Gun Control
- Thread starter larryselbows
- Start date
Good flounce. Very impressive.
My goals are/were:
1) Expose the double standard in your statements, possibly even one day getting you to see them yourself, and
2) Amuse myself in the process
It's only natural that you would see 1) as "twisting words". That's the only way you can see it while holding that double standard.
So, the emotional impetus for a change must be immediately addressed by the change, or else the change has no value? I disagree. Changes can have a value independent of their emotional impetus. If you change your eating habits after a heart attack, you can improve your health, regardless of whether you would ever have had a second heart attack.
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
Well if that change is going to strip American citizens of our rights and personal freedoms, causing a huge divide among the people in this country, then it had better address the actual problem if it's going to be considered.
If I have a heart attack and then change my eating habits, chances are I would have never had the heart attack if I had changed my diet sooner. In this case, the proposed gun control laws would not have done a damn thing to prevent the Newtown shooting, no matter how early they were enacted. Further, we now know that the existing laws did their job and denied the shooter the opportunity to buy his own gun shortly before the shooting. And we also know that he, as criminals often do, found a way to get them anyway (illegally).
This gun control crap has now been exposed to be an over reaction. It's time to move on and forget about it.
Not every past shooting has been identical to Newtown (in fact, none have). Not every future shooting will be identical to Newtown (in fact, none will). Therefore, there is a difference between saying "would not have addressed Newtown" and "will not address the problem".
I do agree we should not strip people of their rights. Which of the proposed measures do you see as stripping people of their rights?
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
Well since it was the Newtown shooting that was so terrible it got the nation taking about gun control, if the measures wouldn't have helped prevent the Newtown shooting then we should not be considering them.
The proposals I am most concerned with are the limits on magazine sizes and the assault weapons ban. Both of those are putting restrictions on our constitutional rights.
As I have said earlier in this thread, if you want to make them illegal for everyone (police, military, etc) then we can talk about it. But if you're just talking about taking them away from me, wine letting a few elites keep them, then you're ignoring/revoking my 2nd amendment rights.
The 2nd amendment isn't guaranteeing me the right to hunt deer, it's guaranteeing me the right to defend myself against the government. So if you're saying I'm not allowed to have the weapons that their agents carry around every minute of every day, then you're stripping me of that right.
I'm also concerned with the proposed new background checks. What exactly is going to cause a denial? That needs to be very clearly spelled out before we just give a blanket approval to a new system that is designed to deny certain people of their rights. Who will be denied and why will they be denied?
Last edited:
candrew
Well-Known Member
When I saw pictures of those imbeciles walking around Malls and Wal-Marts with their AR-15's strapped to their back it reminded me of something I read about how Black Panthers in the 60's and 70's did the same thing - "patrol" their neighborhood brandishing shot guns and "observing" Police activity while openly brandishing firearms. Then I found this article. Not sure I agree with it 100%; but I found this rather amusing.
https://www.theroot.com/views/fear-black-gun-owner?wpisrc=root_lightbox
https://www.theroot.com/views/fear-black-gun-owner?wpisrc=root_lightbox
As much as Reagan is lauded by conservatives he is still just a man. Here I think he is wrong. As for the Black Panthers you mention. If they were not making threatening gestures or acting in some other agressive manner then good for them.
Why not? Why are those two concepts connected in that fashion?
A restriction is not a stripping. Are you acknowledging that no rights are being stripped?
Also, when so many people were saying reduced magazine size does not reduce effectiveness significantly, I don't recall you disagreeing. So, if reducing the size of the magazine does impact your weapons effectiveness, in what way is it restricting your rights? As for the assault weapons ban, what is the specific weapon involved, and why does not having it impede on your right of self-defense?
The notion that any weapon available to the military should also be available to the public is going very far afield. Do you really believe that? If not, make a case for why you need a specific weapon.
According to whom? Not even the recent SCOTUS case said that, and nor any of the original signers of the document (at least, not when their words are taken in context). Glenn Beck's opinion is not authoritative.
