3 ms·

The war on the freedom to do drugs* It's no more a war on drugs than "gun control" is about controlling guns. "gun control" is actually citizen disarmament, be

The war on the freedom to do drugs* It's no more a war on drugs than "gun control" is about controlling guns. "gun control" is actually citizen disarmament, because every law they pass exempts the police, military, and retired police. So its' not about guns, but who can have them. Both of these represent a propaganda technique known as 'framing': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences) When people think of it as "gun control" it presupposes the notion that guns are out of control when that isn't the issue. Same with "the war on drugs" drugs are an inanimate set of chemicals. It's not a war on drugs, but a war on personal freedom to do them. But when you frame it that way, it's obviously reprehensible. Especially in the "land of the free".

MauranKilom 5y ago
> When people think of it as "gun control" it presupposes the notion that guns are out of control when that isn't the issue. To clarify: Are you saying guns are not out of control, or guns being out of control is not an issue? Also, if you were to substitute "nukes" or "ebola vials" for "guns" in your argument, would it still stand? If not, where do you see the difference? (To be clear, I'm not convinced that your argument applies equally to drugs and guns, this is why I'm extrapolating it here.)
- NaturalPhallacy 5y ago
  >Are you saying guns are not out of control, or guns being out of control is not an issue? Guns are inanimate objects and thus are not capable of being out of control. >Also, if you were to substitute "nukes" or "ebola vials" for "guns" in your argument, would it still stand? Yes, no, and yes. Ebola is a living thing that can act independently once released. Even a nuke either explodes or doesn't. The issue I'm trying to raise is not so much about guns, but the propaganda phrase used to promote citizen disarmament. The subject is accurately described as citizen disarmament, because of the exceptions included in every second amendment infringing law. They invariably exempt authority from the restrictions when the second amendment explicitly prohibits exactly this. If every law they passed an tried to pass applied also to the military, police, and retired police then it would actually be "gun regulation". But it never does, so it is is not firearms regulation, but citizen (and only citizen) disarmament.
greedo 5y ago
No one thinks gun control needs to apply to the government, except sovereign citizen nuts. The reason many people want gun control is to keep civilians from buying military grade weapons and mowing down other civilians. And not all who want some restrictions on firearm possession want "citizen disarmament."

MauranKilom 5y ago

> When people think of it as "gun control" it presupposes the notion that guns are out of control when that isn't the issue. To clarify: Are you saying guns are not out of control, or guns being out of control is not an issue? Also, if you were to substitute "nukes" or "ebola vials" for "guns" in your argument, would it still stand? If not, where do you see the difference? (To be clear, I'm not convinced that your argument applies equally to drugs and guns, this is why I'm extrapolating it here.)

NaturalPhallacy 5y ago
>Are you saying guns are not out of control, or guns being out of control is not an issue? Guns are inanimate objects and thus are not capable of being out of control. >Also, if you were to substitute "nukes" or "ebola vials" for "guns" in your argument, would it still stand? Yes, no, and yes. Ebola is a living thing that can act independently once released. Even a nuke either explodes or doesn't. The issue I'm trying to raise is not so much about guns, but the propaganda phrase used to promote citizen disarmament. The subject is accurately described as citizen disarmament, because of the exceptions included in every second amendment infringing law. They invariably exempt authority from the restrictions when the second amendment explicitly prohibits exactly this. If every law they passed an tried to pass applied also to the military, police, and retired police then it would actually be "gun regulation". But it never does, so it is is not firearms regulation, but citizen (and only citizen) disarmament.

greedo 5y ago

No one thinks gun control needs to apply to the government, except sovereign citizen nuts. The reason many people want gun control is to keep civilians from buying military grade weapons and mowing down other civilians. And not all who want some restrictions on firearm possession want "citizen disarmament."