My right to bear arms is under fire right now.

[Nanci]

Oh, by the way, if you go to whitehouse.gov and say you do not support anti-gun legislation, you'll get a stream of emails from BO telling you all about the gun-grabbing progress he's making!

 

[Chip]

So I have learned!

 

[Rich Z]

Just keep repeating '20,000 laws' and using 'liberty' as if it means 'I get to do whatever I want or I will hold my breath! Pass the machine gun!' It is childish and silly. Just laws are not infringements, they are protections. And how do you suppose those 20,000 are distributed among states? I require SOME impediment between random idiots walking into a retail store, getting a gun, and driving around with in loaded in their glove boxes. In MA, you need to put some EFFORT in just to be able to buy one. That seems fair. It doesn't inhibit anyone's rights, it just requires some minimal effort beyond mere whim. Here in FL, I need someone to step up and try to implement something that makes sense, and since ignorance presides in this state, I am glad to see the Federal government at least concerned.

If mere whim is all liberty means to you, then this very notion is 'degrading' liberty. If liberty is simply allowing me to do what I want and f*%$ everyone else, then it shouldn't be such a ready and pliant chorus.

So, is everyone an "idiot" who would want to be able to buy a gun, at will, and drive around with it loaded in their glovebox? Are you against just "idiots" or everyone who believes they have a right to do just that? Or do you believe that everyone who believes they have such a right is an "idiot"?

I suppose in a car jacking you would want someone to first exit the car, go to the trunk to fetch their weapon, then load it before telling the car jacker to cease and desist? Yeah, I'm sure that will work...... We could call it the "Carjacker Protection Act".

As long as what I do does not directly harm someone, then yes, I do believe I have a right to do as I please. Why should my rights be restricted because of what someone else has done? Why should I be determined to be guilty until proven innocent in relation to obtaining firearms by being REQUIRED to ask the government's permission to buy a gun?

And since when is a RIGHT contingent upon prior approval by anyone?

 

[Rich Z]

So I have learned!

Complain and put the whitehouse onto the spam block black lists.... :laugh:

 

[Tara80]

Why should my rights be restricted because of what someone else has done?

Because criminals follow laws. :noevil:

 

[Guruofchem]

The sad thing is everyone wants to reduce gun violence - but their gun control legislation isn't a solution to that problem, and they know it and lie about that.

 

[airenlow]

Oh, by the way, if you go to whitehouse.gov and say you do not support anti-gun legislation, you'll get a stream of emails from BO telling you all about the gun-grabbing progress he's making!

You guys get that too?

 

[Rich Z]

Because criminals follow laws. :noevil:

Yeah, I suppose so. Certainly has worked out well concerning "gun free" zones, hasn't it?

 

[the_edsta]

Because criminals follow laws. :noevil:

In response to this quote from rich, simply put, because it isn’t just about YOU. I know it is pleasing to think that it is, and that in American we are all kings (as opposed to simply all equals), but that is the fundamental disagreement of our time. One side wants to keep a paradigm that has favored some groups historically, the other wants to change it to make it more amenable to those who are disfavored.


1. In terms of this ‘criminal’ statement, all of these premises begin with a false dichotomy between good guys and bad guys. This is a reductive oversimplification. The kinds of 'road rage' shootings I brought up in a previous post are generally between two hot-headed folks who happen to have loaded guns in the glove without having taken a gun safety course or having had to reflect at all upon the ramifications of carrying said weapon. In fact, when I recently had a gun pulled on me, if I had my own gun in the glove and pulled it, one or both of us would have ended up dead (rather than simply annoyed). Guns don’t always solve disputes – even violent ones. When I was growing up, we’d just fight. What happened to that? Education is always good, not some kind of impediment or burden. And if you think it is… well all I can say is that once those in favor of regulation have a majority (now, but still a problem), everyone will still be able to have a gun, they’ll just have to put a modicum of work into securing it.


