And Cracked shits the bed.

And joints the bleating for "we need a conversation about guns"!

We get past the standard boilerplate of "I've shot guns but" and "I just want a real conversation and debate" and get to:

But guns are still a part of the core problem. If everything goes as expected this time around, not much will happen. But if nothing goes as expected, maybe we'll finally end up in a real conversation about guns and safety. And if we want that conversation to move beyond a simple "Well, that was tragic, here's hoping something like it doesn't happen again, and again, and again," then we need to stop saying the following four things, because they lead to nowhere. And as we all know, nothing gets done nowhere.

And then he picks for arguments that the writer doesn't want gun owners to use.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Fire and Drugs kill people, too you wanna outlaw matches and drugs?
Guns Save Lives
The Second Amendment says

Now this article is an amazing piece of rhetorical judo. Because no where does he actually have to talk about the Gun Control argument. And how banning guns would actually help things. And what should be banned and why.

Nope the entire onus is on the Gun Rights people to compromise and give up their arguments.

I'll ignore the first two points as they're the most worthless and concentrate on the latter two.

With the third one he concedes a lot of ground and then pretends he hasn't. He admits that guns have been used to stop criminals. Then he freaks out by people saying you defended yourself or that you protected yourself. He draws a direct moral equivalence between a causing harm to another person because you want their life, body, or property and someone fighting back against said aggressor.

Because I don't want to say that "Guns Save Lives" is absolutely meaningless. But it is muddy. It's just not all there, which makes it not have true meaning in the context of the larger conversation. The truth is, "Guns Have Saved Lives. Guns Have Ended Lives. Guns Are Meant to Kill." The issue isn't whether or not we have the right to protect ourselves and others, it's whether or not guns are the best instrument to do the protecting.

Look at his three properties of guns. This guy honestly thinks having something designed to kill and having to use it, in a situation where lethal force is legally justified is wrong. What is the alternative then?

And since he's "just asking questions" he doesn't have to provide a solution to what would be a better instrument. No he's too concerned about the poor goblins.

This is the closest he gets to a "solution"

A gun is not defense. The widespread use of an actual defensive weapon would potentially save more lives than a gun because, again, guns are for killing, not protecting. The sooner we are all provided a weapon LIKE a gun that merely incapacitates a person, the sooner we can safely defend ourselves, instead of defending ourselves by killing each other.

See fighting back is bad! You might hurt someone. We should all just wait until scientists invent sleep rays. You get attacked before that happens? Well too bad, if you fought back you'd just be making this worse.

Again it comes down to this man thinking that killing is never, ever legitimate. And that pending non-existent sleep rays it's better to submit to an aggressor than it is to fight back because fighting back risks killing him.

Classy guy eh?

He also does a collectivist argument that because some people misuse guns, other people who have not must pay for it.

As for the last point the Second Amendment this guy's a total window-licker. We'll ignore his inability to understand grammar and the meaning of comma placement, and his bleating about "it's for the militia only!"

To be fair, he is right in saying that the SCOTUS ruling could be very temporary victory for us gunnies.

Our Constitution, of course, has not been rewritten in more than 200 years (read: ever). But people change, and nations change. Ideals and rights change. Life was, ya know, totally way different 230 years ago.

Yes, it has been changed. Just a couple paragraphs previously you pointed out that it's the Second Amendment. Amendments are exactly that, changes. As for not being changed in 200 years, the last amendment went through in 1992

And here we see the magic of the author's framing device. We just need a conversation about the issue, and the thing getting in the way of the issue is those icky gun nuts. Never-mind what would come out from the issue.

And we get this familiar argument.

Back then, guns were muskets, and muskets could fire about three incredibly inaccurate rounds per minute. Today, an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle can shoot off more than 60 rounds per minute with extreme accuracy, and reload in seconds. Perhaps it's time to reevaluate our needs and freedoms.

Now Linoge has a great takeaway of Michael Moore making the exact same argument.

