Gun Control Canards

I invite any gun control proponents [as I long have] to define the following:

“Weapons of war” – Please identify a class of firearms that have NOT been used in armed conflict.

“Military Grade” – Define please.

“Military style” – Define please.

“High Capacity” – Define please. And while you’re at it, please justify an arbitrary number of a lawful item, where having that number is lawful, but having one more than that number is criminal.

“High powered” – Define please.

“Assault / offensive / defensive weapon” – Define please.

Hunting – Please define what firearms are suitable for hunting and which, in your opinion, are not.

Sure, I know that nobody is likely to try and define the above, from the gun control perspective. But my point is this, legislation that seeks to curtail, regulate or restrict a Citizens actions with regard to a Constitutional Right……it should be deliberate, thoughtful and based on definable metrics and endstates…..not emotion.

20 thoughts on “Gun Control Canards

  1. I think we have to assume that all those terms are generic and represent an identifier as a grouping, and certainly used to convey emotion, from which policy can be built around. If nothing else, we’ve certainly learned from the original wording of the Second Amendment that even a short sentence, if not properly specific with detail, people.. and courts.. will interpret in many different ways, even wandering from the original intent.
    I am not immediately aware that there are any laws that use these terms without spelling out conditions in detail given lawyers generally write these laws to stand the test of enforcement and litigation.
    “Gun control” is by nature an emotional debate… otherwise it wouldn’t be a debate. It’s also emotional for a reason…. which is certainly not arbitrary.
    The public in general is simply getting fed up with random mass shootings, and the weapons of choice are…. those that are magazine fed using .223/5.56 or 7.62 in all its variants. (There.. how’s that for being specific). Those Americans who presume to think their weapon and the Second is more important than a human life have been using the convenient argument that it’s all about mental health.. in other words, bury any anti-gun control legislation in the ambiguity of mental health instead, and “leave my gun alone”. Right?

    Liked by 1 person

    • With regard to calibers, semi-automatic weapons, even rifles specifically, come in nearly every caliber you can think of (I don’t think I’ve seen .38 special yet).

      The 2nd Amendment is not more important than human life, because it’s not an either/or paradigm. I can just as easily say the if you wish to repeal the 2A, you care not for human life, because you’ve removed the ability for self defense for millions of Americans (even the lowest commonly accepted number of defensive firearm uses, is far higher than the number of Americans killed in violent spree shootings.


      • There are no “official” numbers regarding how many times a gun was used successfully by the public in a defensive situation. One number bantered about has been 1.5 million.. which even the people who created that from some poll suggest that number is remote in being accurate. No one keeps track of that number. No FBI.. no fed, because it’s not mandated to local law enforcement to do so. More specifically, there’s also no way to determine if, in fact, a life, or lives were ever saved in that number.

        I’ll concede it’s not really an either/or comparison.. but it certainly is a moral consideration.

        Here’s a consideration, Jeff… no question much of the debate is emotion… but it’s far different kinds of emotion. One of John’s replies in here was referring to “gun nuts”. Ok.. so then I ask.. what exactly is a “gun nut”? I own guns, yet I do not consider myself a “gun nut” simply because I don’t extend my interest in guns as being anything more than a passive interest.. a hobby… and not one bit inspired or motivated by any affection to the Second Amendment. SCOTUS has made a decision of how the Second is now defined and because I am loyal to the Constitution I accept their decision, regardless of the fact I don’t agree at all with it.
        I rather think the “gun nut” is the one who actually has gone off the deep end thinking their gun ownership somehow is some insurance to make sure government stays in line. To that I ask.. then who decides if government is out of line.. and who decides where, when, and how you are going to pull the trigger? It’s idiotic to even presume you will be able to ever use your gun to restore or reset government to what YOU think it should be.
        It makes far better sense to think your gun ownership helps you to survive when/if there’s some economic or other kind of apocalypse.


      • “Gun nut” has no meaning to me, I only used it earlier today to illustrate that it can be used in both directions, to no real effect.

        DOJ does indeed not keep track of numbers, hence the several studies that tried to generate ballpark statistics. One thing to remember, is that defensive gun use doesn’t always mean the gun is fired. Quite often, brandishing a firearm is enough to stop an attack or invasion of ones home or vehicle. It seems safe to say also, that some of these events aren’t going to be reported to law enforcement for a variety of reasons.