2. I already addressed this 'criminals follow laws' concept in an earlier post by referencing James Q. Wilson's essay "Just Take Away Their Guns." I realize the limitations of gun control fully, this point is clear, and since no one has ever suggested taking away anyone's guns, it is really a red herring. But as I stated previously, the people who have been doing the killing in FL recently aren’t criminals… just hot heads with guns.


3. The tone of this entire argument mirrors the national debate. The majority of people are logical enough to realize that some regulation of any 'liberty' is required, but a strong and very vocal minority constantly filibusters it. This thread epitomizes that: like-minded people huddle in a circle, convince themselves that they have some kind of insight and are 'seeing through' everything (despite many of their arguments being reducible to axioms most high school students live by) and then refuse to listen to outside opinions, creating an 'us vs. them' sense of alterity, and often using derisive language and ad-hominem attacks against those few who infiltrate the circle.


4. Justice Warren Burger once said, in reference to the debate over whether the 1st Amendment covered pornography, that using the amendment to protect porn "demeaned" the Amendment's "grand conception in the historic struggle for freedom." I see this gun debate in the same way: it is shameful to use an amendment intended simply to protect the people in order to keep one’s own collection of the most aggressive and violent forms of weapons. We can say what we want, but this whole thing comes down to hobbyists who don't want to give up their toys, since no one has EVER questioned whether a revolver, shotgun, or rifle can be owned.


5. I know it can be hard to think outside of one's own cultural and historical moment (for me as well), but consider this: Imagine that you are listening to debates between two opposing groups in a foreign country – the Sunni and Shiite, for example. Assuming both groups share equal rights, and assuming that executive power is more or less evenly distributed among the two of them, with periodic fluctuations of course, imagine if one group was constantly speaking about how they needed weapons, without any further restrictions even on magazine size, and that it was essential to keep these weapons in case the government was ever not to their liking so they might be able to act. Now imagine the other side was constantly talking about education and health care for everyone…


Oh… and about the brick wall… YOU guys have been my bricks! And because my head is needed elsewhere, I will try to gracefully bow out of this thread soon (you are some very stubborn bricks indeed!). Nonetheless, I will continue to listen to your advice on Corn snakes! (I am consistent as well… I believe in the regulation of potentially invasive exotic species (get a license… make people work for it so only those who actually are capable and serious about it can have them!)).

 

[Tara80]

What you say is so contradictory to common sense.
I don't see anyone here acting as an 'extremist', as you put it.
The root of the problem is very clear. It has nothing to do with objects but the people utilizing the objects.
Cars are much more dangerous than guns. This is obvious. Anyone can get behind the wheel and use it to their advantage; good or bad. There ARE checks and balances implemented to ensure that you have to have the correct credentials to be able to own one/buy one but that doesn't stop someone from using one. I mean, people are being caught here daily, driving drunk on a revoked license, and they are usually caught because they killed someone or caused an accident. Should we ban automobiles, or slap more controls on them?

You're pointing a finger at people for debating their gun rights as opposed to "more important thing" but that's exactly what I say to people who feel more gun controls need to be implemented. Let it be and stop debating it? Start worrying more about other issues instead of worrying about who can and cannot own a gun.
Such as assistance for education (the way it was 10 years ago?), support organizations for mental health and addictions, even self defense awareness....

The problem is not the inanimate object, but the wielder of that object. THAT is where the eye glasses should be focused. Amazing how many "attacks" using guns have been in the main stream media but certainly not the events where someone has taken down an unstable person with a gun (using a gun), avoiding catastrophe; and this happens a lot.
What’s interesting to me is that gun control has been proven to not work, throughout history, just like socialism; but it doesn’t stop people from attempting to repeat a failed history over and over again.
How can we living in a Country that professes to be free but then continues to take more and more rights away?
I honestly believe that you are barking up the wrong tree and not looking at the core of the problem.
Case in point - this never used to be such a huge problem here in the US; but it is now. something has changed and it's not the weapon.

