Anti-Gun Nut Thinks “Everyone Wins” If Ammunition Is Outlawed

[priell3]

The Huffington Post published one doozy of an anti-gun rant today. In it the author thinks he’s stumbled upon a fool-proof way to circumvent the 2nd Amendment by simply banning the manufacture and sale of ammunition. By his reasoning, no ammunition equals no more gun crime and he thinks it’s all totally Constitutional.

Hilariously, Dale Hansen’s delusional gun control article is titled Conservatives are Delusional About Facts on Guns

This thing is kind of all over the place. The author starts by complaining that actor Vince Vaughn supports the 2nd Amendment and that Fox News supports Vaughn. In a GQ interview Vaughn said, “All these gun shootings that have gone down in America since 1950, only one, or maybe two have happened in non-gun-free zones.” Which Fox’s Greg Gutfeld agreed with, causing the author to whine this:

Of course the bigger problem here is that Gutfeld is convinced that his version of reality represents facts. Is it true that since 1950 only one or two mass shootings have occurred in non-gun-free zones? The shootings at Fort Hood and the Washington Naval Base are two recent mass shootings which clearly don’t fit the “gun-free” profile.

While Fort Hood and The Washington Naval Yard are military installations, they are in fact gun-free zones. Soldiers and civilian employees in both of those places were forbidden to carry or possess guns in any way. The killers in each incident preyed upon unarmed victims until armed police stopped them. That was delusion #1.

In delusion #2 Hansen tries to argue against the correlation between the 50% rise in gun sales since 1977 and the 50% drop in the murder rate since 1977. He figures it’s not “more guns equal less crime” but rather:

Perhaps the causation here is that there are less murders now because less people have access to guns.

Delusion #3 has the author not understanding the difference between good guys with guns and bad guys with guns:

But making matters worse is when this group, arguing against gun control, held up the stop and frisk policy in New York as a success because as Gutfeld said “it is a fairly obvious point — stop and frisk gets guns — that prevents gun crime.” Amazingly, Gutfeld isn’t even aware how he completely contradicted himself. While arguing that more guns equals less crime he admits that he supports a “fairly obvious” policy of taking people’s guns because in his words “that prevents gun crime.” This is exactly the argument that gun rights advocates have been making for years. The only difference is, Gutfeld believes that race should play a part in determining who is allowed to have a gun.

No, the only difference is Gutfeld, and anyone who isn’t stupid, recognizes that disarming criminals, not law-abiding citizens, is what reduces crime.

Finally, we get delusion #4, which is quite possibly the dumbest thing I’ve ever read:

The good news is there is a compromise available. The word “arms” in the constitution has not been specifically defined, which means it is open to interpretation. Instead of trying to outlaw guns, gun control advocates should simply outlaw the manufacture and sale of bullets. The second amendment would remain intact while gun deaths would fall dramatically.

Actually the word “arms” is well defined and it includes all weapons: guns, knives, big sticks, and yes ammunition. Banning “bullets” would be just as unconstitutional as banning guns. The 2nd Amendment wouldn’t remain intact and criminals and the black market would find a way around the ban like they do with any prohibition. The gun death rate would be unaffected.

Just in case that last one doesn’t fly, Hansen gives a bonus delusion with this incredibly racist statement:

If legislators are uncomfortable with this option, the same thing could be accomplished by increasing the taxes on guns and bullets making them unaffordable for many of the mentally unstable individuals that commit these mass murders. Either way everyone wins.

If that isn’t “dog whistle” racism, I don’t know what is. The author is saying that poor people are the crazy ones that commit mass murders and we need to find a way to disarm them. Those same poor minorities that he previously complained about being victims of “stop and frisk.” He is championing the denial of a Constitutional right by making it unaffordable to poor people just like a poll tax.

So the same guy that thinks conservatives are delusional about guns believes that everybody wins when civil rights are denied and placed out of reach for average people. I’m guessing Dale Hansen doesn’t really know what the word “delusional” means.

http://downtrend.com/71superb/anti-g...on-is-outlawed

[ideaman]

What these gun controllers fail to recognize what they are doing is a double-edged sword. Every right they restrict, restricts their rights. They need to realize that if they can't defeat their attackers with their hands and feet, (not allowed offensive weapons), they will not be able to defend themselves or their families.

They must answer the question: So how are you going to do it?

[jthrelf]

What these gun controllers fail to recognize what they are doing is a double-edged sword. Every right they restrict, restricts their rights. They need to realize that if they can't defeat their attackers with their hands and feet, (not allowed offensive weapons), they will not be able to defend themselves or their families.

They must answer the question: So how are you going to do it?

