Jump to content
csbrown28

Let's Have An Honest Discussion About Guns

Recommended Posts

 

 

There certainly is a lot of support for gun bans, going by several different polls. One more Sandy shooting, and this country will have its fill.

 

 

(Reuters) - About three-quarters of Americans surveyed support proposals to ban the sale of automatic weapons, ban high-capacity ammunition clips and expand background checks on all gun buyers, according to an online Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Thursday.

None of those are a repeal of the second amendment. But, good try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I laugh when people say that people on the right support the weapon restrictions...so...it must be a consensus. Guns aren't a liberal/conservative thing. I know a lot of Democrats who are gun owners and Republicans who are anti-gun. It isn't about liberal/conservative. It is about freedom vs. totalitarianism.

 

 

If you lean towards individual liberty and freedom, you will lean pro-gun. If you are more of a statist, you will be more anti-gun (well at least in the hands of citizens) and very pro gun for police and military.

 

 

I did not say any such thing. I was talking specifically about the Supreme Court, and their very controversial, and partisan ruling. I was not talking about the general public, I simply pointed out that it was a partisan decision made by a conservative Supreme Court. Why must you always create a "Straw-man" position for me?

 

I always laugh when someone accuses me of making sweeping generalized statements, with a sweeping generalized statement. You are the one who is making this about the right vs the left.

 

If you lean towards individual liberty and freedom, while ignoring the liberty and freedom of each citizen, what does that make you? It doesn't sound much different than a religious fanatic. You can pick and choose your favorite scriptures, the same way you can pick and choose your favorite parts of the Constitution, and mold it into your beliefs. It sounds like you're content with your liberty and freedom fantasy regardless of the fact that thousands of people are dying.

 

Oh, and that Glenn Beck is a babbling buffoon. He creates a chart, but didn't quite understand it at the time, but now has come to realize that it is the ANSWER! How very dramatic. Then he wants to save our country by revolution? Funny, I prefer "voting them out" instead of "shooting them dead". Poor Glenn, thinking Hitler was far left. He must not read much history. National Socialism was Hitler's thing. And it's completely different than how people view socialism now. National Socialism had elements of the far-right racist, and a variety of fascism, antisemitism, anti-communism, anti-Marxism, and anti-liberalism. We tend to see those characteristics of racism and fascism on the right, not the left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of those are a repeal of the second amendment. But, good try.

 

 

 

Who said anything about repealing the 2nd amendment? I specifically said "Constitutional Amendment" and how the process works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. But the amount of people in this country who want to repeal the 2nd Amendment is so low it doesn't even register.

Also, the comment about black people not counting as people. I do know what you are referring too, and a little critical thinking would enlighten you as to the reason a black man in America at that time only counted as a third of a person. Because of slaves. What was happening at that time was allowing people to quite literally purchase more representatives. Which, our founding fathers were against. So they included that as a precaution. They knew that one day soon the issue of slavery would be settled and they didn't want the south to be able to purchase government power to stop it.

Enough with the red herring though.

 

If you do not propose a ban, than what do you propose? I can put up random facts all day long, but if I don't know what specific point I am arguing against, it won't do much good. So please explain your position on firearms and what you would have done about them if you had the final say.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Huh? Some may have admitted that slavery was a violation against human rights, but they were ambiguous at best. I would say more like hypocritical. If they were so against slavery, why did many of them own slaves? You should read Lincoln's Cooper Union Speech. He states that out of 39 framers of the Constitution, 22 voted on the questioning of banning slavery, Twenty of the 22 voted to ban it, while one framer, George Washington, signed legislation enforcing the Northwest Ordinance that banned slavery in the NW Territories. Lincoln also quoted Thomas Jefferson, who had argued in favor of Virginia emancipation: "It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly...." Jefferson was such a hypocrite, he knew slavery was wrong, but he blamed enslavement on British policies, then decided it would be best if we sent African American's away. His logic was so skewed, they deleted a passage of this from the Continental Congress.

