2 ms·

> 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 ar

> 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.