I'll just add this. In 1807 Forsyth patented the percussion cap. This was only 15 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified. Most of the Founders were around at that time. Forsyth's invention led to a radically new firearm action that was far more reliable.

Note that there was no "Oh no the 2nd Amendment doesn't cover caplocks. It's just for flintlocks." You'd think if the Founders intended the 2nd to just apply to the guns they used, they'd have tried to halt this.

You might say, sure sure but it's not like guns could shoot faster with caplocks!

Let's talk about revolvers then. In 1836, Samuel Colt patented the percussion cap revolver. So about 45 years after the ratification of the Second Amendment another radically new firearm invention came out. One that dramatically increased the firepower, speed, and reliability of a weapon.

You went from having handguns and rifles that fired one shot before reloading to ones that could fire six.

And yet... the Second Amendment was still considered operative. Hell it could have been repealed or modified back then. Especially in light of a massive increase in firepower that happened and became common place within living memory of the ratification of the Second Amendment.

This is a country that banned liquor by constitutional amendment and then repealed that amendment with another.

But remember this article says nothing about what gun control laws should be passed and how. Again the onus is entirely on the gun rights people.

Oh and to show that this guy's not just anti gun but anti liberty this is the sentence that follows immediately after the last quotation:

In fact, regardless of the gun control issue, perhaps we're about 200 years late on reevaluating our needs and freedoms.

Well, well, well. Yes what freedoms and needs do we need to reeavluate eh?
And gotta love how he sneaks in "Why do you need a gun?"

I'll leave it to the reader to check out the nauseating whinny treacle he ends this piece on.

Cody here's a hint. You know why we gun people don't want a conversation? Because we know you antis are either arrogant lairs or arrogant ignoramuses.

For the liar there's this example from Chuck Schumer:

The basic complaint is that the Chuck Schumers of the world want to take away your guns,” Schumer said of the argument made by gun lobbies. “I think it would be smart for those of us who want rational gun control to make it know that that’s not true at all.

Okay so he's not trying to take away our guns; what's the law he's proposing then?

The amendment was sponsored by Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.). S.A. 2575 would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition.

So he's not after our guns, but he's after our magazines. Gee why would people complain he wants to take away our guns? It's like we can't trust the guy.

Where of where would anyone get that idea.

Here's another example with Bloomberg revealing himself to being an arrogant idiot .

“The last time I saw a deer wearing a bulletproof vest was a long time ago,” Bloomberg said."

Here's the problem. You know those old wooden deer rifles, the hunting guns that are the "good ones". Well the most popular calibers for them are .308 or 30-30 Winchester. That makes them capable of penetrating IIIA or lighter ballistic vests.

That's not with armor piecing bullets mind you (which despite Bloomberg's complaints have already been banned) that's just pure kinetic energy. So one can see how saying
a deer wearing a bulletproof vest" is completely moronic. You want a gun that can reliably go through a bullet proof vest? A dear gun is exactly what you'd want.

This shows a deep ignorance of how firearms actually work. It's like taking advice on the abortion debate from a person that thinks a woman gives birth through her belly button.

For an example of mixing massive ignorance and fear mongering lies we can look to the President.

In short the president complains about battlefield AK-47's being on the streets and wants common sense gun laws to do just that.

The problem? AK-47's like that already fall under the National Firearms Act and are thus subject to national registration and special ATF background checks for every purchase and transfer. Oh and the registry was closed in 1986, so no new machine guns can be owned by civilians.

So... either he doesn't know machine guns are already under extremely heavy regulation. Or he's deliberately lying to get people to think scary commie/terrorist machine guns are flooding the streets and are easy to buy.

Ironic given that this is the same man that claimed Executive Privilege to shield the Attorney General during a Congressional Investigation into why the US government was flooding the streets of Mexico with guns.

You see, this is why we don't want ot negotiate with you guys.

The biggest lie of course is that the author's denial of being for gun control. He just wants a conversation.