How would you respond to this?

[EliteCageFighting]

This was posted on my political forum. I thought I would see how you would respond before I screw it up, LOL.

I really fail to see how this is all that useful. If he is going to take away the right to own a gun it is not really going to matter if you happen to own one now or not.

Obama sponsored a "one handgun a month" law. To be honest I cannot think of a single reason a person would need to buy more than one handgun a month. I think that anything more than a month maybe 2 months would probably be unreasonable but anything inside of a month or 2 is fine with me. Certainly a person can wait 2 months to obtain as many handguns as they can reasonably fire at one time(2 hands...2 guns...makes sense to me). Stock up on clips and ammo if you want to feel more protected. I would even come close to supporting a one firearm a month law. I do not see any more reason someone all of a sudden would need a shotgun, a handgun and a rifle(or any combination of those in different numbers). I would imagine the need to replace guns lost in a natural disaster would be a reasonable exception up to a certain limit.

I am sure he has views that are more restrictive than the one I mentioned but I highly doubt they would be enacted into any type of law. Considering the Supreme Court's ruling on the DC gun ban things should be a bit more clear and frankly I do not see how this is even an issue anymore. He and the government have far more pressing issues to tackle than gun control and for that matter we have far more important issues to press the government to fix. It will not matter how many ways we can purchase a firearm or carry one we happen to have if we are standing in a soup line.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]
[/FONT]

 

[Soundslikejosh]

Troll?

 

[10ring]

This was posted on my political forum. I thought I would see how you would respond before I screw it up, LOL.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]
[/FONT]

Obama sponsored a "one handgun a month" law. To be honest I cannot think of a single reason a person would need to buy more than one handgun a month.

A single reason? How about IT'S NONE OF YOUR DAMNED BUSINESS.

I can't think of a single reason anyone, for example, should buy more than one flat screen TV a month either. Stupid is as stupid does.

 

[Jack Ryan]

What about all the BOGO sales? Save the economy and promote unbridled consumerism. In fact I do have ten fingers and ten toes so if he wants to go that route I could fire twenty guns at once. Hmmm? I need more guns.

Conserve energy, save the planet, prevent global warming, buy both guns on the first trip.

How many golf clubs can a guy swing at once?

 

[colt45er]

Everyone hear me out before you jump on me!

He is lookiing at it from a strictly defensive standpoint. In a way, he is right, you can only phyiscially use two handguns at one time. From a tactical standpoint sometimes the fewer guns you have the more efficient you are with each.

Now I think I should be able to buy 30 guns in one day if I want so I am not on his side, but I see where he is comeing from.

You have to put thigs in perspective.

Me I buy guns becuase I like to shoot them, look at them, clean them, collect them.

Find what he likes to play with, collect, what not.

If he loves x-box say that he shouldnt buy more than one x-box game a month beacuse he can only play one at a time.

If he likes baseball tell him that you should only be able to buy one baseball bat a month.

He will come back to say that it is different because guns kill people.

Then you tackle that argument but he is looking at the situation from the wrong side.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

Use a simile to explain to him the problem in his thinking. The reason there is a problem with the one-gun-a-month law is that it infringes on your liberty. I would ask him if he would permit the government to restrict his right to assemble with whoever he pleases to only one person at a time because you can really only interact effectively with one person at a time. What about allowing the government to limit his ability to protest only one cause at a time because you can only effectively focus on one topic at at time. What about limiting the number of abortions a woman can get in a given period of time.

The point will be to get him to see that if you allow the government to infringe on any right with arbitrary regulation, there is not back stop in preventing later more intrusive regulation. Its really the classic slippery slope argument.

I would also point out that SCOTUS changes just like everything else. Just because one court chooses to uphold the constitution, doesn't mean one filled with Obama appointees will be so inclined. SCOTUS plays politics, plain and simple.

 

[Marc]

what if you are a gun collector? that would limit you "collecting" in a personal respons to what he posted. i need multiple gun last week when i was hunting. i went out in the morning for deer and saw nothing but squirl and all i had was a shotgun. then i went out that evening to squirl hunr and all i saw were deer. so when i went out i needed my .22 rifle and my 12ga shotgun at the same time.

 

[Scutter01]

How about asking him to explain what limiting you to one gun a month is going to accomplish. If it's not going to reduce crime, then why enact it?

 

[nobletucky]

"To be honest I cannot think of a single reason a person would need to buy more than one handgun a month."

My reply.....

Squirel season, dove season, followed by deer season. That would leave me with the decision to buy three guns in three months. But then you got a CC weapon in there, a cheap ammo shooting plinker for the weekends, a steal of a deal on the XD I just had to buy, a black friday special on a long range rifle, I had to get a BMG 50 cal to shoot that target I set out in Illinois and forgot to pick up, oh - I also got a CC weapon for my wife, she didn't like it so I sold it and got something else, and I got my son a revolver for his birthday. Crap- I just bought 11 guns. Thats reason enough for me to buy more than one gun a month.
I'm a shooter, a collector, a simply a person who has interest in guns and their mechanical capabilities, why should I be restricted, and who has the authority to decide for me? If you can answer that, then you might like living in a communist country so that you don't have to use your brain to think.