 

No, I don't propose a ban on all guns, because it's never going to happen. I try to be realistic. However, I think it was a terrible idea to allow so many guns in this country to begin with. I would like to see some laws, not only put in place, but enforced, especially at gun shows, and strict background checks. I don't think anyone needs the type of automatic weapons that are designed to kill many people faster.And even though some of the founders had character flaws, I don't think this is what they meant by a well regulated militia. Obviously more guns are not making us safer, otherwise we be the safest country in the world. I think it's a shame we can't adopt Japan's gun policies. Do you know how many gun related deaths they have in a year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you lean towards individual liberty and freedom, while ignoring the liberty and freedom of each citizen, what does that make you? It doesn't sound much different than a religious fanatic. You can pick and choose your favorite scriptures, the same way you can pick and choose your favorite parts of the Constitution, and mold it into your beliefs. It sounds like you're content with your liberty and freedom fantasy regardless of the fact that thousands of people are dying.

 

How am I ignoring the liberty and freedom of each citizen? Give me one right/liberty/freedom I had advocated against.

 

When evil men do things to good people (taking their liberties away), by committing crimes such as theft, rape, or murder.....you can not blame that on a liberty that I would grant a good person. I think I need better examples to clarify what I mean.

 

How again am I ignoring the liberty and freedom of each citizen? I don't consider myself to be a liberty hypocrite and hence why I am a bit extreme when it comes to liberty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I don't propose a ban on all guns, because it's never going to happen. I try to be realistic. However, I think it was a terrible idea to allow so many guns in this country to begin with. I would like to see some laws, not only put in place, but enforced, especially at gun shows, and strict background checks. I don't think anyone needs the type of automatic weapons that are designed to kill many people faster.And even though some of the founders had character flaws, I don't think this is what they meant by a well regulated militia. Obviously more guns are not making us safer, otherwise we be the safest country in the world. I think it's a shame we can't adopt Japan's gun policies. Do you know how many gun related deaths they have in a year?

 

How much to you understand about the Japanese culture when it comes to society? America and Japan are very different. They are a more "self-less" people than America is. Look at what happen during their latest tragic events. There were no looting and crime. Instead, we saw people helping each other and many people step up to be good citizens. Compare that to Katrina with riots and looting (martial law).

 

The Japanese are among the most law-abiding people on earth, and far more law-abiding than us Americans. Our non-gun robbery rate is over 70 times Japan's, an indication that something more significant than gun policy is involved in the differing crime rates between the our nations.

 

Let's look at similar scenarios (where guns are completely prohibited). Neither Japanese nor American prisoners have guns, but homicide by prisoners and attacks on guards occur frequently in OUR prisons, and almost never in Japanese prisons. Another indication that social standards matter more than gun laws is that Japanese-Americans, who have access to firearms, have a lower violent crime rate than do Japanese in Japan.

 

Oh....and one of the reasons that their gun policies work is that they have a strong police state. Our western-style rights that protect the citizens from the abuses of a police state are non-existent or feeble in Japan. There is no right to privacy when it comes to search and seizure.

 

If you ask me, I'm all for educating our society to be more self-less and teach others to be "good" to one another. I would never give up my 4th amendment rights in order to ensure a "safer" society from what is essentially a 2nd amendment right.

 

Before ANY infringing on 2nd Amendment, we (like already mentioned) need to go through the Constitutional Democratic process and get a new amendment to change the "shall not be infringed" portion of the 2nd Amendment in our Bill of Rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for missing this earlier. Sometimes, I catch a response and get distracted.

 


Mr Patriot,

I found the interview between the two interesting. I respect both for meeting and having a conversation and I think a lot of people here could learn by their example.

Having said that, at about the 30 min mark Penn talks about what I'll call, unmitigated freedom. You should be able to do what you want as long as your not taking Government money or imposing on the freedoms of others using force.

Here is my question to you as a Libertarian, do you think that wealth can be used to influence people to the point that it can be considered force.

 

 

Good question. I don't think I can speak for all Libertarians but I'll give you my view on it. Libertarians believe in a free market system based on value. For example, if Microsoft produced a better mobile phone than Apple, and that resulted in the decline and disappearance of Apple. Well that sucks....but value of one product trumped the other. We hope for healthy competition and assume that other companies will try to enter the space to provide more value and take away market share.

 

Now...if Microsoft feels that it can not compete with a better product, so it buys off politicians (because it has a lot of money) to pass laws that cripple Apple. They have introduced corruption into this economic scenario and thus are not playing the rules of a free market cycle (as a Libertarian sees it). Influence through special interests are now controlling the supply/demand rather than a value-based supply demand.

