What exactly were you hoping for? That in exchange for giving up handguns, you get the right to operate an anti-aircraft installation in your backyard? Of course it’s always in one direction – because you’ve already got a fuckload of guns. What other direction is there?
1 Like
I was providing a thumbnail sketch of a system that would undoubtedly be more complicated than my simple example in implementation. What I’m trying to suggest is that somewhere in the universe of possible regulations there is some set that would allow responsible people to own guns while preventing as many as possible from being used in crimes and that just maybe this potentially optimal set of regulations could be somewhat more stringent than the current set.
Perhaps if gun laws were stringent enough George and Pam wouldn’t be willing to go through the bullshit of getting licensed and registered. We’re not going to eliminate black market sales of guns but we can decrease the number by making those sales more expensive – probably in terms of time spent training and demonstrating responsibility with firearms in this case.
Thanks. I genuinely appreciate the gesture. I, like you, think that democracy works better the smaller the population is. I wouldn’t mind states cooperating on gun laws. I’ve mentioned that I think it’s the right of the states to decide which guns are legal, but I would love to see them work together. As a matter of fact, I’d much prefer that to the federal government getting involved. I hope that that’s still a possibility.
[quote=“wysinwyg, post:292, topic:13824”]
Not without air support. You see, there have been some changes in military strategy over the course of the last 250 years. You might want to check out some of that out.[/quote]
I usually don’t get too involved with the whole “fight against tyranny” scenario.
-
People are way too placated with their iPads and sushi for a significant number to ever rise up in an armed revolt. It will never happen unless there is some catastrophic event.
-
If that were to happen, you can count on a significant percentage of active military to join that revolt. They don’t even have to bring the heavy hardware with them. You aren’t going to keep your jets in the air if half of your maintenance force defects.
-
ROE (rules of engagement). We have/had the man power and weapons to turn Iraq and Afghanistan into a smoking crater. But we didn’t, did we? If you start sending in bombers and tanks into a city and taking down suspected insurgent strongholds, you are going to kill civilians. That is going to turn more of the populace against you. We have many dead soldiers in the middle east because we were too reserved to use force, especially around civilians.
Just look at Syria. Assad has tanks, artillery, and planes. He may not be totally losing the war, but he isn’t winning either. It’s been over two and a half years. He can’t completely obliterate a rebel town with out suffering backlash. Insurgents had to raid armories for a lot of their small arms. They crafted their own mortars. They are using captured Russian RPGs and making IEDs to blow up Assad’s tanks. They are making a real resistance to a technically superior force.
I agree with that. The folks that I know who have been in the military in the past few years are all the sort which wouldn’t comply if there were an order against the American people.
One, I don’t see a limit in the Constitution.
Two, we don’t ALL have a “fuckload” of guns. I have one. People in New York and California are being told to TURN IN guns, , , , guns that have (1) been perfectly legal for decades, and (2) are a tiny fraction of all “gun crimes”. . .
[quote=“wysinwyg, post:320, topic:13824”]
I was providing a thumbnail sketch of a system that would undoubtedly be more complicated than my simple example in implementation. What I’m trying to suggest is that somewhere in the universe of possible regulations there is some set that would allow responsible people to own guns while preventing as many as possible from being used in crimes and that just maybe this potentially optimal set of regulations could be somewhat more stringent than the current set.[/quote]
A reasonable idea. I can’t argue or defend against a hypothetical perfect situation, but I would be very interested if one were to come up with one. But if one gives me a scheme I can argue against, I will. I think people (not necessarily you) take a simplified look at a hugely complex issue. They are naïve to think that this set of rules or that set of rules will have the desired outcome. This isn’t limited to guns.
If this is in reference to the “turn in guns for obamacare” thing, I think you will find it an apocryphal report being put forward by gun right extremists, primarily “Gun Owners of America” - a group that makes the NRA look like a bunch of flower children passing a bong around.
1 Like
GOA is a freaking scam. All they do is put out sensational alerts all the time and ask for money. The difference is, they don’t spend it on lobbying, education, and training like the NRA does. I’ve never heard of the GOA doing anything for rights, nor have I ever heard people complain about their clout like they do with the NRA.
- There ARE reports of gun seizures in New York AND California
- GOA is FAR less extreme than, say PETA. GOA at least is defending a specific and long-documented right.
I know, there are so many replies that it’s unlikely that this will get read much but here it goes…
If firearms enthusiasts do not have the conversation to determine limits that they can live with, then they’ll find themselves facing limits imposed by those who are completely against their position- those that either fear firearms or those that hate firearms.
It’s that simple.
