“I support the second amendment right to bear arms, but I do not believe everybody should be packing. I’m not sure that bringing guns to a gun fight leads to peace or leads to safety.” – Florida State Senator Darryl Rouson in Tampa Bay area lawmakers weigh in on gun debate [via wfla.com]
Not bringing a gun to a gunfight leads to being dead. Result! Oh…
Doesn’t a “gun fight” technically require at least two parties, minimum one on opposing sides?
Then I’m not sure how you can bring a knife to a gunfight.
He doesn’t really support the Second Amendment. End of story.
Like most politicians, I’m pretty sure he’s completely down with having a gun any gunfight he happens to be in. It’s just that he doesn’t think the rest of us should be armed. Politicians are more important than the rest of us, don’t you know.
Standard grabber terminology, “2A, BUT…” proves that!
Common Sense says he is correct. Not everyone should be packing. A Gun is a tool of great power and with great power comes great responsibility. If you carry you need to train and practice and live the 4 rules of gun safety.
Does common sense suggest that choice should be the individual’s or the state’s?
Because I’m fairly sure I know which one the good representative would prefer.
Common sense says that’s a decision best left to the individual because common sense says if the State makes the decision, nobody will be packing but the criminals. There’s a better way of solving the problem this dishonest corruptocrat proposes to solve. Every time some idiot breaks the law with a gun, punish him to the limit. The fear of real consequences tends to weed out the foolhardy and intemperate. The representative’s approach by contrast will leave nothing BUT the foolhardy and intemperate (witness Chicago and Baltimore).
That would be great, except that in many places the mere possession of a gun is the crime for which they will be giving people the max. In a just world your plan would be great. In the real world it’s a gun grabbers dream.
What you get when the good guys leave their guns at home is what happened in Paris. I don’t believe that’s called a gun fight.
I believe it’s called a massacre.
ah the Appeal to Common Sense logical fallacy. so new.
You’d rather a evil POS (D) appeal to satan?
“Common sense will tell us that the power which hath endeavored to subdue us, is of all others the most improper to defend us. Conquest may be effected under the pretence of friendship; and ourselves, after a long and brave resistance, be at last cheated into slavery…. Wherefore, if we must here-after protect ourselves, why not do it for ourselves? Why do it for another?” ( Paine Common Sense pg. 47)
“False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.” – Cesare Beccaria (1738–1794) quoted in The Right to Arms and the American Philosophy of Freedom (via heritage.org)
The problem with the “common sense” argument is that when liars, cheaters and thieves (i.e. POLITICIANS) use it, they are not talking about what an honest person would be referring to as common sense. They are using it to negatively influence the stupid masses into thinking that their lies are common sense and it is a great idea to remove our liberties for a false sense of safety.
Common Sense would indicate that if everyone were armed and everyone knew it there would be a lot less crime. Take the case of Florida. When it became legal to carry it became dangerous to rob people. The thieves started hanging out at the rest stops on the highways out of the airports looking for victims in rental cars coming from the airports as they knew they would be unarmed. Now that is common sense!
There are rino turds out there but don’t conflate the communications and actions of the POS (D), as, a member of which, the OP is certainly about.
(D) heads don’t have a right to use “common sense”, much less have a lock on it.
Yeah. Nobody cares what he believes. If he believes that he can’t uphold the constitution of the United States, I believe he should be dismissed from service and flogged.
And you know what else?! Don’t bring YOUR car to the roads. It might cause traffic. You can drive all you want just don’t take it out on the streets. K?
What civilian goes to gunfights? Is this like a fight club? With rules and sponsors? Who organizes these gatherings? If I’m signing up to go to a gunfight, I’m sure as hell bringing a gun.
If you’re signing up for sponsored gun fights and no one is bringing a gun I believe that is called MMA
“I support the 2nd Amendment but but but but but but but but but but….”
Lordy lordy I get tired of but but but.
Psst Darryl, bringing a gun to a gunfight does lead to peace…someone ultimately gets shot, surrenders or retreats.
Darryl, Darryl one more thing; gunfights…the ones with real guns and real bullets being fired at real people are not supposed to be safe. Ergo, of course bringing a gun to a gunfight does not lead to safety…not immediately anyway.
All the anti’s have a big “but.”
When on uses the word “but,” it effectively negates the clause that came before it.
“I support the Second Amendment, but…” means “I don’t support the Second Amendment.”
So, basically, I guess he means that bringing a gun to a gun fight does not help the situation. Dude. If I knew there was going to be a gun fight, I’d freaking be somewhere else.
Defensive gun use is a response to something none of us can control. Shit happens and when it does, a lot of us want to be armed if and when it goes down. It really isn’t more complicated than that.