 

[Rich Z]

In response to this quote from rich, simply put, because it isn’t just about YOU. I know it is pleasing to think that it is, and that in American we are all kings (as opposed to simply all equals), but that is the fundamental disagreement of our time. One side wants to keep a paradigm that has favored some groups historically, the other wants to change it to make it more amenable to those who are disfavored.

Oh, but it IS about me. It's MY rights that you are encouraging others to take away. Just as it is about everyone else's rights that wish to keep them and try to encourage OUR representatives to use the US Constitution and Bill of Rights literally, both in letter and intent of the restrictions they itemize concerning the restrictions AGAINST what our government can do to OUR rights. OUR rights are specifically spelled out on the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. THAT gives us the RIGHT to demand them, regardless of what people wish otherwise.

1. In terms of this ‘criminal’ statement, all of these premises begin with a false dichotomy between good guys and bad guys. This is a reductive oversimplification. The kinds of 'road rage' shootings I brought up in a previous post are generally between two hot-headed folks who happen to have loaded guns in the glove without having taken a gun safety course or having had to reflect at all upon the ramifications of carrying said weapon. In fact, when I recently had a gun pulled on me, if I had my own gun in the glove and pulled it, one or both of us would have ended up dead (rather than simply annoyed). Guns don’t always solve disputes – even violent ones. When I was growing up, we’d just fight. What happened to that? Education is always good, not some kind of impediment or burden. And if you think it is… well all I can say is that once those in favor of regulation have a majority (now, but still a problem), everyone will still be able to have a gun, they’ll just have to put a modicum of work into securing it.

Both sides of this argument can easily come up with examples to support their arguments. It's a diversified world we live in with all kinds of people living within it. Bad guys are here. Stupid people are here. Again, my argument is that why should I, and people of a like mind, be punished because of the actions of a minority that are bad, stupid, or both? Why should we be preemptively branded as being dangerous and particular weapons withheld from us based on what someone else has done? This is the equivalent of removing everyone's vocal chords when they walk into a movie theater to keep them from being able to yell out "FIRE!" just to cause a panic. Yes, it certainly can cause injuries and possible deaths when someone does that. But are we really willing, as a country, to preemptively rubber baby buggy bumper the entire planet to make it a warm, fuzzy, cozy and safe cocoon for us? Are we REALLY willing to give up our freedoms for the sake of the illusion of security?

Nope, guns don't ALWAYS solve disputes. On the other hand, neither are they ALWAYS used in a dangerous manner, regardless of what they look like, nor how many rounds their magazines hold, or what they CAN do if misused. And yes, sometimes they DO help resolve issues in a positive manner that probably would not have ended as well without them.

Education? Sorry, I must have missed where that came into the conversation. What sort of education has been proposed in relation to background checks?

And in case this little detail escaped your attention, the USA is NOT a Democracy, whereby the rule of law is based simply on a majority. The founders of this country were wise enough to realize that a majority of those people voting on an issue can be easily enough hoodwinked into having bad and dangerous laws passed that are actually contrary to the PEOPLE of this country's welfare. Which is why we are a Constitutional Republic instead. Even if a majority is hoodwinked into wanting a law to pass, it must still be Constitutional (in theory anyway) to be legally enforceable. Boiled down to it's most simple analogy, the definition of TRUE Democracy can be shown by the concept of two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner tonight.

2. I already addressed this 'criminals follow laws' concept in an earlier post by referencing James Q. Wilson's essay "Just Take Away Their Guns." I realize the limitations of gun control fully, this point is clear, and since no one has ever suggested taking away anyone's guns, it is really a red herring. But as I stated previously, the people who have been doing the killing in FL recently aren’t criminals… just hot heads with guns.

Really? What about the laws that have taken away imported firearms? Firearms that don't pass some nebulous "sporting" definition? Fully automatic weapons are illegal to manufacture and sell to the general public now. Those rare one still available have been priced out of the reach of the average person completely. The "assault weapon" ban attempted to remove an entire class of firearms with arbitrary details of what constituted those firearms, and they want to bring that up again in a much more broad context.

