07-10-2016, 11:55 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-10-2016, 11:57 PM by Eric the Green.)
(07-10-2016, 11:42 PM)Galen Wrote:(07-10-2016, 04:42 PM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote:(07-09-2016, 06:32 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:(07-09-2016, 05:48 PM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote: The gun fanatics say that gun control is "prohibition," and then trot out the reasons why prohibition doesn't work. Irrelevant straw man. Or they think that banning military weapons is violating our rights. Both non-starters. Gun control is not gun prohibition, and military weapons are different from civilian guns.
I am not advocating prohibition, at least not in the foreseeable future, or by forcible confiscation. But that will not stop the gun fanatics from claiming that I am.
Some of that is just argument about the definition of a word. Do you want the government to prohibit stuff? If so, you can reasonably be said to favor a prohibition. Check your dictionary. I'm using a common definition.
The other part is fact. Did alcohol prohibition work well in the 1930s? How has the war on drugs been doing? How well have recent attempts to keep bad guys from getting weapons worked?
Putting laws on the books is one thing. Enforcing them is another.
It's not about the definition; that can't be disputed. You can't say that alcohol prohibition has ended, and then say gun control is prohibition. Not and still be in accord with reality. Drinking is NOT allowed for everyone and under all conditions. To think so is not to be concerned with facts. So the argument that prohibition does not work is a pure straw man, and does not deserve consideration in this debate.
The end game as you have made abundantly clear is in fact prohibition.
As I have made clear, only when and if the people want it, by a large enough majority that there won't be gun lovers crying "from my cold, dead hands!"
Not likely in my lifetime or yours. And my ideas are irrelevant; the gun control activists include gun owners like Gabby Giffords. Prohibition is not their proposal.