This exactly. God bless our military people, who go out looking for gunfights so the rest of us don’t have to. I for one walk out my door every day hoping for a peaceful day. But I bring my gun just in case someone has other ideas.
Seconded. If there were a reliable means of predicting where and when one may need a gun for ones defense, we could safely leave our guns at home and merely avoid those places at those times. Unfortunately the need for a DGU is seldom a scheduled affair, and, occasionally at least, arrises without warning.
This…person however is doubly duplicitous in that not only can the need for a DGU not be predicted, but he insidiously implies that DGUs are some sort of participatory event one enters willingly. I’m pretty sure what he is describing is a duel, which is illegal in the first place. Conflating legitimate DGUs with dueling is inaccurate to say the least, and a pointed and sneaky misrepresentation.
When I read “the need for a DGU is seldom a scheduled affair,” I immediately thought of dueling. Glad to see how you covered that.
One more thing… I liked it better when the antis were honest about their views on the 2nd Amendment. I’m getting a little bit tired of ‘I believe you have a right, but only one that’s so narrowly tailored as to be practically useless’. Just spit it. Get it out there and debate the merits of your position and stand by your principles or fall on your sword. I have to give Hitlery one smidge of credit. She went whole-hog antigun and never changed.
To be fair, she did spend time promising to be gentle with our punishment, trying to deceive us since she knew we were both deplorable and stupid. Even then, of course, we knew she was lying, for one thing her lips were moving.
I support the First Amendment freedom of speech BUT I don’t think everyone needs to be sharing their opinions, that only leads to hate and dissent amongst the people.
Doesn’t sound so ‘reasonable’ when you put it like that, huh? Keep your dumbass opinions to yourself, the Bill of Rights is not a opinion piece written by our forefathers it is an immutable law of every humans rights
The left (AntiFa, snowflakes, professors and such like) in fact practice what you said.
All of them except, maybe, the professors don’t recognize their lack of logic.
The only thing worse than finding yourself in a gunfight, is finding yourself in a gunfight without a gun.
Yeah? What do you ant me to use instead? Foul language? GFYS
Offensive hand gestures?
ANOTHER example why the wall at the border of Liberia needs to be torn down.
Do these anti-gunners even listen to themselves? I’m guessing no…the stupidity they spout would, in the past, be taken as an indication of brain damage.
Not bringing a g un to a gunfight certainly does lead to peace – resting in peace. If you’re looking for security, on the other hand…
Even that isn’t always a positive outcome. Not bringing a gun to a gun fight can lead not only to the peace of the grave, but to the security of the slave. The only viable options are to avoid gun fights when possible, and engage in them fully armed like your life depends on it when you must, because it does.
Mother Jones did a study that showed that bringing hugs to a gun fight leads to peace and safety and Subaru commercials.
If everyone would just lay down and die we’d all be more safe and peaceful is what he’s saying.
>>I’m not sure that bringing guns to a gun fight leads to peace or leads to safety.
I wonder if Mr.PowerTie fully grasps the irony: he has just dismissed the only effective way to restore “peace and safety” by ending a gun fight with weapons brought by law-abidin citizens.
He really should write a book on tactics, full of sagely advice. Like “Remember that a person is unlikely to carry more than several hundred, maybe couple of thousand rounds of ammunition. In a few hours, the shooting will thus subside…”, and so on.
Hey, Senator Rouson, how about this:
“I believe in civil rights but I do not believe everybody should be voting. I’m not sure that bringing morons to a polling station leads to good government.”
Obviously, it doesn’t lead to good government. It leads to you.
Senator Rouson, I need advice. I’m hiding in the janitor’s closet at work, a few coworkers have been shot, and this guy that got fired is still going. I have my 9mm in my hand, but I’m conflicted. It sounds like he’s getting closer, but if I shoot him I don’t know if I can live with the peace and safety I’ll be ruining. Please advise.
“I do not believe everybody should be packing.”. I think this is the key point in his remark. You have to wonder if these guys ever pay any attention to what they say for the public record. By his logic I guess he wouldn’t want you to bring fists to a fistfight either. Probably 90%+ of us know that if you bring fists to a fistfight that pretty much puts the kibosh on the fight leading to peace or leading to safety.
So, the reality is Senator Rouson is against civilians carrying firearms in Public for personal defense, but isn’t brave enough to say that outright in gun friendly Florida without trying to sugar-coat it with “yeah-buts” and illogical nonsense. Maybe the Senator should take his own advice and not bring any words to his Public remarks.
Anyone who says that in public, in front of witnesses, should immediately be placed on the prohibited list, permanently, with the cause listed as “by his own request”.