Representatives have flatly stated that if they could they would remove ALL guns from private ownership. And you can state here that "no one has ever suggested taking away anyone's guns"? Are you ignorant of the facts and history, or just being purposely blind to such details merely to support your arguments?

3. The tone of this entire argument mirrors the national debate. The majority of people are logical enough to realize that some regulation of any 'liberty' is required, but a strong and very vocal minority constantly filibusters it. This thread epitomizes that: like-minded people huddle in a circle, convince themselves that they have some kind of insight and are 'seeing through' everything (despite many of their arguments being reducible to axioms most high school students live by) and then refuse to listen to outside opinions, creating an 'us vs. them' sense of alterity, and often using derisive language and ad-hominem attacks against those few who infiltrate the circle.

Oh really? Seems to me that there is a vocal minority of people who are so fearful of their own personal welfare and afraid of those black military style weapons that they just want them taken away from everyone. It is all about fear, you know. People fearing being hurt. People fearing other people might have the means to hurt them.

And yes, the same could be said about the pro-gun faction in that there is some fear involved. The fear that professed good intentions hide a darker intent. That "reasonable" laws are only reasonable to the ones who make them. Yes, there is fear that our government does not have our best interests at heart, and history has shown plainly that this is not an impossible future for the USA. We fear a government who fears US, because we wonder what in the world they have to fear from us if they have our best interests in mind. So yes, we will tenaciously and vigorously defend our RIGHTS from all parties who try to take them from us. Sorry if that is scary to you, but that's just the way it is. We have a right to not have our ability to keep and bear arms (and that means ALL OF THEM) infringed. It's right there in the Bill of Rights, IN WRITING.

4. Justice Warren Burger once said, in reference to the debate over whether the 1st Amendment covered pornography, that using the amendment to protect porn "demeaned" the Amendment's "grand conception in the historic struggle for freedom." I see this gun debate in the same way: it is shameful to use an amendment intended simply to protect the people in order to keep one’s own collection of the most aggressive and violent forms of weapons. We can say what we want, but this whole thing comes down to hobbyists who don't want to give up their toys, since no one has EVER questioned whether a revolver, shotgun, or rifle can be owned.

I see. So what exactly DOES the Second Amendment mean to you? Why exactly was it put into the Bill of Rights in the first place? Do you propose it has something to do with people being able to collect toys? So you apparently believe that as long as we are able to keep even one gun, even if it is only a single shot .22 pistol, then our Second Amendment right is being satisfied fully concerning the intent and letter of what that Amendment means?

5. I know it can be hard to think outside of one's own cultural and historical moment (for me as well), but consider this: Imagine that you are listening to debates between two opposing groups in a foreign country – the Sunni and Shiite, for example. Assuming both groups share equal rights, and assuming that executive power is more or less evenly distributed among the two of them, with periodic fluctuations of course, imagine if one group was constantly speaking about how they needed weapons, without any further restrictions even on magazine size, and that it was essential to keep these weapons in case the government was ever not to their liking so they might be able to act. Now imagine the other side was constantly talking about education and health care for everyone…

Is there a world somewhere where that is actually happening?

Oh… and about the brick wall… YOU guys have been my bricks! And because my head is needed elsewhere, I will try to gracefully bow out of this thread soon (you are some very stubborn bricks indeed!). Nonetheless, I will continue to listen to your advice on Corn snakes! (I am consistent as well… I believe in the regulation of potentially invasive exotic species (get a license… make people work for it so only those who actually are capable and serious about it can have them!)).

Apparently you are a really great guy for wanting to restrict anything that you don't have any interest in, and to hell with what others may want to have. It's not my (gun, animal, right) being taken away, so what the heck do I care, eh?

Do you know what the REAL cost of TRUE freedom is? Well, it's cost is having to put up with other people having the freedom to do something that you may not particularly like. Otherwise, YOU may be doing something that THEY don't like, and they can take that away from you. So they have to bear that cross as well.

