What Motivates Someone To Oppose A Ban On Assault Weapons?
BY Herschel Smith
11 years, 9 months ago
Wonders Norman:
After listening to most of the arguments concerning gun control, I have yet to hear an answer to this question: Why would any intelligent and reasonable person with a social conscience oppose a ban on assault weapons?
Bless your heart, Norman. I’m sorry that no one is paying attention to your questions. I will be happy to explain what would motivate someone to oppose a ban on “assault weapons.”
God.
On February 5, 2013 at 3:24 pm, Erik said:
I respect your belief system like I’ll respect anyone’s but I don’t think religion is a proper or acceptable argument point for “assault weapon” bans or any form of political discussion. It’s these kind of “arguments” that allow the anti-gun people to say “Well they don’t have any good reasons. Now they’re just spouting God Bless America.”
On February 5, 2013 at 3:55 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Just because someone rejects my world view (classical Christianity) doesn’t mean that I jettison it in favor of that person’s world view. That would be irrational.
My worldview dictates (not just allows, but dictates) that I use whatever the best means available for self defense and defense of my family. It is my God-given duty. Not right. Duty.
So if I believe that, why would I say that I didn’t, or opt in favor of someone’s view who didn’t believe that? Why would you do something irrational, or attempt to persuade someone else to be irrational?
On February 5, 2013 at 4:05 pm, Chuck said:
The problem with rejecting the idea that our rights are God-given (or natural rights) is that you’re left with the statist notion that our rights are granted by government. In other words your rights are now privileges and what government giveth, government taketh.
On February 5, 2013 at 4:53 pm, Nick the Canuck said:
I disagree Chuck. I’m an atheist and I don’t buy the statist notion posed at all. I believe that a right is something inherent to us which can only be either acknowledged and protected, or legislated against (ie: oppressed) by governing bodies. I don’t believe that has to come from any deity or higher power, but from our own moral judgements. What I love about TCJ is that while I don’t share the theological beliefs expressed the arguments posed make no less sense without them. They tend to stand rationally on their own.
On February 5, 2013 at 5:55 pm, Jean said:
I have a hard time with whole social conscience concept. My reason for opposing a ban on assault weapons or magazine capacity is historical and practical. My great-great x4 grandfather was probably on his back or moving to another covered and concealed position., trying to reload his American made rifle, pushing the bullet, paper and powder down a thirty inch barrel. I am sure he was thinking- “Man I wish there was an easier way to reload. Well Gramps, your wish and hopes have come true for future generations. We have semi automatic rifles and high capacity magazines and the birthright that you and your descendants bequeathed us. We also have the right to bear those arms, not to hunt, but to protect that legacy that you and so many have fought to protect.
Norman- the person or persons that would attack you or your family, in your home or in a grocery store parking lot, will have no social conscience, they will be devoid of compassion or empathy.
On February 5, 2013 at 8:55 pm, Erik said:
You’re absolutely right, Herschel. All I’m trying to say is that you have very good points for your opposition to an assault weapon ban that aren’t religiously motivated and you’ve made those points well known on here before.
It’s just my ‘suggestion’ for lack of better wording to consider using those tangible points instead of the duty to God point when speaking to a wider audience. Believe it or not, there’s a lot of people out there that will see you talking about your religious duty and disregard you as some religious nut or extremist without even giving your other arguments the time of day. Those arguments could be eye opening to some of them.
But it’s not my place to tell you what to do and it’s not my intention to. I’m personally not religious and if you believe it’s your duty granted by a higher power to defend yourself and your family with whatever you feel you need to do so then great, you’ve got my thumbs up.
On February 6, 2013 at 8:09 am, drycreekboy said:
What’s so maddening about the discussion you link to is that nobody, not even the pro-gun rights folks, care to address just how few people are murdered by any rifle (including non hi-cap semi-autos) in a given year. Just 323 for 2011 nationwide, and I have to think that for MN the number wouldn’t be out of the dozens. The number for handgun deaths is about 20 times that.
The assault weapons ban is not about preventing violence. It is culture war by proxy.