I agree with this esteemed legislator, we should not bring a gun to a gunfight…..3 or 4 of them maybe but not just one. 🙂
So called “common sense” from a strictly logical perspective is that this State Senator from Florida’s statement is an admission that he is expressing an uninformed opinion rather than fact, yet his conviction in relying on this position as proof is disturbing.
What are we supposed to use man, harsh language?!?
Flame units only. And no grenades.
As far as human beings are concerned “peace was never an option”.
Like Lord Obamao, this demagogue Darryl Rouson argues from a false premise. The straw-man he sets up is the contention that everyone should be armed, even against their will. Who, exactly, advocates such a ludicrous position?
He doesn’t want gunfights.
He wants executions.
He has that in common with Nathan Bedford Forrest and Adolf Eichmann.
Well then he should be fine with this law since it does not require everyone to “be packing”.
Someone needs to invent a stupid detector so politicians like this can be rendered speechless.
The doctrine of “Peace Through Superior Firepower” disagrees with the good state senator from Florida.
Spoken like a true Democrat. The only people who should have guns are my security detail.
The word “but” in any sentence that begins “I support the Second Amendment…” renders that clause a lie.
No, you don’t.
He’s right. Whenever I fear that I’m going to a gunfight I don’t just take a gun.
I take Chuck Norris.
DISCLAIMER: I’m addressing just the quote of the day, and not it’s context.
This is the sort of pernicious “common sense” gun control argument that is most dangerous. Everything he said is true. Well accept maybe “I support the second amendment right to bear arms”. I kind of doubt it. Anytime you debate someone who says that, agree that the 2A is good. Ask them if it is part of the Constitution. Ask them if we should violate the Constitution. Then ask them what it means. Half of every argument is about definitions. Yesterday I convinced a liberal that we should not accept everyone’s views by educating her on the difference between acceptance and tolerance.
“I do not believe everybody should be packing.”
1. I’m sure he doesn’t believe everyone “should be packing.”
2. I don’t think anyone does believe that. There is a reason none of my sisters’ kids carry. Especially the infant. That’s just one example, but there are plenty.
“I’m not sure that bringing guns to a gun fight leads to peace or leads to safety.”
1. I’m sure he isn’t sure. I am willing to accept anyone lacks basic knowledge. Everyone is stupid, ignorant, or both about something. Some people are always stupid and ignorant about most things.
2. Violence often begets violence. One gangbanger bringing a gun to a gun fight in progress isn’t going to solve gang violence.
3. Gun fights are not safe. Bringing a gun to a gun fight does not lead to safety. It leads to danger because there is a gun fight at the gun fight. That’s why I will try to flee any gun fights I happen upon.
Now for the counterarguments to his points.
“I support the second amendment right to bear arms.”
1. Like I said, I didn’t read the context, but I am familiar enough with hedging in general and this debate in particular to place money on the fact that you are lying. And I don’t gamble.
“I do not believe everybody should be packing.”
1. That is a strawman argument. I have never heard anyone in the 2A community seriously suggest that everyone should even own a gun. Even when you limit “everyone” down to law abiding sane citizens of majority age.
2. That said, everyone, or at least the limited definition of everyone, should be allowed to “pack” just about everywhere. That’s how rights work. They afford the individual the choice of whether or not to exercise said rights.
3. More people should be packing. Laws allowing concealed carry but not allowing open carry are the only gun control law shown to have an inverse correlative effect on crime. It has been shown that the more people who have concealed carry licenses, the more crime goes down. I have not seen studies on the effect of open carry on crime or comparing the effects of open vs. concealed vs. both.
“I’m not sure that bringing guns to a gun fight leads to peace or leads to safety.”
1. There is no peace or safety at a gun fight. The only way to achieve either is to end the gun fight.
2. Using a gun in a gun fight is the best, often the only, way to end a gun fight. That’s why we call those guys who carry guns when there is a gun fight.
Bringing a gun to a gunfight certainly doesn’t increase safety compared to not showing up for the gun fight.
Bringing a gun to a gun fight certainly reduces the safety of the other party , who would be much safer if he was the only one with the gun.
A gun fight is like the most dangerous thing you can go to. There is no way to have a “safe ” gun fight. Maybe get both parties to use airsoft. But I wouldn’t count on that from most muggers , rapists etc to oblige.
This is one of those statements that just makes my mouth drop open a little as I try and rationalize how someone this dumb ends up in a position of any governmental authority.
loinfomofos
I’ve always wondered about the phrase “bring a gun to a gun fight”. It suggests you had prior knowledge of said gun fight, or discovered one was happening and decided to join in.
Gunfight run if you can if not shoot the fuccker
Comments are closed.