 

[Outcast]

Rich covered every point that I wanted to make and more.

Also, on the violent crimes stuff that is constantly debated, since I am pretty sure you did not see it, or read the link, I will repost something that I have littered every piece of social media that I am on.
http://justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp This is a very well put together article.

 

[Tara80]

And yes, the same could be said about the pro-gun faction in that there is some fear involved. The fear that professed good intentions hide a darker intent. That "reasonable" laws are only reasonable to the ones who make them. Yes, there is fear that our government does not have our best interests at heart, and history has shown plainly that this is not an impossible future for the USA. We fear a government who fears US, because we wonder what in the world they have to fear from us if they have our best interests in mind. So yes, we will tenaciously and vigorously defend our RIGHTS from all parties who try to take them from us. Sorry if that is scary to you, but that's just the way it is. We have a right to not have our ability to keep and bear arms (and that means ALL OF THEM) infringed. It's right there in the Bill of Rights, IN WRITING.

SO very very true. This is very well put Rich. If you disarm a nation and create a nation of sheep, it makes it so easy for the wolves to take over. No ability to defend ourselves, and it WILL eventually happen. It has time and time again throughout history. What would we be able to do to save ourselves if the unthinkable happened? This isn't just about gun control, it's about changing the way our nation thinks... becoming dependent on our government; our "leadership" to make our decisions for us. To lead us. To do everything for us. What happens when that goes terribly wrong... because it WILL. The pendulum swings. Wolves DO exist in sheep's clothing; whether you like it or not.

 

[tsst]

In response to this quote from rich, simply put, because it isn’t just about YOU. I know it is pleasing to think that it is, and that in American we are all kings (as opposed to simply all equals), but that is the fundamental disagreement of our time. One side wants to keep a paradigm that has favored some groups historically, the other wants to change it to make it more amenable to those who are disfavored.

As Rich said it is about US, we the people. Aside from a few in DC I see nobody is proclaiming monarchism, to the contrary, liberty from it. Who is disfavored by the paradigm of liberty for all?

2. I already addressed this 'criminals follow laws' concept in an earlier post by referencing James Q. Wilson's essay "Just Take Away Their Guns." I realize the limitations of gun control fully, this point is clear, and since no one has ever suggested taking away anyone's guns, it is really a red herring. But as I stated previously, the people who have been doing the killing in FL recently aren’t criminals… just hot heads with guns.

:shrugs:


Once they choose to kill unjustifiably they are criminals not just hot heads.

3. The tone of this entire argument mirrors the national debate. The majority of people are logical enough to realize that some regulation of any 'liberty' is required, but a strong and very vocal minority constantly filibusters it. This thread epitomizes that: like-minded people huddle in a circle, convince themselves that they have some kind of insight and are 'seeing through' everything (despite many of their arguments being reducible to axioms most high school students live by) and then refuse to listen to outside opinions, creating an 'us vs. them' sense of alterity, and often using derisive language and ad-hominem attacks against those few who infiltrate the circle.

Nobody is arguing for NO regulation, to the contrary we are arguing logical regulation. While I don’t believe in restricting my right to own a certain firearm or one of a certain capacity, I do believe I should not be able to arbitrarily use said firearm in the commission of a crime. I don’t believe regulating a law abiding citizen does anything to prevent criminal behavior as the two are antipodal.

I view the refusal to listen, derisive language and ad-hominem attacks as coming from the gun-grabbing "circle". Part of my problem may be that I assume those of seemingly fair intelligence would at very least question the failure of 20,000 existing gun laws to curb the criminal behavior and demand another course. I have trouble grasping why someone with a modicum of common sense would continue to buy the “another gun law” proclivity coming from DC as a fix to the problem that is criminal violence.:shrugs:

4. Justice Warren Burger once said, in reference to the debate over whether the 1st Amendment covered pornography, that using the amendment to protect porn "demeaned" the Amendment's "grand conception in the historic struggle for freedom." I see this gun debate in the same way: it is shameful to use an amendment intended simply to protect the people in order to keep one’s own collection of the most aggressive and violent forms of weapons. We can say what we want, but this whole thing comes down to hobbyists who don't want to give up their toys, since no one has EVER questioned whether a revolver, shotgun, or rifle can be owned.