 

[Jerry]

I do not see any more reason someone all of a sudden would need a shotgun, a handgun and a rifle

Easy, He or she entered a 3-gun competition.

 

[Panama]

Me personally, I wouldn't even respond.

My rule is, if you get into an argument with a moron, you will end up sounding like one too, before you finally have to walk away in frustration and anger!

You can never have a rational conversation with an irrational person!

 

[10ring]

Haha exactly. Someone that thinks like that is lost. Why bother.

 

[38special]

His entire premise is wrong to begin with.

Nobody NEEDS to go to McDonald's more than once a month...why not ban that?

How bout nobody NEEDS more than 1 pair of shoes per month. BAN IT!

McDonald's and shoes aren't even protected under the constitution. Guns are. Ours is a bill of RIGHTS; not a bill of NEEDS.

The very premise that nobody NEEDS that many guns is a null point. It is our RIGHT.

 

[dburkhead]

You respond not because you are hoping to convince the "moron" but because you don't want the moron's arguments unanswered and convincing the fence sitters out there. (And there'd better be a lot of fence sitters who can be convinced out there if we're to have any hope of turning things around without a civil war. I choose to believe that they are there and that we can regain our rights peacefully. If I'm wrong, well, I'm not really any worse off for that belief.)

That said, my response (Important, don't rise to the "what do you need xxx for" bait):

The United States, at least in theory, is a free country. As such, the burden of proof is on the government to prove need and value for any restriction on any decision that we as individuals may make. The classic example is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. However, even in that case, one is not only permitted, but expected to sound a warning if there actually is a fire. Likewise, people are not gagged ("prior restraint" is the term) against the possibility that they might yell fire when there is, in fact, no fire. We see a clear case that yelling fire without there being a fire, causing panic, and injuries and damage, is something for which penalties can rightfully be attached. However, this being a free society, only the minimum restriction--penalties for actually causing a panic--is acceptable.

In gun control, there is no such clear case. People point to countries like Japan having low crime rates and stringent gun controls but there are far more differences between our countries than just gun control. Just consider that Japan's suicide rate is higher than the US's homicide and suicide rates combined. The Japanese are more likely to suffer violent death (which includes suicide) than are people living in the US. In the US, just look at the "scores" of various states given by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the homicide rates in the individual states. High Brady Scores do not lead to low homicide rates.

Put simply, gun control doesn't work.

Since gun control doesn't work, there is no justification for further restrictions. The question is not for what one needs more than one handgun a month. It's not whether one needs a particular type of weapon. It's that there is no "compelling societal interest" overriding the freedom of individuals to make that choice for themselves. Freedom does not require one to show a "need."

Gun control doesn't work. It doesn't acheive the goals that proponents claim for it. The only thing it does accomplish is getting people more used to the idea of restrictions on their choices, of begging the government for permission to do what they wish to do. It's not about guns. It's about freedom, or the lack thereof.

I choose Freedom. How about you?

 

[Turtle]

All i have to ask is what is Obama scared of? Our lil semi-auto rifles got nothing on the big ass tanks and rockets, grenades and special ammo that explodes..... they can give us full auto and the most civillians could really accomplish is to **** the GOV off and get them selves killed in the process.... The US GOV has far superior firepower.

 

[indytechnerd]

I already have a one-gun-a-month law, it's called a joint checking account

 

[GetA2J]

I already have a one-gun-a-month law, it's called a joint checking account

 

[EliteCageFighting]

Boy is this guy on my last nerve! He's freakin' clueless!

He and I are still going around over this, LOL

 

[StarKing]

I see lots of good responses, but if you ask me the guy is an anti-gun troll and has no interest whatsoever in anything resembling truth, facts or reason.
Guns are like wrenches, one size does not fit all, and it's none of his, or anyone elses business if I want to buy one wrench at a time, or the whole set all at once.

 

[StarKing]

All i have to ask is what is Obama scared of? Our lil semi-auto rifles got nothing on the big ass tanks and rockets, grenades and special ammo that explodes..... they can give us full auto and the most civillians could really accomplish is to **** the GOV off and get them selves killed in the process.... The US GOV has far superior firepower.

Don't underestimate the traditional militia (Yes, it still exists). Obama clearly has a rather totalitarian attitude, and 65-85 million entrenched gun owners rather badly outnumber 2 million soldiers, especially considering that these soldiers belong to "We the People", not to the government, and most of them know that. The military would not stand as a unified block against the people if the government went south on us. Our military, as well as the Soviets have been fought to a virtual standstill by entrenched militias of only hundreds of thousands of armed civilians having weapons far inferior to those currently owned by armed American citizens.