Gun Control vs. Trust in Police

[lilpixieofterror]

Last time it was looked at, the Supreme Court stated that access to military weapons wasn't within the purview of protections. Safe to say that counts as limiting firearm capabilities.

Contrary to popular belief these days, you don't need more bullets. You need better aim. Those of us who know better know that people with practice aren't really hampered by capacity limits anyway. You know that.

So why are you even trying to argue about having clip limits when we both know that is just silly? Plus, with millions of 'high capacity' clips out there, how are you going to collect all of them and prevent their illegal circulation?

[Cow Poke]

Opposition to stricter gun regulations is generally associated with conservatism. So is support for police.

Support for stricter gun regulations is similarly correlated with the Left, which of late has cultivated a certain distrust of police.

Pretty much, yeah.

Are these each contradictory positions? They certainly don't correlate the way one might expect at first.

Why are the people who suspect the government of trying to take their guns, or think their own guns are a bulwark against possible tyranny also the people who support the military and police most enthusiastically?

Just off the top of my head, "police" is generally locally controlled (in most of the situations that appear to be in question) and military is generally "over there" defending us.

Why are the people who think that police are the only people who should be trusted with guns also the people who seem to distrust the police?

Interesting question.

These aren't originally my thoughts; I saw them once before through Facebook, then was recently reminded of them again and figured someone here might be able to give a satisfactory resolution to these seeming contradictions.

I think conservatives generally like "order", and.... I'm curious why you don't say "liberals" or... why "conservatives" and "the left"?

[Cow Poke]

Generally speaking though it's true. They're questions I've often wondered myself. Especially the Republican side. They seem to abhor big government, but strangely embrace the police state when it has to do with military or police or counter terrorism agencies.

I don't think most conservatives have a problem with local government, and local law enforcement is not considered "the police state". In fact, many of the people with whom I associate support a requirement that federal law enforcement be required to check with a local sheriff before coming into that sheriff's jurisdiction to make arrests or "amass troops".

[Cow Poke]

They are the true big government advocates when you look at the things they advocate.

Meh.... I think most of us prefer state's rights.

[lilpixieofterror]

Meh.... I think most of us prefer state's rights.

Plus, what sort of 'conservatism' are we talking about? It isn't as though there isn't different flavors of conservatives.

[One Bad Pig]

Meh.... I think most of us prefer state's rights.

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

That's because we're closet Confederates racists.

[Carrikature]

So why are you even trying to argue about having clip limits when we both know that is just silly? Plus, with millions of 'high capacity' clips out there, how are you going to collect all of them and prevent their illegal circulation?

Because placing a limit on capacity isn't unconstitutional, nor does it render the weapon useless. Sparko was claiming otherwise.

[Cow Poke]

magazines!

[Sparko]

Because placing a limit on capacity isn't unconstitutional, nor does it render the weapon useless. Sparko was claiming otherwise.

I said you cant restrict the capacity to the point of making it useless. Like a magazine of only one bullet for a semi-auto rifle.

[Carrikature]

I said you cant restrict the capacity to the point of making it useless. Like a magazine of only one bullet for a semi-auto rifle.

Says who? Nothing says semi-auto weapons have to be allowed, after all.

[Carrikature]

magazines!

Given that they're regularly called both by all involved, this seems a pointless outburst. I've grown up with both clips and magazines as the terminology. They're both valid.

[Sparko]

Says who? Nothing says semi-auto weapons have to be allowed, after all.

Yeah let's restrict all firearms to muskets. Or better yet, B-B guns. Nothing says that the guns have to fire lethal ammo. Nothing except the intent of the constitution.

[Cow Poke]

Given that they're regularly called both by all involved, this seems a pointless outburst. I've grown up with both clips and magazines as the terminology. They're both valid.

Oh, because YOU grew up with magazines regularly being called "clips", it's OK. They're called "clips" by people who don't know much about firearms.

[rogue06]

Given that they're regularly called both by all involved, this seems a pointless outburst. I've grown up with both clips and magazines as the terminology. They're both valid.

A lot of folks mistakenly refer to long arms like the AR-15 as "assault rifles" and "automatic weapons" but doing so does not make it valid and only leads to confusion.

[Cow Poke]

A lot of folks mistakenly refer to long arms like the AR-15 as "assault rifles" and "automatic weapons" but doing so does not make it valid and only leads to confusion.

I suspect in many cases, particularly in the media and by the anti-gun crowd, this is done purposely, not ignorantly.