I'm not the one who brought up gas chambers and systematic extermination. That was you and Chef.Originally Posted by SWedd523
If your stance is going to be that law enforcement can't track where the guns are once they're sold, because if they know where the guns are then they'll be able to know who has them, and if they know who has them they know who to confiscate them from, and if they know who to confiscate them from then they will confiscate them, and once they confiscate them it's all power grabs and genocide, then there's no argument to have. Once you've convinced yourself that such "give-a-mouse-a-cookie" scenarios are inevitable, you'll be against any meaningful way of holding people responsible for the firearms they've purchased, and as such it literally is impossible to slow down the black market (although criminals don't need to go to the black market right now, they can just buy from anyone who isn't a licensed dealer in some states).
If your parameters for legislation aimed at reducing gun violence are that it can't involve any sort of tracking of firearms and that it can't place any further limit on the availability of firearms (I'm talking about who can buy them, not bans of individual types), then you're right: there's no way to police criminals and we all might as well stock up. I just think your parameters are inherently flawed.
like the guy on the video i posted said:
less than 50 years ago you could buy a gun at a hardware store or from the sears catalog, everyone had them, brought them to school in a truck to go hunting afterward and were generally much easier to get than they are today, yet there weren't nearly as many murders and certainly the mass murders. why?
again, find the constitutional basis for the action you propose and then we can argue. the problem is, there is none.
Well, the reason is that that's not true. The murder rate's basically the same today as it was in the sixties. It went up dramatically in the seventies, peaked in the eighties and early nineties, and has been declining pretty steadily ever since. This is assuming that reporting of murders as murders and not something else was equally strong in the sixties as it is today.
Once again: I have no problem with legal gun ownership. If you're not using them to commit crimes, I literally do not care how many or what type of guns and/or ammunition you own. I don't even need to know why you bought them, not my business. However, I DO care about keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals, and if that means that legal, law-abiding gun owners have to fill out some additional paperwork, I'm fine with that.
Simply put, I don't share the view that an inability of any law enforcement body to know what happens to a firearm after it enters the population is the only thing keeping the country together.
Last edited by Bogg; 01-30-2013 at 11:19 AM.
Having guns on school grounds is a horrible idea. Just ask this coach and two girls:
http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/video-gun-carrying-girls-high-school-basketball-coach-shoots-2-armed-attackers-saves-2-female-players/
and even Biden knows these new proposed measures won't stop mass shootings
Hey Chef, been meaning to get back to your posts.
First, let me preface my comments. This has been good for me in causing me to do more research on the subject, and enlightening me on many facets of the discussion. For me personally in this debate, I’m trying to see what logical things can actually be done either way without inflaming half the country. Even if we say that the proposed legislation is absolutely worthless, I want to go past that and try to address the root cause, and see what actually can be done.
I don’t subscribe to a fatalistic philosophy, that we have to accept whatever happens as part of the deal. Maybe it’s a matter of actually, finally enforcing the laws already in place. Enforce mandatory minimum sentences, and not allow judges to circumvent these standards. What if we instituted a kind of 3-strike policy for gun abusers, not for life imprisonment, but for ever-increasing penalties and fines? What if we turned our focus away from the war on drugs, and instead focus on those that purposefully skirt the gun regulations already in place?
I don’t know if politics allows such a discussion in the real world, as the rhetoric keeps getting ratcheted up to ridiculous places, causing people to become defensive and intransigent, and not otherwise able to come to a common ground. I really hate when people paint with a broad brush and stereotype a large swath of people that view things completely differently. Gun control activists are calling the other side gun nutters or fanatics, and stereotype them as redneck racists looking to hold back society, while many gun rights protectors characterize the other side as treasonous communists hell bent on turning society into a North Korean style police state, where opinions and thoughts aren’t allowed. This does nothing to help society in general, and continues to cause infighting amongst otherwise reasonable people.
So as part of our ongoing intellectual discussion of the matter, on to the debate! (And I don’t want it to seem like I’m invalidating your opinion Chef, I’m just trying to address the logical reasoning behind some of these viewpoints as to how I see them, and bring up certain oft-repeated characterizations that I feel contributes to the citizen on citizen hating going on around the country).
What the early settlers did to the Native Americans was an absolute atrocity, and something the history books cannot whitewash. That being said, this isn’t a parallel situation or a fair example of why we should be afraid. This was still a very unsettled era, with wars continuing with the British, Mexico, and ultimately against each other. The notions of continental expansionism and manifest destiny controlled the thinking at the time, where many people felt they were ordained by God to go out and spread their way of life, since they were superior to all other kinds of humans.