Who carries around a weapon every minute of every day? Don't they rust in the shower?
Agreed.
same tired old ignorance.
The constitution does in fact use the word "infringement" on people's inherent right of self defense from all insults to their persons, papers, homes, self-rule, and representative governance, or any other right human beings deserve to have. It explicitly denies to the federal government any say whatsoever about what people might use their guns for.
Crimes against other persons, including use of arms in doing so, have always been properly the government's business, and laws which protect people from armed assault, coercion, or any other form of abuse through the use of weapons are entirely appropriate.
Just above is an inherent example of how disingenuous even the SCOTUS has been in presuming to be the ultimate arbiter and therefore delimiter of human rights. The can't even place the context of the Second Amendment in the affirmation by the American People of their right to use serious military arms against their government in response to the British denial to American colonists even the ordinary rights guaranteed under British law through the Magna Carta and the ensuing body of English legal thought.
And while particular law enforcement officers, hopefully, may bathe or shower once every few weeks, and unholster their weapons while doing so, it is probably the fact that there are always law enforcement officers on the beat, 24/7/365, and that is a good thing. And people always have that same right to bear relevant arms.
The only lawful constitutional issues are the measures we should take to punish crime, which is principally in the domain of actual assured punishment for lawbreakers, which is something our courts and governments have fallen down on their jobs about, by failing to punish lawbreakers in a meaningful way.
So how about investigating how the crazy shootings are the result of ignorant "educators" projecting "ideals" of meaninglessness in life, and subjective or no positive values about what we are, thus devaluing human life? John Dewey's socialism transformed American education towards the aim of "training to the task", and enforcing many training responses which teach submission to authority, effectively making human beings mere "resources" suitable for corporate exploitation, and subjects of "government" rather than the informed, qualified ultimate authority for government.
Small wonder some maladjusted youngsters don't seen any meaning to their lives and feel so estranged from society, and disenfranchised, they will begin to contemplate acting out in some horrific way as their "swan song" of hate. If you don't want people to turn out like this, you need to encourage avenues of constructive and meaningful efforts towards a better life. . . . .
like believing in human rights.
The constitution does in fact use the word "infringement" on people's inherent right of self defense from all insults to their persons, papers, homes, self-rule, and representative governance, or any other right human beings deserve to have. It explicitly denies to the federal government any say whatsoever about what people might use their guns for.
Crimes against other persons, including use of arms in doing so, have always been properly the government's business, and laws which protect people from armed assault, coercion, or any other form of abuse through the use of weapons are entirely appropriate.
Just above is an inherent example of how disingenuous even the SCOTUS has been in presuming to be the ultimate arbiter and therefore delimiter of human rights. The can't even place the context of the Second Amendment in the affirmation by the American People of their right to use serious military arms against their government in response to the British denial to American colonists even the ordinary rights guaranteed under British law through the Magna Carta and the ensuing body of English legal thought.
And while particular law enforcement officers, hopefully, may bathe or shower once every few weeks, and unholster their weapons while doing so, it is probably the fact that there are always law enforcement officers on the beat, 24/7/365, and that is a good thing. And people always have that same right to bear relevant arms.
The only lawful constitutional issues are the measures we should take to punish crime, which is principally in the domain of actual assured punishment for lawbreakers, which is something our courts and governments have fallen down on their jobs about, by failing to punish lawbreakers in a meaningful way.
So how about investigating how the crazy shootings are the result of ignorant "educators" projecting "ideals" of meaninglessness in life, and subjective or no positive values about what we are, thus devaluing human life? John Dewey's socialism transformed American education towards the aim of "training to the task", and enforcing many training responses which teach submission to authority, effectively making human beings mere "resources" suitable for corporate exploitation, and subjects of "government" rather than the informed, qualified ultimate authority for government.
