Found this video being promoted by the anti-gunners. He made some interesting points…also some interesting omissions:
He CONSTANTLY makes references to the common saw of “Everybody owning a nuclear bomb”, this is a Reductio ad absurdum fallacy, still he makes a good point that there are SOME limits. Still those limits are just as easily set by pure practicality than by “weapon control”. The components of a nuclear weapon are so toxic and hazardous that we don’t even need to craft them into a bomb before we have a danger. Also Nuclear weapons, as well as frag-grenades, shoulder-fired rockets, or claymores are just so indiscriminate that to use them for sport or defense effectively without collateral damage is almost impossible.
Of course people can and DO make explosives for recreation , and without incident, but few people have the property that Joe does to have his fun. Tho smaller scale use of explosives is pretty common and fun…hell just look at the 4th of July!
Still his analogies fall flat when he compares speed limits and statutory rape which are BEHAVIORS to banning or restricting guns which are ITEMS. Also he uses lots of belittling statements, insults, and tone…yet he doesn’t outright say where his line in the sand is.
He implies that its .223 Semi-auto rifles, and maybe magazines that hold a certain amount. But notice he stays away from that issue for most of the video.
This is how our opposition debates. They complain about 100 round magazines…and then act to ban anything holding more than 10. They talk about “Weapons of War”, but then seek to ban hunting and target rifles!
Again, more anti-gun people talking about “Debate”, but never actually foster one.
Oh well, with a little luck this will keep them at bay indefinitely…but it means we need to keep bringing the debate to them!