 

To answer your question, yes...wealth can be used in a way that falls out of support by the liberty movement.

 


In other words, if I live in a town of 50,000 people, and I have more wealth then the entire town combined (let's say several times over), should I be free to used my wealth to influence people through advertising and any other means to further my agenda as long as I don't (using a Libertarian term) "hold a gun to anyone's head?

 

Okay...this scenario is a bit tricky. I'd lean in the direction of no. I mean if you are advertising a product....and selling it. That is one thing. However, if you use the advertising media to spread false propaganda (or even half-truths), you are selling a lie. Libertarians believe in maximum freedom, but with that comes individual responsibility. Some people think that Libertarians are all for anarchy, but that is a false interpretation. We trust individuals to be moral individuals. You are free to do what you want as long as your aren't hurting other people. I think the scenario you proposed, results in people getting hurt right?

 

I think the problem is that money can be used just as forcefully as a gun. It seems to me that the ultra wealthy are the ones that benefit most from total unmitigated freedom.

 

You are right. Even if I don't carry a gun, if I hire armed guards (mercenaries) that have a gun. I can inflict just as much pain, death, or intimidation as if I was directly holding the gun myself. The ultra wealthy are not immune to responsibility. If they break the simple rule of causing harm to someone directly, they are not being responsible individuals.

 

 

I'd support a lot less Government if people had equal access to a world class education system. An education system based on evidentiary principles, not politics or dogma.

Thoughts?

 

I agree on this. I also believe that we have to be more respectful to each other. We've really gone downhill as a society. I love this country, but want to see more people working together on solutions rather than creating the divides that we have today. Respecting each other's rights, freedoms, and liberties are key. If you look at the non-moderated forums, it gets pretty crazy. I know a lot of people are keyboard commandos, but after showing up at a Second Amendment rally today, I realize one thing. While I fight passionately for liberties and freedom, some people are blindly fighting for the "other side". Gun liberty isn't a Republican anti-Obama thing. It is a freedom thing.

 

I don't live in fear. I try to look for the good in people (instead of assuming the worst). I know at times it is utopian.....but a world like this wouldn't require the size of government we have today. I can only hope...right? ;)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYRS4FQXZrk

Edited by MrUSPatriot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1. How am I ignoring the liberty and freedom of each citizen? Give me one right/liberty/freedom I had advocated against.

 

2. When evil men do things to good people (taking their liberties away), by committing crimes such as theft, rape, or murder.....you can not blame that on a liberty that I would grant a good person. I think I need better examples to clarify what I mean.

 

3. How again am I ignoring the liberty and freedom of each citizen? I don't consider myself to be a liberty hypocrite and hence why I am a bit extreme when it comes to liberty.

 

 

1. There were approximately 8,583 people murdered by firearms in 2011. What about their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Or does the right to life and liberty only apply to gun owners?

 

The definition of liberty is "The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life."

 

So far, I've only heard you comment about liberty and freedom for you, with no concern for the other 300 and something million citizens you live with. When people can't send their children to school for fear they will be murdered at school, how is that called freedom? Our state of being free within a society has become "free to live in fear" We are free to live in fear due to lack of restrictions..We are being oppressed by lack of restrictions.

 

2. When your "liberty" gives easy access to guns, and they go in the hands of thieves, rapists, and murderers, I can call foul, and say I've had enough of your liberty, and your freedom is NOT free.

 

3. You are ignoring the 8,583 people who were murdered, and don't get to have life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. What are your suggestions for the year 2013, so we don't have another 8,583 that lose the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? Your repeated use of the words "life, liberty, and freedom" have little value when someone else is murdered before you can spit those 3 words out. Just saying.

 

 

How much to you understand about the Japanese culture when it comes to society? America and Japan are very different. They are a more "self-less" people than America is. Look at what happen during their latest tragic events. There were no looting and crime. Instead, we saw people helping each other and many people step up to be good citizens. Compare that to Katrina with riots and looting (martial law).

 

The Japanese are among the most law-abiding people on earth, and far more law-abiding than us Americans. Our non-gun robbery rate is over 70 times Japan's, an indication that something more significant than gun policy is involved in the differing crime rates between the our nations.