Small wonder some maladjusted youngsters don't seen any meaning to their lives and feel so estranged from society, and disenfranchised, they will begin to contemplate acting out in some horrific way as their "swan song" of hate. If you don't want people to turn out like this, you need to encourage avenues of constructive and meaningful efforts towards a better life. . . . .
like believing in human rights.
seriously, I'm curious to know which government you want to be able to defend yourself against? The local police? The National Guard? The U.S. Army?
I have no idea what kinds of guns most local police officers carry around "every minute of every day" - one of these days if I have a chance I'm going to see if I can find out what weapons are available to most local police forces on an everyday basis. I think most just carry a pistol. I doubt the police in my community even have assault rifles, but I really don't know.
I only skimmed the discussion and figured it might touch both sides. There are some things that just can't be allowed in society:
-You don't go into a bank wearing a ski mask.
-You don't yell fire in a theatre.
-You don't send harmless powder in the mail to senators.
-You don't protest funerals.
-You don't hold political rallies near voting stations.
-You don't go into shopping malls dressed like terrorists.
If I were packing heat near this whacko then I would most likely have followed him to protect the innocent. If I were mall security then I most likely would have approached him to assess, and exercised my right to refuse service when he exposed his m.o. If I were police then I most definitely would have isolated him and taken care if his disorderly display. In the end, these radicals aren't good for us pro-gun advocates anyway. All he's going to do is get limits on everyone open carry by the legislature or by the mall itself. How that helps your rights??? Carrying a pistola on your side makes you look like a horse riding western hick. Hoorah! Dressing up in military garb with armor protection & a full trench coat dangling with sawed off shotguns and AR-15's is not appropriate no matter how much it's "within your [current] rights.
Same goes for holding aggressive displays near voting stations. Don't do it.
Most likely a full arsenal locked inside an armory. Police generally carry a pistol along with a dashboard lock mounted shotgun, according to the movies anyway. But they all have access to a full arsenal under lock and key, maybe unless they are in a small rural community.
Consider it crazy all you want but I find comfort in knowing there's a citizenry fully willing to give their lives defending against tyranny. Yes, I realize pop guns don't fight tanks. I also realize America first used guns to create a democracy where European Kings first disarmed the people before the people forced democracy onto the governments. The point is having enough people appreciating independence enough to not be controlled by a tyranical force. That's worth respecting just as much as the ingenuous folks on the other side.
Most police forces have trained swat teams with assault weapons. The National Guard and various branches of our national military certainly have plenty of these weapons, plus others which are truly enough to shock and awe the average citizen.
So the plain fact that is most revealing about free human beings who are secure in their confidence that the government is "theirs", is that these responsible folks will universally use their personal weapons to defend "their" government.
It takes paranoid schizophrenics and/or other maladjusted humans obsessed with controlling the people in some specific way, or turning the government to their own purposes, to even worry about which way the people will use their personal arms.
So, dear blind Moe, please try to focus on the key fact. People will not use their weapons against "their" government, until something goes seriously wrong with "their" government, to the extreme that there is no more right to vote and no effective peaceable way to secure their essential rights. And that is the whole point here.
Perhaps to you should take a vacation or something to get away from the media, to the extent that you can objectively assess the world around you. Maybe notice some bees buzzing around some flowers, or admire some little bugs that have found some special niche in the universe where they can prosper, and display their beautiful red and black designs on your curtains or something, and relax enough about it you don't just have to be a control freak obsessed with killing the intruders transgressing into your personal control sphere.
People don't have to worry too much about bees if they can just leave them alone, or even box elder bugs. And if you can just own a little joy about seeing others things/people living in freedom, maybe life will seem a lot better somehow.
And governments don't have to worry about their peoples' arms as long as those governments are content to be those peoples' government.
There is just something missing in the hearts of folks who can't abide letting people be free. And they just can't stop themselves from worrying about what to do to make them do "just so", according to their own tastes in style.
Barack Obama and the whole liberal high command are just too worried about the people to be "OK".
And, by the way, the UN stated objective for world peace as planned way back when. . . . fifty years or more ago. . . . is complete disarmament of the civilian population, and some regulated sufficient number of government "military style" guns to put down any disturbances. . . . an ideal most dear to all statists with dreams of controlling central governments not answerable to the people, many of which do not have real representative government.