In the history of this country, from its very founding, most of the time, issues are fought over by fringes on either extreme of an issue. Sometimes one side wins, sometimes the other side wins, and sometimes they play tug-of-war, pulling more one way or the other. Normally, the vast chasm of the middle stays out of the argument.
There have been times, however, when a significant enough portion of that great middle has taken a side, and usually when that happens, significantly more of those that choose end up choosing one side over the other. Racial issues in the 1960s come to mind.
Admittedly this is anecdotal, but living in a state represented in the recent spate of highly-public firearms-using attacks, the only people that I find advocating either the current status quo or something even more permissive than the status quo are all firearms owners. I’ve never met anyone that has argued in favor of the status quo or more permissive regulations that doesn’t own firearms.
By contrast, all of those who do not own firearms that I’ve conversed with, that have not faced situations with guns that would give them personal reasons for taking a stance against them, have either taken a position against the status quo or have active abstained from the argument, choosing not to participate, not to support either position.
Most tellingly, I have met some firearms owners that support some form of new meaningful regulation or restriction. Not a large number admittedly, but a few.
As more and more mass-shootings are publicized, I expect that mass-middle to increasingly coalesce around the pro-restrictions camp, and to do so in large part due to perceived irrationality on the part of particularly noisy enthusiasts. If this happens as I expect, the firearms-owning community will probably be lucky to get away as lightly as a reinstatement of the Clinton-era Federal Assault Weapons Ban. It could be even more Draconian.
The only way that I see for this to be avoided is for the firearms enthusiast community to have a real, serious discussion about rules that they’re willing to live with. Rules on things like ammunition capacity in a given class of weapon, on the use of fixed magazines instead of modular magazines in excess of certain capacities, on background checks and on actually following through on removing firearms from those that have been adjudicated to be actively dangerous or incompetent, on true licensing for public concealed carry. They do not necessarily have to give on everything, but they need to form a cogent argument for why their position should be respected. Simply parroting, “because of the Second Amendment,” is not that argument. As the aforementioned Assault Weapons Ban shows, the courts are willing to allow restrictions on the Second Amendment, restrictions in this case that only ended because that particular law had an automatic sunset built into it. Should a future law pass without a defined end, it would probably stand up to court scrutiny.
Either make the argument and keep the hobby, interest, way-of-life, or whatever one calls it, or don’t engage in the discussion and find one’s position changed against one’s will.
7 Likes
Penn & Teller are great at misdirection.
Consider that many of the people who wrote the Constitution had a vision that the United States wouldn’t have a standing army. P&T’s interpretation isn’t based remotely on facts. Militias meant state based forces that were supposed to be raised and federalized when necessary. The founding fathers certainly didn’t intend gun rights to extend to individual citizens. That was left up the individual states to decide. It still is to an extent.
Militias were supposed to be comprised of (white) men who knew how to shoot, and were ready to be called to arms. Not professional soldiers. Hell, we didn’t even have the rank of admiral until 1862 because we thought that smacked too much of the Royal Navy of old.
1 Like
I refer you to this part of my statement. For the most part I have had nothing but positive personal experiences with guns, but I at least understand that my experience is subjective. Taking my question as an opportunity to express your personal opinion that guns are “negative objects” is exactly the kind of thing that I politely asked you not to do.
It might help further the dialog if you could see past “the Gun Lobby” boogeyman whenever attempting to personify people who don’t agree with your position. “Redneck” and “Gun Nut” are similarly out.
Apparently the supreme court decision acknowledging that the 2nd amendment guarantees the individual right to bear arms carries less weight than the opinion of one biased historian. TIL.
1 Like
And here we have another upholder of the SC’s supposedly god-like ability to render verdicts that constitute the final and wisest word on any subject they’re willing to adjudicate.
As others said above, the SC is made up of human beings (and often highly biased, politically motivated ones), and their judgments are often overturned. That particular court interpreted the 2nd amendment in one way, and it can be interpreted in others.
I’m obv. not your interlocutor, but it seems to me whether a weapon is “defensive” or not is purely a function of circumstance.
If taken on the basis of deaths caused, handguns would seem to be more deadly than other firearms or other implements.
I didn’t say, ‘guns are bad, mmmm’kay’? And point to me any comment of mine in this thread where I’ve picked a fight with people.
As I pointed out, I’ve used and owned them. I work in a rural area, and guns are regularly used to deal with pests and the like. They are, quite clearly, capable of being used as tools. However, they are dangerous tools that not every idiot should have unfettered access to. Like, for instance, cars.
It is a difficult and nuanced discussion. Or it would be if everyone could calm down…
3 Likes
Thank You.
1 Like