They plan to rely on the police (that can't be everywhere at once). The classic wimpy liberal will always want to rely on someone else to do things for them. That is just their pathetic overall attitude.

Nice breakdown, Priell. +rep.

What always cracks me up about these huff post types is they complain about minimum wages, discrimination of poor people, war against 1%ers but yet they advocate taxing ammunition?! Apparently poor people don't deserve an economical or practical way to defend themselves and their family. The "lets make it prohibitively expensive" gun control argument pisses me off the most of any. So hypocritical.

[Qtrborecrazy]

Now how in the hell will we be able the go hunting? Another dumbass heard from, he should move to Brazil where no one is allowed to own, problem solved.

[ATBackpackin]

And Hillary wants to get rid of "Secret, unaccountable money"............................................ ................for everyone else.

The truth is they just don't give a fuck what happens to you, the serfs, they have men ( and women ) with guns to protect them and theirs. Everyone else who wants gun control is simply a useful idiot.

[God's Country]

My head hurts.

[GunLawyer001]

I assume that the author is another loafer-wearing metrosexual (because he's clearly not smart enough to tie shoelaces).

If his idiot logic were valid, then social conservatives could "respect" the unenumerated "right to abortion" by simply banning all tools USED to perform abortions. Sure, the law would still allow abortions, we'd just be banning some related tools.

Or we could keep abortion legal, while mandating that all abortion mills have their doors locked24/7, allowing no entry except for employees. I'm sure this guy would see how cleverly we circumvented that pesky Constitution and it's penumbral rights.

And just think about how we could similarly "respect" gay marriage and civil rights and illegal aliens, by pretending to accept their rights while outlawing critical support. Sure, you can get married, but only if you get the license from the special office that we never open.

Idiots. Both sides of these issues have brain-dead robots who are absolutely unable to see the other guy's side, but the Lefties are overwhelmed by them. That's why Lefties avoid fair debates, because when the rules are "each side has to rely on provable facts and understandable logic", the Left brings an empty quiver.

So many of their beliefs rely on proven falsehoods. Like the claim that military bases aren't gun-free zones, because the Pentagon-hating snobs have seen a couple of war movies (like "Coming Home", because that wonderful Jane Fonda was in it and the producer hated soldiers) and they always have soldiers and stuff with guns. Except that a military base in the continental USA is in fact a gun-free zone, to the extent that only the MP's and the armory have guns handy, and most of those are unloaded. This is a provable fact, based on existing regulations. You can be court-martialed if you walk around a military base with an unauthorized loaded gun.

The fact that a school might have an armed cop on the premises doesn't remove it from being a "gun-free zone", since that's a statutory concept, meaning that nobody except for a few designated government officials may be armed. Like the courthouse, which is a gun-free zone despite having armed deputies, but none of the little people are permitted ANY means to defend themselves (not even a knife; fortunately, there are usually a LOT of armed deputies and visiting cops in the courthouses, so we avoid spree shootings there. Not so much in schools, which are often 100% unarmed, with the nearest armed person (other than the lunatic shooting the kids) miles away.)

There are no obvious examples of ANYTHING being banned and resulting in 100% removal from society, where that thing is wanted by people, and cheap to produce. We ban private possession of atom bombs, and that's working pretty well, but it costs billions to get up and running to produce them. Guns and ammo can be made in your garage, using hand tools. have we eliminated kiddie porn, meth, marijuana, cocaine, cell phone jammers? Nope. All we've done is made sure that the only people who have them are the worst possible people to have them. Just like guns in places like Chicago and DC and Newark, where the bad guys can easily get guns, but the law-abiding have a rough road. So who's the delusional and heartless asshole, the people like Gutfeld who believe that the law-abiding folks are all guaranteed by the Constitution the ability to defend themselves, or the collectivist zombies who are willing to let many OTHER people die needlessly as part of the inexorable path to Socialism? (Ask them about people terrorized in their homes because they are disarmed, helpless women raped, people murdered because only the bad guys had guns; they'll tell you that "you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs", which is true, but eggs have no Constitutional rights, and the eggs are unable to get fed up to the point where they hang the farmer from the nearest lamppost.)

[dkf]

You could cease all ammunition and firearm manufacturing around the world right now. A hundred years from now both will still be around, used in crimes and elsewhere.

[scruff]

So, he wants to outlaw ammunition and remove it from society, just like we've eliminated crack, meth, heroin, coke, pot, acid, hash, ecstasy, roofies, pcp, mescaline, and anabolic steroids? Yeah, that sounds like a plan.

[priell3]

I guess the author of the article never heard of Prohibition. That worked great.