The whole idea behind the American government flowing from our revolution against British overlordship, is that people do indeed have the right to direct their government.
personal arms like "military style assault rifles" are today probably insufficient to exert power to curb a government that has turned on its people. The next line of defense is human decency, the unwillingness of even soldiers to carry out commands that are abhorrent to the people, even if given authoritatively by high officials. That line of defense has failed in many notable instances in the twentieth century, under the impact of serious propaganda campaigns.
If you don't see propaganda for what it is, you're just going to be going along with governance that is not really of the people, or for the people. . . . or by the people. There is a point of turning where it can become governance for special interests, or for some limited group of interests.
So here's my two bits. Socialism has never been "for" the people, it has always been a clever sort of substitute management which does in fact cut the people down to less than their natural dignity. But socialism is much loved by some cartelists/corporatists who love to have the inside track on influence, to their own benefit.
Last edited:
thanks for such a patronizing post Babe, but really, it's not necessary.
Your vigilante force of armed citizens rising up in revolt is tyranny of its own, just without a government issued uniform. They are not of any comfort to poor blind me.
Your vigilante force of armed citizens rising up in revolt is tyranny of its own, just without a government issued uniform. They are not of any comfort to poor blind me.
HeavenHarris
Banned
i am not comforted either, fwiw, bros and moes.
it's high time people called out patronizing folks who never fail to raise the red herring armed mob hobgoblin any time someone mentions the use of guns in defense of liberty against governments gone wrong.
I have to admit I had more fun than the law allows in raking you over on that one, though. The bit about the box elder bugs was supposed to make you aware of how some superior folks think ordinary people are just a nuisance on planet earth.
I don't favor mob violence or ill-conceived public uprisings any more than I favor totalitarian governance, however packaged or represented by cliche.
When it comes right down to it, mobs and governments gone wrong have one thing in common, at the very center of their disease. . . . intolerance and disrespect for folks who are "in the way".
I think the probability of social unrest and mob violence is just as compelling an argument for the necessity of personal arms and the right to defend ourselves as any other reason. Random criminal assaults, or some campaign of mob violence including racist or political systematic assaults, mobs, and totalitarian governments.
But of course, you are insinuating that these things just can't happen, right?
Not at all. I'm not insinuating that, nor do I believe that. I'm just not willing to agree that your answer is the only answer or the best answer.
Nobody has yet answered my question about which specific level of U.S. government is this group of citizens supposed to be equal to?
It isn't necessary to match the military strength of the U.S. military in order to resist them. Resistance doesn't require meeting the Army in the field and having an all out battle to overthrow the government.
I think we've seen clearly enough through recent conflicts that a determined few can completely befuddle modern military forces, even our own.
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
Any government. Local, state, federal, whatever. If the people are truly in charge, then there shouldn't be loopholes in the law for the government agents. If a case can be made that they should be allowed these weapons, the same case can be made for anyone else.
Justice is the same laws applying to everyone equally.
And police, surely the ones in your area are no different, carry guns with clips that would be illegal for me to buy under the new proposals. Plus, as someone else mentioned, they have a full arsenal of "assault weapons" locked away.
I do not see it going down that way. Local police and National Guard units are people from their local communities. I have a hard time believing that they would side with a tyrannical government (hpothetical, relax) agaist their "own" people. Some will, sure but not all. If they were to side with the people that greatly increases the amount of firepower that can be employed.
As for what weapons local police have access to? Pistols, shotguns, rifles, bullet proof vests, helmets, those door busting thingies. I am sure the big cities have a much wider assortment of weapons and what not. Like night vision goggles and those SWAT tank thingies.
Mostly it is like Franklin* said. It is not they actually will have to it is that there are enough willing to that it forces the government into some semblance of decency.
Edit: https://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/...s-to-arm-officers-with-semi-automatic-ar-15s/
Cops buying AR-15s which some members of congress now want to ban.