Worth sharing, or perhaps re-sharing, because it’s a few years old, Popehat’s post on how to engage in a meaningful gun debate:
Me: I don’t want to take away dog owners’ rights. But we need to do something about Rottweilers.
You: So what do you propose?
Me: I just think that there should be some sort of training or restrictions on owning an attack dog.
You: Wait. What’s an “attack dog?”
Me: You know what I mean. Like military dogs.
You: Huh? Rottweilers aren’t military dogs. In fact “military dogs” isn’t a thing. You mean like German Shepherds?
Me: Don’t be ridiculous. Nobody’s trying to take away your German Shepherds. But civilians shouldn’t own fighting dogs.
You: I have no idea what dogs you’re talking about now.
Me: You’re being both picky and obtuse. You know I mean hounds.
You: What the fuck.
Me: OK, maybe not actually ::air quotes:: hounds ::air quotes::. Maybe I have the terminology wrong. I’m not obsessed with vicious dogs like you. But we can identify kinds of dogs that civilians just don’t need to own.
You: Can we?
Read the whole thing.
15 thoughts on “Ever True: A Dog Analogy”
This is why machine gun bans have been so successful. While there have been occasional edge cases and murky decisions, machine gun is a well-defined term, you can readily tell if a gun is a machine gun or not and it’s easy to see that there is a real difference in capabilities between machine guns and non-machine guns. As a result, there has been a general acceptance of the machine gun ban and attempts to expand the definition of machine gun haven’t gotten much traction.
The gun controllers learned from this mistake and invented “assault weapons”.
Machine gun actually isn’t so well-defined a term legally, since whether something is or isn’t a machine gun is a question asked over and over, but it’s a whole lot better than “assault weapon.”
“Also, let’s propose Sensible Dog Regulations that would not stop the Latest Dog Attacks! And then get angry when their utter irrelevance is pointed out!
WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING!!”
We’re why we can’t have nice things.
My parents spoke with NJ Representative, Leonard Lance. My parents live in his NJ Congressional District, and after speaking with some of his staff, they were told that Lance and a growing number of Republicans are supporting an Omnibus Gun Control Compromise with Democrats that include the following:
1). A ban on High Capacity Magazines and a 10 round magazine limit.
2). Universal Backround Checks for albeit, all firearms sales (explicitly sales).
3). A National 5 day waiting period for all long-gun sales, 7 day waiting period for all handgun sales, and, expanding the 3 day “Default Proceed” to a 10 day “Default Proceed”.
4). Classifying Bump-Stocks as a “Mechanical Machine Gun Modification Device” putting Bump-Stocks under the Machine Gun Stipulations of the 1934 National Firearms Act.
Unfortunately, I think the Democrats will, in lock-step with eachother, accept this supposed proposal that, I believe will come up for at least US House and Senate Committee Hearings. Sadly, either in 2019 or afterward, we will see a Federal Gun Control Bill composed of what is listed above, pass through the Federal Legislature and be signed by either Trump, or a Democrat President that comes to power after him.
So much for advancing the 2nd Amendment Rights of Americans. Kiss National Reciprocity goodbye, and say hello to advancing the Democrat Party Gun Control Agenda. Of course, Democrats won’t stop with a “compromise”, as they always say that “we must do more”.
Looks like no matter who wins Elections, it’s always the Democrats who are in charge, and America continues swinging, marching, and running to Left of the political spectrum. America is indeed, finished, 2nd Amendment and all.
Doubtful. Unless you are talking NJ Republicans.
Way to spread FUD.
I don’t believe any of that is true. Say what you want about Trump, but no way is he signing that.
This would really surprise me, especially with the waiting period part. That’s not a topic you even hear gun controllers talking about much anymore. It’s all around the background checks, and what’s the point of a waiting period if you pass everything? The hold time doesn’t even have any basis in any event because, as I recall with Charleston, it wouldn’t have mattered if they had to wait 10 days. The FBI simply opted to not do their job on follow-up. Just like the FBI opted not to process the tips coming in. And just like the military opted not to submit required convictions to NICS. There’s no law that works when government workers decide they are just going to opt out of upholding their end of the deal – repeatedly and consistently.
Which is why, while we must always stay vigilant and remain in the offense, we must also call BS on this one. Also, that NJ rep is the Garden State equivalent of Charlie Dent except older. Well, maybe worse. It is a member of the New Jersey GOP after all. A dying breed.
I’m no longer in Lance’s district, but I’m still on his mailing list.
He does occasionally polish some 2A creds at me.
OTOH, he voted NO on HR.38, so scroom
Here it is. Republicans caving, as usual.
I like the analogy – it shows other people how stupid gun laws are and how the creep over time.
The problem with the article is it assumes everyone cares about rights. Most discussions I see people don’t give a crap about rights and are willing to give up whatever rights needed to get the result they want. Hate speech vs freedom of speech is a great example. Many people would gladly give up their freedom of speech in order to control what other people are allowed to say. It’s not that these people don’t understand freedom of speech, they honestly just don’t care. There is an insane level of trust that if we just give government unlimited power it will ‘do the right thing’ and everything will be OK and any discussion of not trusting government is seen as crazy talk.
Excellent article but it makes a significant factual error: the Supreme Court ruled 9 to 0 that the Second Amendment protects and individual right to keep and bear arms. The two dissents in Heller, which 4 justices signed, both say it is an individual right, they just don’t think that handguns are covered if you can still own other kinds of guns like rifles and shotguns. But a total ban would fail even the dissents version of the Second Amendment. None of the justices made the collective rights argument.
You do realisa that there is a ban on owning certain types of dog in Austria? There is a list of “dangerous” breeds and to own one of those you have to pass a test and have a dog licence.
There are breed specific laws in parts of the US too. They tend to be made fun of, but they do exist.
Comments are closed.