        For my part, firearms are tools. They’ve been tools that I’ve relied on for all of my adult life. I don’t think I’d have to employ them ‘against’ the government…but rather in the absence of a government, which I assess would be more likely for a variety of reasons.


      • Well, I dunno, Jeff. The NRA are absolute fools. But it seems to me if you want to keep people from even thinking about repealing the Second (which honestly, I have no idea where that even comes from) then you’d think they would try and meet the debate halfway and agree to some low level controls. But just saying no to it all simply make people that much more pissed and leaning toward the idea of a repeal.


      • Meet the debate halfway? Why doesn’t the gun control camp do this? I’m not talking about what finally gets passed, I’m talking about what they want. Such as the duplicitous of saying “nobody wants to take away your guns!” While advocating to ban and criminalize a class of firearms. Based on ignorance of said firearms to boot.


      • I’d not be too flippant about the “ignorance of firearms” as some kind of debate value. Perhaps the “ignorance” is just as fervent at what the guns do to people. They are a tool to kill.. and used kill children. Certainly the public is NOT ignorant of the result of guns in America.


      • It’s not flippant in the least. I’ve literally written out gun control buzz words that are undefinable and immeasurable by the gun control camp.

        Don’t try to blame me for the willful ignorance of that demographic.


      • Not sure if you’d seen this, but Rep. Don Breyer is apparently working on a bill that would levy a 1000% tax “assault rifles” (I’m sure he’ll come up with a creative definition that makes no sense). So, we have a Congressman proposing a bill that would restrict the ability to exercise a Constitutional Right, to the relatively wealthy.

        OK…..I’d accept that… soon as we restrict the ability to vote to only landowners.


  2. The right to bear arms only applies to citizens who are members of well regulated militias. But there is no way to reason with gun nuts because their thinking is locked in and cannot be affected by any kind of reasonable argument … so let the killing continue.


    • Nope. Incorrect by means of a number of primary sources and founding documents, as well as the Militia Act of 1903. But likewise, there seems to be no way to reason with gun control nuts….because it is proven time and again, that they are uniformly unable to have reasonable discourse, or for that matter, use definable and measurable terms.

      They’re great on emotion though……

      Liked by 1 person

      • Interpretations are a pain in the ass and there are too many people who interpret documents in light of what they want them to say that any conclusion is possible making all conclusions useless — whatever serves an agenda .. that is how it works …and as to “Reasonable” discourse, that has long since passed from the American scene… it is gone and will never return …


      • Agreed. Multiple interpretations can just muddy the debate. And research and education takes effort. I don’t want Congress passing any legislation based on their ignorance of the topic. That is exactly what has occurred with regard to gun control bills.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I agree with you a Hundred percent about Research and Education taking effort.
        The problem I have with private interpretations based on “Research” and “Education” is that most of the time when someone is doing “Their Own Research” to prove something true, they tend to drift to resources that are pre-biased toward their own individual ideas of what the outcome of the Research or Education should eltimately be.

        Therefore, be it Liberal or Conservative doing the “Research” or reading the “Educational” materials, each is going to be drawn to and will gravitate toward accepting conclusions that have been formerly achieved by “Experts” in the various fields … but accepting only the conclusions that line up with the researcher’s own individual biases and agenda zones.

        In today’s political scene, we have long since lost the ability sit down with opposing views and chip away from both sides of the aisle, offering and counter offering, until arriving at a bi-partisan conclusion that holds some practical benefits for most people who will be governed by the new proposed law or whatever but which grants neither side of the aisle a Hundred percent of what they wanted when it all started.
        The problem today is that all the negotiators want everything 100% their own way or no way at all ..and neither side is very willing to give any ground at all … and so nothing of consequence ever comes to pass …and the great division gets more divided still … much to the entertainment and glee of our enemies … enemies who are just waiting in the wings for the opportune moment to take full advantage of our weaknesses as a nation and swoop down and swallow us all.


  3. My friend has a problem when reading your ‘gun bans’.
    He owns a baby AR lookalike, detachable 30 round mag, fore grip, and a screw on moderator.
    A fine little toy in .22LR and semi auto.
    However, using your Assault Weapons Ban of 2021 listing, that’s an assault weapon.

    Sigh. Sometimes it’s all too easy to understand why government is full of idiots and the ignorant, who couldn’t make it in the real world, so became politicians.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s