Completely different time, era, thought process, level of enlightenment, intelligence, technology, and respect for other cultures. This square peg incongruence can’t just be slammed into a round hole, and used as a direct comparison. The country has changed and become more civilized, and the law, while not completely even or perfect, has been settled through the court system in many areas to offer protection to all classes of people.
Not wanting to sidetrack into the health care issue, since that would be best left to a separate discussion, but something absolutely had to change with our healthcare system. I’m in a family with several doctors, and the current system was completely broken. It was practically on a bubble like the housing market that was ready to burst, with the uninsured turning emergency rooms into their primary care doctors, which caused overcrowding, drove up health care costs, inefficiencies, and has led to many harmful cost/benefit decisions by hospitals and insurance companies that only hurt all people seeking medical care.
The ACA is not the best solution by any means, and I know it helps many while also having negative side effects for some people. But the status quo alternative hurt many more people and wasn’t efficient in helping those it could. But I digress…
I’m not saying I have THE solution to address the mental illness aspect. But there is no denying that something must be done to not allow or enable the mentally ill to hold that much power in their hands to take or break lives.
Take for example that crazy fuck in Alabama who killed a bus driver and has a child hostage holed up in a bunker. He is a paranoid, anti-government survivalist who is militarily trained. He shot at his neighbors, killed a neighbor’s dog, and threatened to kill a school bus full of children. Like I said, I’m for gun rights, but I am also completely for a system that will disarm “people” like this with a known history of batshittery, and put them in a proper facility.
The mentally ill, especially those suffering from paranoia, or depression, are a threat to society when armed, and these people would not be competent to stand in a well-regulated militia in the first place. So you have to agree that some step must be instituted to address this serious mental health issue, especially as it relates to guns. So any history of mental instability absolutely should be discoverable by a gun seller to prevent guns getting into the hands of people that can’t be trusted 100% of the time.
I also will add that I hear plenty of direct stories from the hospital of doctors greenlighting many unnecessary and superfluous procedures so that they can bill the patients (and/or insurance companies) more, so that they themselves get more money, and potentially harming the patient. Having health care run strictly as a business seems even more of a conflict between the doctor-patient relationship to me.
In a way, that is completely belittling a lifetime of work of our forefathers and the sacrifices of hundreds of thousands of lives, as well as the struggles of many different classes of people who fought to procure and protect that “piece of paper.” It isn’t simply something that a person could go up to, rip in half, and say “hey, no more constitution.”
I saw the statement of work for the personal weapons. While I don’t believe the reasoning is sinister, I do believe the people have the right to know why this is taking place in light of the current debate. Also (not being snarky, only trying to gather info), could you provide a cite from an unbiased source regarding the armed assault missions in major US cities. Not saying you’re wrong, but certain blogs and websites have no problem embellishing stories to further an agenda, so I would like to see something reported on by a reputable news source regarding this.
The thing about conspiracies is, the more people you have to involve, the more easily it will unravel. Unless people believe in some Illuminati level control of the world. To have such a huge conspiracy as being presented would have to involve thousands of people, which is feasibly and logistically impossible. Someone out of that many people will have a change of heart, hit of conscience, sell out to a news agency for money, etc. People can’t keep secrets, so something would spill. And the unreliability of people to follow tasks would cause such a thing to crumble as well.
I know its easy to say people are sheep, but I really do not believe in my heart and mind that people are willing to give up all their rights and freedoms to the government. Using broad stereotypes, most people to the right of the political spectrum seem to view government as a necessary evil, if not outright evil and sinister. But the people on the left side aren’t in turn thinking that the government is their one and only true savior, where they can’t survive without it. They too want to make it on their own, and hope that if they fail, that they have enough of a buffer to survive and get back on their feet. Nothing wrong with that. I’ve had to go on unemployment for a while, and I don’t consider myself lazy, entitled, or dependent on the government in the least.
I declare myself an independent, and I’m open to listening to viewpoints all the way around, but this talking point always bothers me, that a mass of people just want to sit around and let papa government do everything for them. Even if it describes a few people, this doesn’t all of a sudden mean that everyone must be the same. This is a lazy argument and is used to paint a group of people as “them”, and easier to dismiss into an ideology to rant against. Both sides are guilty of this, and is part of why the country is so divided politically.
Factual clarification, what you are describing is not the 1st Amendment, but actually the Declaration of Independence. I do believe that the 1st Amendment is the most important amendment, as it gives us some of our strongest freedoms (speech, religion, freedom of the press, right to peaceably assemble). But I don’t ascribe the highest, supreme importance to the 2nd Amendment. Is it important? Yes, absolutely, along with all of the Bill of Rights (1st 10 amendments) that the founders adopted from a similar English bill of rights, in order to better protect the rights and freedoms of the people.
