, are you presenting that as a viable scenario, or is this theoretical?

Oh it's purely theoretical. Once the antis actually figured out what they were asking for they would kill the idea immediately. It does not matter if they were the originators of the "register guns like cars" idea, once they realized that meant no registration or regulation except for one very specific and narrow circumstance they would hoot and holler to hell and back.

 

[Flopsweat]

Oh it's purely theoretical. Once the antis actually figured out what they were asking for they would kill the idea immediately. It does not matter if they were the originators of the "register guns like cars" idea, once they realized that meant no registration or regulation except for one very specific and narrow circumstance they would hoot and holler to hell and back.

OK, I think I get it. I don't waste much time with them unless there's someone listening who might be on the fence. Talking with a hardcore anti-gunner is like talking to a sociopath or druggie. Logic is the last thing they want to hear.

 

[lucusloc]

OK, I think I get it. I don't waste much time with them unless there's someone listening who might be on the fence. Talking with a hardcore anti-gunner is like talking to a sociopath or druggie. Logic is the last thing they want to hear.

My initial comment was basically pointing out just that. They are the originators of the idea, but they are too ignorant to even know that that idea means. I like to use that to point out they are ignorant in general, and then use this specific example as a case study. Usually with the pointed retort of "Wait, you actually want to register guns just like cars? Yes please, I would very much like to have effectively no registration at all." and then watch them scramble to figure it out and dig themselves and even deeper hole. I used to argue about this with the hard core antis over on Quora, and was decently successful in discrediting their claimed expertise with the fence sitters over there.

 

[Flopsweat]

My initial comment was basically pointing out just that. They are the originators of the idea, but they are too ignorant to even know that that idea means. I like to use that to point out they are ignorant in general, and then use this specific example as a case study. Usually with the pointed retort of "Wait, you actually want to register guns just like cars? Yes please, I would very much like to have effectively no registration at all." and then watch them scramble to figure it out and dig themselves and even deeper hole. I used to argue about this with the hard core antis over on Quora, and was decently successful in discrediting their claimed expertise with the fence sitters over there.

The first time I read this, I mistook Quora for Quaran and I was like WTF? But I see your point now. Still not sure it would be feasible but that wouldn't matter to an anti-gunner anyway.

 

[lucusloc]

The first time I read this, I mistook Quora for Quaran and I was like WTF? But I see your point now. Still not sure it would be feasible but that wouldn't matter to an anti-gunner anyway.

It doesn't. Their minds are made up and no amount of facts, logic or reason will change that. The issue is they like to present themselves as the reasonable side to people who are unfamiliar with the topic, and in a vacuum they can be successful at that. The trick is to not let their be a vacuum; to make sure the alternative is presented, and the holes with their argument are rigorously pointed out. This way any drive-by readers get the full scoop and can make a more informed decision. And usually the deeper into the weeds you go the more obviously unhinged they get, which really only helps our case with someone whose mind may not be made up.

(Of course there is also the trick to keep things entertaining to read so that the drive-by readers get sucked in and follow things to their conclusion, but with the amount of drama the antis can throw around that is typically not hard to do. You just have to make sure you keep yourself as reasonable sounding as possible and any barbs you toss out are topical and not just irrelevant flaming. Pathos and ethos are just at important as logos.)

 

[rdb241]

Let's get back to the original topic of this thread.............

 

[rdb241]

 

[rdb241]

 

[rdb241]