While it may be demeaning that should not equate to a limitation on that freedom.

I believe it egregiously shameful to use tragic events and criminal behavior as cause to restrict liberty, that came at such a high cost, under the false guise of safety.

Your argument goes astray with the spewing of talking points. It is simple fallacy that an inanimate object possesses aggressive and violent traits. Those traits unfortunately belong to humanity.

Oh… and about the brick wall… YOU guys have been my bricks! ... (you are some very stubborn bricks indeed!).

Likewise! Thousands died to give us liberty. It would seem the least I can do is be stubborn in not giving it away!!!
:headbang::headbang::headbang:

 

[beautifullywild77]

Likewise! Thousands died to give us liberty. It would seem the least I can do is be stubborn in not giving it away!!!
:headbang::headbang::headbang:

This right here!!!! Amen!!!!!

 

[Outcast]

Congratulations everyone who voted for Obama. You voted for a man who is not afraid of change, as long as that change can be accomplished by the usage of a crisis... (It took me a while to think of how to post this, without fully offending everyone out there.

The White House, Washington



Hello, everybody --

Each week, like many presidents before me, I sit down to record a short address to the nation. It's something I take very seriously because it offers a chance to bring focus to an issue that needs to be part of the national dialogue.

But today, I've asked someone to take my place.

Francine Wheeler is a mother. She and her family live in Newtown, Connecticut. Four months ago, her six year-old son Ben was murdered in his elementary school, along with 19 other children and six brave educators.

Joined by her husband David, Francine shares her perspective about the steps we can take to reduce gun violence and prevent the kind of tragedy she understands all too well.

It's a message that every American should hear:

Watch Francine, then join her in speaking out to make our country safer.

This week, because people like Francine and like you got involved, the U.S. Senate took a step forward on commonsense reforms to reduce gun violence.

And that's good. Because this shouldn't be about politics. This is about doing the right thing for families that have been torn apart by gun violence, and for all our families going forward.

But we've got a lot of work to do before Congress finishes the job.

So if you believe that we can take sensible steps to protect more of our kids from gun violence and protect our Second Amendment rights, stand up and join us.

Just visit WhiteHouse.gov to get started:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/newtown-address

Thanks,

President Obama

 

[kathylove]

And when these new, "sensible" laws don't stop the next tragedy any better than all the laws before them, what new, "sensible" laws can we expect next? And then, next, after those don't work, either?

Why is it that I didn't worry in high school about any violence worse than fist fights, yet nobody made a big deal of it if you had a pocket knife at school, or even if somebody had a rifle in the back window of their pick up truck in the school parking lot? Nobody ever brought one INTO the school, as far as I know. And I don't remember anyone ever being disciplined for even attempting to do so. It is not because of all of the new laws since I graduated in 1970. So why was it different then, compared to now?

 

[airenlow]

My dad took guns to school for ROTC in the late 70's...

 

[kathylove]

I guess guns have gotten much more dangerous since the '70s. It couldn't possibly be that people (or our society) has changed, and that those changes need to be addressed. It must be the guns that have changed since then!

Now I read about grade school kids being charged or suspended from school for making a gun shape WITH THEIR FINGERS! Or for DRAWING A PICTURE of a gun! We used to play "cops and robbers" with kind of realistic looking toy guns when I was a kid. Nobody thought it was a problem at that time. My little brother was involved in the YMCA target shooting competitions and took gun safety courses in jr. high school (does the Y still offer that these days?). We were much more exposed to toy guns, real guns, hunting, etc, than kids are today. What other factors have changed since then?

 

[Chip]

Our president is standing on children's graves.