Going back to my con law classes, this was the only class that took a whole year rather than a semester. And I promise you, the second amendment was only briefly addressed during the entire year. One semester was dedicated mostly to the 1st amendment and the establishment of powers amongst the branches, and a lot of time the next was spent on the incorporation amendment for state’s rights, the commerce clause, and then ultimately civil rights.
The process of defining and enforcing the Amendments through congress and ultimately affirmed by the Supreme Court give power to each of the amendments, and ensure the protection of all the people of the land under it. The 2nd amendment is not the linchpin to protect all the citizens, the entire Bill of rights is. The checks and balances are not because of the 2nd amendment, it is part of the fabric of the constitution, and is inseparable. This elevation of the 2nd amendment into a holy, sacred right that stands above all has been something that has come to the forefront only recently in history, whatever the motivations.
I don’t think a loose conglomeration of individuals with varying levels of sophistication, skill, intelligence, and sobriety with various weaponry is what is protecting this country from tyranny. And I don’t believe that the government is a solitary entity ready to move out onto the American people and enslave them. The government is also made up of American people, not just in Washington, but in every state, city, school, hospital, public service, etc. The people are protected by every single hour of thought, legislation, debating, prosecuting, and Supreme Court decisions to fully define our rights. As you so rightly state below:
It is very hard to change the constitution. So all our rights as defined in the Bill of rights and further amendments will serve protect our freedoms, and won’t be easily taken away, if at all.
Maybe licensing isn’t the best solution, but I was trying to think of something. However, it seems that many people think any proposition on gun rights is a complete act of treason. No, amendments by definition change something. The amendments have given rights, taken away rights, or better clarified rights. One amendment prohibited alcohol, another amendment brought it right back. The voting amendments were incredibly important and hard fought, further defining and enforcing the right of not just one race, sex, or class of people.
Even today, after decades of defining voting rights, there is a new restriction being placed on voting rights with the voter ID laws. Its probably good policy, even though empirically it hasn’t shown that in-person fraud has been rampant. But it is a further restriction on a right and freedom of the people as written in the Constitution. Just as these other amendments have been regulated, so too can the 2nd amendment. And as I stated before, I don’t ever believe for one second that the government will take away the rights of guns to the citizenry of the country. For one, it is impossible to confiscate all the guns anyway, two, it will start a revolution, and three, it is a part of our history and society, like it or not. So that argument does not work for me.
Sure, maybe direct access to a representative is not as simple as scheduling an appointment and walking into their office. But contact is possible. And its not restricted to DC – you have government officials in every part of society in every town and public service available. There is no overarching bubble that encompasses all who suddenly receive checks directly from the government.
Plus, people serve in these roles, not robots. Yes, many may be liars, cheats, and scoundrels, but they are not killers. Many are motivated by money, not some bloodlust to exterminate the majority of the country.
Maybe it’s a matter of protecting yourself for that small, one in a trillion chance that some great evil takes over the world. I am more likely to die from an ebola outbreak, but I’m not living in fear of it and wanting all our resources and focus to go towards eliminating this potential devastation, all the while ignoring actual deaths caused by the flu, heart disease, etc. The vastness of the universe makes an alien invasion a statistical probability, but I’m not going to spend time building a bunker and stockpiling weapons for the day of contact. I just feel that this doomsday rhetoric is something that is so unlikely, yet it causes so much strife and blockage that anything beneficial (not saying the current propositions) gets shouted down as treasonous. Real people and their families are getting destroyed, and a real honest debate must happen, with concessions and compromise, intelligence, compassion, and understanding going into developing a solution that benefits general society to a higher degree.
I scanned over the first 5 or so pages of this thread and I see the same misleading usual arguments. The guns for teachers, bus drivers, air plane pilots blah blah is one of the stupidest most reckless ideas ever. Why do people assume that if everyone is armed that mass shooting won't end the way they usually end. All you do is add more guns and more bullets being fired to accidentally hit more innocent people. Like the movie theater shooting. One of my co workers said if he had been there with his gun that guy wouldn't have shot as many people. Really so in a smoke filled room with people running and screaming you can fire and only hit the gun man? What happens when the police show up, Think they wont shoot you too?
If you have a right to "bare arms" why not a tank? Why not nerve gas or biological weapons? Are you going hunting with a 50 caliber rifle? Why do we as citizens need armor shredding bullets? What do you need a 30 round banana clip for? The second amendment was put in place for no other reason then to protect the citizens from being invaded by another country or government not so you can have a M-16. We have an army for that now
We need new gun laws, we need a national registry of weapons, we need better back ground checks and mental health checks. We have more murders by gun in this country then anywhere else in the world. Shit Canada has more guns per person and they have no where near the number of murders and mass shootings. Plainly stated more guns means more death and I'm all for an assault weapons ban
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks