Quantcast

Comments about ‘Letters: Gun logical fallacies’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, May 14 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
cjb
Bountiful, UT

you'll forgive me if I don't buy this. historically registration has been used for confiscation and there are enough people who hate guns at this point to make that to real of a possibility.

take away the so-called assault Guns and the Misfits and our society well then begin to misuse the non assault guns. these will then be targeted next eventually nothing will be left.
confiscation will not get rid of violent murders there are too many other tools that could be used so in the end nobody would have guns to protect themself and you still won't have accomplished your goal of a less violent Society

Utah is almost at the bottom of violence yet you tie has the most liberal of gun laws the gun grabbers should keep this in mind

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

Americans, including those in the middle and on the left would never, repeat NEVER stand for gun confiscation.

Can you find people who advocate that? Certainly. And they represent a small fringe.

Give Americans more credit. Don't put reasonable people who support reasonable gun legislation into that category.

Star Bright
Salt Lake City, Ut

Maybe you haven't heard some of the dem congressmen/women on a hot mic, saying "confiscate, confiscate, confiscate!"

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

Great letter.

Curmudgeon
Salt Lake City, UT

Gun advocates do not need or use logic. They rely on emotion, particularly fear. They use another popular logical fallacy, involving a false premise: If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Except no one is seriously advocating outlawing all guns. Then there's the old fall-back: guns don't kill, people kill. Except a person without a gun cannot use a gun to kill.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"Maybe you haven't heard some of the dem congressmen/women on a hot mic, saying "confiscate, confiscate, confiscate!""

Congressmen/woman? Hardly. You mean state senator Linda Greenstein?

If you want to did deep into state politics to find the crazies, be careful. There are plenty of those on both sides.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

It's hilarious that the first response to this well written letter demonstrates the exact point of the letter. Yea but historically registration has been used for confiscation..but has registration always led to confiscation..No.

cjb
Bountiful, UT

Re JoeBlow

You keep repeating that no one wants to confiscate guns. I don't know if you really believe this or if you are just trying to lull others into a sense of complacency.

The guns specifically protected by the second amendment are guns that would be suitable for militia service. The fact they keep trying to ban those guns is evidence the left doesn't respect the 2nd amendment isn't it? So what is to prevent these people from getting rid of all guns if we let them?

Also until a recent supreme court decision affirming that the second amendment protects the individual right to have guns, it was common for the left to say the second amendment applies only to national guards. This should also be evidence to any honest person what their true intentions are.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "Tyrannical oppression is not the inevitable outcome of requiring background checks . . . ."

Yeah, it is.

Because liberals will NEVER stop until they destroy the ability of real people to resist their demands on our treasure and freedoms.

Never.

They must be defeated in every election, in every generation, in every epoch, if we're to endure as a culture.

We know they're disingenuous about their intentions, since background checks can't and won't solve any of the "problems" they claim cry out for action. Checks can't, won't, never have, kept guns out of criminals' hands. They can't and won't keep guns out of the hands of the mentally disturbed.

The only "problem" addressed by liberals' demands for "reasonable" background checks is keeping real people from the tools we need to protect our freedoms.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"You keep repeating that no one wants to confiscate guns."

Never said that. What I said is that you can find fringe elements that may want to do that, but it is not the mainstream opinion even on the left.

You cite a Supreme court ruling. Good for you. They do clarify the constitution. I assume that you are referring to the Heller Ruling that said the second amendment DOES NOT ONLY apply to Militias.

However, in that ruling, they also affirmed that it was constitutional to limit

1) who could carry (no convicted felons)
2) where they could carry
3) what they could carry.

Banning automatic weapons is certainly not unconstitutional.

It is unreasonable to assign the fringe element views to the masses.

"The guns specifically protected by the second amendment are guns that would be suitable for militia service."

Like fully automatic weapons? Like Grenades? Like RPG's?

You think the 2nd Amendment protects those?

"So what is to prevent these people from getting rid of all guns if we let them?"

The collective will of the people, including the left will prevent the fringe from getting rid of our guns.

That's who.

booshway
Woods Cross, UT

Did anyone get the author's switch in logic in his letter? First he said that registration = tyranny, then in the last paragraph, he changed it to background checks = tyranny. So which concept is he railing against? BTW - we already have background checks. The failed gun bill was unenforceable and massively intrusive against our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. No where in the Constitution is the gov't granted the authority to do background checks, tax, license, test, restrict or forbid the ownership of guns, for anyone. In fact, the second amendment specifically FORBIDS these gov't actions. No matter how "reasonable" you think gun laws are or should be they are all unconstitutional.

Longfellow
Holladay, UT

It's interesting to read the opinions of the low information readers who are quick to comment that confiscation would never happen, but too lazy to do ten minutes worth of research. A single case in point; in the recently enacted New York State guns laws the original markup bill before the legislature used registration of certain semi-automatic rifles as the first step in confiscating those weapons. The Democrats that originated the markup polled the other legislators and found that there were not sufficient votes to support confiscation, so they dropped it from the bill while keeping the registration provisions. The plan was to get a list of gun owners now, so that if they could get the votes for confiscation at a later date, they would already know who to go after. News reports from New York State indicate that compliance with the new registration requirement is expected to be quite low.

cjb
Bountiful, UT

A reminder of what you said.

'Americans , including those in the middle and the left would never, repeat NEVER stand for gun confiscation'.

The fact that this really can't be relied upon ( as I just gave evidence that this is the case), is why we shouldn't allow registration, the step that precedes confiscation.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

When you buy a hunting license in most states, you give them your name, your address, and what weapon you will be using.
If that isn't data base enough for the paranoid gun registration folks, I don't know what is.

Meanwhile --
Your GWBush "Patriot Act" already empowers the G'nment to collect whatever data they want on you, whether you like it, know it - or not.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

"Shall not inhibit" includes "shall not require registration with the government" to keep and bear arms. At no time have the citizens ceded their right to keep and bear arms without permission of any kind from the government. That includes background checks. That includes permits. That includes signing any governmental form.

Those who misunderstand the fact that government does NOT give us rights, but that we limit the authority of government, will disagree. They think that the "king" sits on his throne and gives his subjects the right to keep and bear arms. They think that the "king" can require us to seek permission from him before we keep and bear arms. They think that the "king" can keep a list of which of his subjects have arms. They forget that we don't have a "king".

jsf
Centerville, UT

I call. "When you buy a hunting license in most states, you give them your name, your address, and what weapon you will be using."

Give me a list of at least ten states that require identification of the weapon to be used?

And registration for a specific type of hunt does not qualify. Would it be a good place to go to get an idea of who might have a gun, yes, would it identify like registration no.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "Banning automatic weapons is certainly not unconstitutional."

Well, we can have that conversation some other day, in the not-too-distant future.

But the real issue of the day is the constitutionality of liberal gun cosmetics, gun functionality, and prior restraint on gun ownership proposals. For which liberals clearly understand they have NO strong supporting arguments.

Ashamed of their weak, unsupported political bleating, liberals keep trying to change the subject away from the clearly unconstitutional people-control measures currently pending in Congress, toward those that will become important only at some uncertain future time.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

Curious - why do you (2nd Amendment absolutists) think the framers thought it necessary to explain why this right was needed (i.e., a well regulated militia), something they did not feel was necessary regarding any of the other Bill of Rights (e.g., why doesn’t the 1st Amendment say “the dissemination of information being necessary for a free state, a free press shall not be infringed”)?

And if the right is absolute – notice this does not apply to the 1st Amendment as yelling “fire” in a crowded theater will quickly get you arrested – why doesn’t it apply to bazookas and .50 cal machine guns mounted in SUV’s (since given the power of today’s armed forced, these weapons would be the minimum necessary to even begin to have a fighting chance in a revolution)?

The vast majority of the country will never allow guns to be confiscated, but doing what we can to keep criminals and the mentally ill from having easy access to them (e.g., the weekend gun show) is something both the NRA and Justice Scalia (author of the Heller opinion) have affirmed.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: ". . . doing what we can to keep criminals and the mentally ill from having easy access . . . ."

We're already doing what we can to keep criminals and the mentally ill from having easy access -- nothing.

And, let's be clear, NOTHING in the current proposals will do anything more than what we're doing now to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and crazies.

That's how we KNOW the anti-American, anti-gun liberals' agenda has nothing to do with protecting us, only with controlling us.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

@jsf
Centerville, UT

The simple fact of the matter is, all a G'ment agency has to do is pull up every hunting license ever sold - and Viola!....instant database of who, live where, and owns what.

49 of the 50 States all require Hunter Safety.
Same list, same reason, same database.

I could do it, at home, on an Excel SpeadSheet!

At the very least, I would know who owned A firearm.
Becasue rarely does a gun-nut only ONE weapon, and
even more rarely does a NON-gun owner purchase a hunting license.

BTW, off the top of my head - I know Idaho, California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Massachucetts, Oregon, New York and New Jersey all require calibre or type weapon.
i.e., It is illegal to use a .22 or 410 shotgun for deer, or assault rifles for doves & pheasants.

Non-gun owners rarely take hunter safety.

At any rate, the data is already readily available.
You can now begin your full blown paranoid gun-confisgation fantasy panic now....

=====

@Tyler D
Meridian, ID

Agreed!

These so called "Constitution Absoluteists" are the biggest bunch of selective, pick and choosers just to twist and fit personal agenda - on the planet.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments