Does the same argument apply to archery? Or to fencing and swordsmanship?
You will notice the only solution is inaction. Because someone likes their toys. Thatâs it. Thatâs the whole argument. Every damn time.
10 Likes
You keep talking about how gun owners are being treated like children. You know whoâs really being treated like children (other than actual children, unless theyâre black males) in this country? Women. Women canât possibly understand how to do anything without a man telling them what to think. Heck, we all pay higher taxes so that religious groups can have more money to spend on teaching people that women are evil and must be violently kept in line. We donât even use the laws we have to prosecute, let alone prevent violence against women and their health care providers. And thatâs WITH laws supposedly on the books. What are you so scared of, that one or two regulations might be required for the serious responsibility of owning a gun? Speaking from experience, owning a dog requires more paperwork and background checks than owning a gun in this country. What exactly is it that you are afraid of?
6 Likes
I read in Guns and Ammo magazine that the 2nd Amendment provides an individual right to target shooting because Jefferson liked to go plinking behind Monticello.
5 Likes
Comment from todayâs New York Times front page, full page editorial on gun control:
[quote]I own about a half dozen guns. All long guns, shotguns mostly. All for hunting, which I have done for 40 years. The gun lobbyâs position is intellectually dishonest. There are 3 main arguments they make: (1)
Constitutional. Setting aside the legal debate (I am a lawyer) this is a red herring. The gun lobby would not support amending the Constitution to allow more restrictive laws, so arguing about the intent of the second amendment is irrelevant. (2) Policy. The gun lobby holds that laws restricting gun access do not work because the criminals obtain them illegally. This is is undoubtedly true. However, even if it could be unequivically demonstrated that certain restrictive guns laws do work, the gun lobby would still not support the restriction. Clearly, then, this too is a red herring. (3) The cost of freedom. This is the real argument, the heart and soul of it all. That is, in a free society, there are certain costs to certain freedoms. It is essential and foundational to our national spirit and way of life to be as free from governmental intrusion and restriction as possible. Ok, fair enough. Letâs have that debate. Letâs look honestly and directly into that sun and say, yes, the children of Sandy Hook are the cost of this particular freedom as conceived by the gun lobby and its adherents. Iâm not willing to pay that cost.[/quote]
7 Likes
I happened upon an internet discussion about swastika about a year ago, and decided to research the demographics a bit. For those who insist that it is a racist symbol, I tallied the numbers of the largest population of Nazis ever, along with guesstimates of neo-Nazis today. This figure amounted to several million people. On the other side, I tallied estimates of all of the people of dharmic religions. This figure amounted to more than 1.5 billion. This does not include native americans who use similar symbols here.
So, it seems pretty easily demonstrable that, by far, most uses of swastika are not used to hurt or upset. The term itself basically means âgood luck charmâ, which should easily give away its purpose.
I think that the âtarnishâ is really only cultural imperialism. If the Nazis instead adopted some Christian symbol, I strongly doubt that westerners and USians would have dissociated themselves from those. Itâs easy for anybody to decry a symbol if they resolve to be ignorant about it. Secular societies have some obligation to not jump to conclusions about peopleâs religious symbols.
1 Like
Iâll make sure to mention this to my wifeâs Jewish relatives at the next seder. Iâm sure theyâll agree.
2 Likes
There can be a fine line between helping people to be comfortable, and making concessions to bigotry.
1 Like
Sorry but there is no reclaiming that symbol as an âokâ thing in the eyes of Jews. If you want to try, have fun. I try not to piss off my Jewish relatives and friends by poking at them about something I donât really care about for their own good.
I donât need swastikas in my life. Do you?
2 Likes
No, I donât. But I think it is healthy to be skeptical if/when people actively ban swastikas from my life. It would be silly to need to hide thangka or statues because people make a farfetched association with Nazis. It feels hypocritical when I live in a country which brags about people not being persecuted for openly practicing their religion, yet Iâve never experienced this supposed freedom. I donât take it personally, but I donât mind pointing out the discrepancies I perceive.
This isnât Germany. No one is banning them.
Well that is a whole kettle nother kettle of fish. I am not sure why you dragged it up.
But hey - good news! There already ARE laws in place to help prevent violence against women. Domestic abuse charges and restraining orders are two of the handful of things that can get you on the restricted list for the NICS check!
So if your partner hit you, you filed a complaint, that gets logged with the NICS network and then if they went to a gun store to try to get a gun to kill you, they would be denied. Is that the sort of reasonable laws you are talking about?
ETA - Wanted to clarify, for domestic abuse there needs to be a misdemeanor conviction of domestic abuse. But also if there is " a court order that restrains the person from harassing,
stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner".
Some people and places do. I had people complain about the âhate symbolâ appearing in the background of a showing of the musical documentary âKodo: The Heartbeat Drummers of Japanâ. In some situations, wearing a Ganesh t-shirt with a swastika on it can be classified as hate speech, or incitement to racial violence. If a place bans things which are controversial, and somebody complains about it, it becomes implicitly banned.
Of course, all symbols have elements of ambiguity about them. But when somebody makes a thing politically charged, they are making claims of eliminating ambiguity, that it must mean Only One Thing. Unfortunately, this contradicts how communication seems to generally work.
I prefer to avoid reactionary politics, and people needing to walk on eggshells. But I do sympathize with oppressed people.
AIIEE - again I find myself enjoying discussion with you which is tangential to the subject!
We donât live in those places, you and I.
Iâm not talking about banning. I am talking about being rude to the wishes of friends and family, to whom the holocaust implications of the symbol outshadow all other things. Given that ten million plus poeple died, I find it hard to argue with their feelings (and you know Iâm a Buddhist and am well familiar with its use elsewhere).
Once upon a time, I was Asatru, a form of Nordic Neopaganism, and I had completely not racist co-religionists (and I mean that) wanting to rehabilitate it to the point of embroidering it on tunics as a design. I sighed and backed away and wouldnât be next to those folks in gathering. I hate Nazis and donât want to be smeered with that as a mistaken association because people want to rescue a symbol.
4 Likes
Youâre living in a dream world. None of what you said actually happens (except in rare cases) in this country.
1 Like
I clarified my post above. I was mistaken, a domestic abuse CLAIM wonât flag NICS, but a restraining order should, as will any CONVICTION of misdemeanor or felony domestic abuse.
Reasons to be rejected by NICS:
[quote]A federal prohibition would exist for any person who:
Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
Is a fugitive from justice
Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance
Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution
Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or who has been admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa
Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions
Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship
Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from
harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner
Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year[/quote]
That is the LAW. Now if you are saying that isnât how it WORKS, then may I suggest working on FIXING THE LAW already in place. Not make more bullshit law that THIS time is going to work. No really.
1 Like
I personally know several people who are on your list and yet not only are able to own (multiple) guns, but are also registered under concealed carry. We are so afraid of keeping guns out of peopleâs hands in this country that we will do everything in our power to make sure they are armed to the full extent of their fantasies, no matter what the cost to others.
1 Like
Well if they really are prohibited persons, then report them.
Or maybe you are mistaken as to their status.
If they are prohibited and got a concealed carry license, then some how the government bureaucracy failed. Color me surprised. So your solution for laws not working is it pass new laws that probably also will have flaws and screw ups?
There is a background system in place. There is a system in place for issuing CCW licenses. Reasonable laws, just like you asked for. The fact it doesnât work 100% is the reality of any system - especially a government controlled one.
I donât know why I have to keep pointing this out to you, but at either the state or federal level, legislative action has been taken to try and mitigate all of these problems. Itâs ONLY EVER GUNS that weâre never allowed to do anything about.
I should also note that the NRA is opposed to any actions that would tighten or enhance the enforcement of the background check system to eliminate dangerous loopholes. Donât blame the system for sucking when thereâs a concerted effort being made to prevent the system from being made better.
3 Likes
[ducks and covers]