 

Let's look at similar scenarios (where guns are completely prohibited). Neither Japanese nor American prisoners have guns, but homicide by prisoners and attacks on guards occur frequently in OUR prisons, and almost never in Japanese prisons. Another indication that social standards matter more than gun laws is that Japanese-Americans, who have access to firearms, have a lower violent crime rate than do Japanese in Japan.

 

Oh....and one of the reasons that their gun policies work is that they have a strong police state. Our western-style rights that protect the citizens from the abuses of a police state are non-existent or feeble in Japan. There is no right to privacy when it comes to search and seizure.

 

If you ask me, I'm all for educating our society to be more self-less and teach others to be "good" to one another. I would never give up my 4th amendment rights in order to ensure a "safer" society from what is essentially a 2nd amendment right.

 

Before ANY infringing on 2nd Amendment, we (like already mentioned) need to go through the Constitutional Democratic process and get a new amendment to change the "shall not be infringed" portion of the 2nd Amendment in our Bill of Rights.

 

 

I'll pull out my Japan stats tomorrow. I'm getting sleepy. LOL!

Edited by anukulardecider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1. There were approximately 8,583 people murdered by firearms in 2011. What about their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Or does the right to life and liberty only apply to gun owners?

 

The definition of liberty is "The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life."

 

Hmmm....my oppression indirectly through my firearms? I don't like an inanimate object defining whether I am oppressive or not....but for the time being...let's play that game.

 

My guns are safe and locked away and very secure. I have multiple layers of security from obfuscation, lock down, and motion detection. Lasers and thermal detection were a bit too much I think. Criminals getting access to my guns is virtually impossible. Several weeks ago, a fleet of police vehicles had their assault rifles stolen. You have to look at our law enforcement for chinks in their firearms security before looking at me. Now note....there are millions of Americans with security like me (or better).

 

I hope that addresses my tyrant sticks.

 

Seriously though, do you think my freedom is directly oppressing the life, liberty, and happiness of another? Would the freedom of being gay restrict the freedom of another to NOT be gay, be around gays, or have discomfort of knowing of a gay person's existence?

 

We have to hold individuals responsible for the oppressive natures and not a whole segment of society simply because they share the same tools as an oppressive (criminal) segment of society. I don't murder people. My guns don't murder people. I am not an oppressive person. In all actuality, I am a very liberating person.

 

I have a concealed carry permit. If an evil man intends to brutally rape and kill you (and I am nearby), I will stop that man. In our training, we don't shoot to kill. We shoot to stop a threat. In the case that the person is shot fatally and dies, that is an unfortunate situation. I was not trying to be oppressive to him. I was trying to liberate you....from him.

 

 

 

So far, I've only heard you comment about liberty and freedom for you, with no concern for the other 300 and something million citizens you live with. When people can't send their children to school for fear they will be murdered at school, how is that called freedom? Our state of being free within a society has become "free to live in fear" We are free to live in fear due to lack of restrictions..We are being oppressed by lack of restrictions.

 

Should we pass legislation on every single thing that doesn't allow us to live without fear? If someone is paranoid that a plane will land on his house, should she/he have the right to declare no fly zones over his house?

 

 

2. When your "liberty" gives easy access to guns, and they go in the hands of thieves, rapists, and murderers, I can call foul, and say I've had enough of your liberty, and your freedom is NOT free.

 

Read above. Again, my guns are NOT easily accessible. I also do support the background checks and want to end private sales that do not go through background checks.

 

3. You are ignoring the 8,583 people who were murdered, and don't get to have life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. What are your suggestions for the year 2013, so we don't have another 8,583 that lose the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? Your repeated use of the words "life, liberty, and freedom" have little value when someone else is murdered before you can spit those 3 words out. Just saying.

 

if I had my way, I'd clone myself and personally try to protect as many people as I can. Unfortunately, I can not do that. That is not realistic. I am only responsible for myself and the people in my immediate party. I find discomfort with statements made by those who like to put the blood of others in my hands when I don't have an evil bone in my body.

 

Everyone is responsible for their own life, liberty and happiness. Anyone trying to take that away from them is oppressive and a tyrant. I MYSELF....would never do that to anyone.

 

My solution? I say we need more protectors in our society. There is a lot of bad people our there....a lot of evil.

