4/11/2013, 5:21 pm
We Know Who Cheers for NO "Universal Background Check":
Just like the wise bartenders and bar-flies on Cheers, we Progressive Comrades need to be smart enough to counter these silly arguments against both our gun-control throwaway ploy (AR-15s and magazines for more than ten rounds) as well as against our real objective "Universal" Background Checks as back-door registration/regulation to enable Government to conduct unannounced gun-safety checks of any gun owner without need for a warrant, we must also be prepared to de-bunk the numerous other myths touted by gun-clingers (notice that one need change only one letter to reveal their true identity as gun slingers)
What are some of these myths? Consider the following:
1. When communities with strict gun-laws but high rates of murders by use of firearms say the reason their murder rates are so high is that their criminals travel to states with lax gun-laws (e.g., Chicago criminals traveling to Virginia) to purchase guns and then take them back to their communities to murder children and adults in their communities, what do the gun-clingers (gun-slingers) say? They say, "If guns were the cause of the problems, the murder rates would be highest in the areas in which guns are more easily purchased, but the reverse is true." How do we counter that? We can't, so we must simply rely upon emotional appeals to LIVs to draw their attention solely to the plight of children and adults murdered by gun-slingers. We needn't worry about responding to such arguments with logic, because we know the LIVs lack sufficient knowledge-base to understand the context needed for logical analysis.
2. It''s indisputable that every year the misuse of alcoholic beverages causes far more carnage among children as well as adults than does negligent or criminal use of firearms, yet we know that none of us who dares call himself a "progressive" would ever propose a law that would prohibit anyone from acquiring an alcolohic beverage by purchase (or by gift from a spouse, parent, son, daughter, family member, friend, etc.) without first passing a "Universal Background Check" to prove such purchaser (or recipient) has never been convicted of drunk driving, has never had a drunk-driving charge dismissed upon successful completion of probation, treatment or counseling, and has never otherwise undergone treatment or counseling for alcohol abuse. So how can we counter the gun-slingers' assertions not only that:
A.
such analysis makes it obvious that the argument for "Universal" Background Checks for any and every aquisition of a firearm under any circumstance is vastly weaker than an argument for "Universal" Background Checks before acquiring an alcoholic drink?
and
B.
in contrast to alcoholic beverages, there's virtually never been a case that one person drinking alcohol saved the life of another but every year the number of lives saved by lawful possession/display/use of firearms save many more lives than deaths caused by neglient/criminal use of firearms
We can't, so we must simply rely upon emotional appeals to LIVs to draw their attention solely to the plight of children and adults murdered by gun-slingers. We needn't worry about responding to such arguments with logic, because we know the LIVs lack a sufficient knowledge-base to understand the context needed for logical analysis.
--KOOK
Just like the wise bartenders and bar-flies on Cheers, we Progressive Comrades need to be smart enough to counter these silly arguments against both our gun-control throwaway ploy (AR-15s and magazines for more than ten rounds) as well as against our real objective "Universal" Background Checks as back-door registration/regulation to enable Government to conduct unannounced gun-safety checks of any gun owner without need for a warrant, we must also be prepared to de-bunk the numerous other myths touted by gun-clingers (notice that one need change only one letter to reveal their true identity as gun slingers)
What are some of these myths? Consider the following:
1. When communities with strict gun-laws but high rates of murders by use of firearms say the reason their murder rates are so high is that their criminals travel to states with lax gun-laws (e.g., Chicago criminals traveling to Virginia) to purchase guns and then take them back to their communities to murder children and adults in their communities, what do the gun-clingers (gun-slingers) say? They say, "If guns were the cause of the problems, the murder rates would be highest in the areas in which guns are more easily purchased, but the reverse is true." How do we counter that? We can't, so we must simply rely upon emotional appeals to LIVs to draw their attention solely to the plight of children and adults murdered by gun-slingers. We needn't worry about responding to such arguments with logic, because we know the LIVs lack sufficient knowledge-base to understand the context needed for logical analysis.
2. It''s indisputable that every year the misuse of alcoholic beverages causes far more carnage among children as well as adults than does negligent or criminal use of firearms, yet we know that none of us who dares call himself a "progressive" would ever propose a law that would prohibit anyone from acquiring an alcolohic beverage by purchase (or by gift from a spouse, parent, son, daughter, family member, friend, etc.) without first passing a "Universal Background Check" to prove such purchaser (or recipient) has never been convicted of drunk driving, has never had a drunk-driving charge dismissed upon successful completion of probation, treatment or counseling, and has never otherwise undergone treatment or counseling for alcohol abuse. So how can we counter the gun-slingers' assertions not only that:
We can't, so we must simply rely upon emotional appeals to LIVs to draw their attention solely to the plight of children and adults murdered by gun-slingers. We needn't worry about responding to such arguments with logic, because we know the LIVs lack a sufficient knowledge-base to understand the context needed for logical analysis.
--KOOK