 

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

 

 

 

I'll pull out my Japan stats tomorrow. I'm getting sleepy. LOL!

 

No rush....get some sleep. There is always tomorrow (err today) I should sleep myself. ;)

Edited by MrUSPatriot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, just took like an hour putting a response together for Anuk and I lost it....Dammit I hate that. I'll come back at some point, but I'm a little to pissed right now....

Edited by csbrown28

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<p>Ok one more try...grrrrrrr</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="anukulardecider" data-cid="2966974" data-time="1358657802">
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>1. There were approximately 8,583 people murdered by firearms in 2011.  What about their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Or does the right to life and liberty only apply to gun owners?</p>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>This strikes me as a highly emotional statement.  No gun owner feels that liberty and happiness only apply to them.  I'm surprised MrPatriot didn't pick up on this, but the saying "freedom isn't <em>free", </em> applies here.  People have only two methods to persuade other people, reason and force.  Interestingly the firearm can be used to force others and it can defend from others trying to force you.  Firearms are a force equalizer.  A 100lb woman is, generally speaking, unable to defend herself from a 250lb man, but with a gun suddenly the ability to defend swings in her direction.  Even if they both have a gun, if they are both well trained, the balance of force can still said to be equal, or at least closer to equal then it would be otherwise.  </p>
<p> </p>
<p>The same can be said for the potential of government to impose tyrannical force against it's population.  The gun, in the case of the government, many not equal the government and the people, but it moves the two closer together.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Moving on....</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Think about motor vehicles.  They were involved in the deaths of over 32,000 people in 2011.  Many of those people were killed though no fault of their own.  Would it be fair to say that only those that use motor vehicles have freedom and liberty?  Of course not, we as a society look at the cost vs the benefit and we deem the risk of death acceptable when considering the cost.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Now having said that, we also all agree that reasonable precautions should be taken to see that as few lives are lost as possible.  We accept certain restrictions such as speed limits, registration and other traffic rules to name a few.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I think the time has come to accept that firearms are part of our culture, bu conversely to accept that the ownership of firearms is a huge responsibility and along with responsibility come accountability, something I think we a a nation don't ask of firearm owners.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Now I want to make it clear that I don't equate firearms and vehicles.  Vehicles have, as their primary application and design purpose the transportation of goods and services and people, where firearms application and design propose is force projection.  Please don't think that banning cars and guns is the same and I would never make that argument as I think it's a silly one to make.</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="anukulardecider" data-cid="2966974" data-time="1358657802">
<p> </p>
<p>The definition of liberty is "The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life." </p>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>You will never, ever be free of individuals trying to take your rights away though force.  Conversely, individuals also don't have the ability to grant or protect your rights either.  Don't conflate individuals to groups.  The government is one group and citizens are the other (some are obviously both).  What we want to avoid is the government (or any other group for that matter) from imposing it's authority on individuals.  My argument is that sometimes reason isn't enough. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>What should we do?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I think the only way to create laws that will increase accountability and reduce the number of deaths is for there to be a list of accountable owners.  I think the list should reside with THE STATES and not with the feds and that clearly defined wording be put in place.  What exactly that wording should be is a matter of some debate, but the idea would be to prevent government from abusing it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1) Each gun be registered with the state they reside in.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>2) Transfers of guns be done through an external entity (like an FFL)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>3) Each owner is responsible for securing their firearms.  Failure to do so can result in owners being found negligent and having their ownership privileges suspended or revoked.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>4)To own a firearm requires a minimum amount of knowledge that must be demonstrated to the state in witch you reside.  </p>
<p> </p>
<p>5) A small fee be collected to help pay for safety programs, background and mental health checks and any other programs designed to help foster responsible gun ownership.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Now this list isn't all inclusive.  For each one of these provisions there is a right way to do it and a wrong way....</p>
<p>(Little shorter this time)</p>

Edited by csbrown28

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, there is some kind of conspiracy going on here....No idea why it included all of the HTML in my reply....So here it is again.

 

 

 

1. There were approximately 8,583 people murdered by firearms in 2011. What about their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Or does the right to life and liberty only apply to gun owners?

 

This strikes me as a highly emotional statement. No gun owner feels that liberty and happiness only apply to them. I'm surprised MrPatriot didn't pick up on this, but the saying isn't free quote applies here. People have only two methods to persuade other people, reason and force. Interestingly the firearm can be used to force others and it can defend from others trying to force you. Firearms are a force equalizer. A 100lb woman is, generally speaking, unable to defend herself from a 250lb man, but with a gun suddenly the ability to defend swings in her direction. Even if they both have a gun, if they are both well trained, the balance of force can still said to be equal, or at least closer to equal then it would be otherwise.

The same can be said for the potential of government to impose tyrannical force against its population. The gun, in the case of the government, many not equal the government and the people, but it moves the two closer together.

Moving on....

Think about motor vehicles. They were involved in the deaths of over 32,000 people in 2011. Many of those people were killed through no fault of their own. Would it be fair to say that only those that use motor vehicles have freedom and liberty? Of course not, we as a society look at the cost vs the benefit and we deem the risk of death acceptable when considering the cost.

Now having said that, we also all agree that reasonable precautions should be taken to see that as few lives are lost as possible. We accept certain restrictions such as speed limits, registration and other traffic rules to name a few.

I think the time has come to accept that firearms are part of our culture, but conversely to accept that the ownership of firearms is a huge responsibility and along with responsibility come accountability, something I think we a nation don't ask of firearm owners.

Now I want to make it clear that I don't equate firearms and vehicles. Vehicles have, as their primary application and design purpose the transportation of goods and services and people, where firearms application and design propose is force projection. Please don't think that banning cars and guns is the same and I would never make that argument as I think it's a silly one to make.

 

 

The definition of liberty is "The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life."

 

 


You will never, ever be free of individuals trying to take your rights away though force. Conversely, individuals also don't have the ability to grant or protect your rights either. Don't conflate individuals to groups. The government is one group and citizens are the other (some are obviously both). What we want to avoid is the government (or any other group for that matter) from imposing it's authority on individuals. My argument is that sometimes reason isn't enough.

What should we do?

I think the only way to create laws that will increase accountability and reduce the number of deaths is for there to be a list of accountable owners. I think the list should reside with THE STATES and not with the feds and that clearly defined wording be put in place. What exactly that wording should be is a matter of some debate, but the idea would be to prevent government from abusing it.

So,

1) Each gun be registered with the state they reside in.

2) Transfers of guns be done through an external entity (like an FFL)

3) Each owner is responsible for securing their firearms. Failure to do so can result in owners being found negligent and having their ownership privileges suspended or revoked.

4)To own a firearm requires a minimum amount of knowledge that must be demonstrated to the state in which you reside.

5) A small fee be collected to help pay for safety programs, background and mental health checks and any other programs designed to help foster responsible gun ownership.


Now this list isn't all inclusive. For each one of these provisions there is a right way to do it and a wrong way....

 


(Little shorter this time)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well put CS....I generally agree with your ideas. And thank you for pointing out what I missed. I was replying with more emotion and less rational though as presented by you.

 

When we look at reasonable restrictions, I just want a little more logic applied to each additional legislation (kind of like what you've done). I don't like legislation based on emotions. Nothing really good comes out of it (from a liberty perspective).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well put CS....I generally agree with your ideas. And thank you for pointing out what I missed. I was replying with more emotion and less rational though as presented by you.

 

When we look at reasonable restrictions, I just want a little more logic applied to each additional legislation (kind of like what you've done). I don't like legislation based on emotions. Nothing really good comes out of it (from a liberty perspective).

You know it's funny, But the part where I wrote:

 

"I'm surprised MrPatriot didn't pick up on this, but the saying isn't free quote applies here."

 

Somehow got truncated...It was supposed to be:

 

I'm surprised MrPatriot didn't pick up on this, but the saying "Freedom isn't free" applies here.

 

Oh well, looks like you got the drift.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, just took like an hour putting a response together for Anuk and I lost it....Dammit I hate that. I'll come back at some point, but I'm a little to pissed right now....

 

 

I hate it when that happens. I got in the habit of typing my responses on notepad, then when I'm finished, just do the cut n paste, especially for a long response. It works. I should get in the habit of doing that again. I'm going to read your post and MrPatriots, but I will respond tomorrow. I am dog tired. I got up at 5am, and it's now 3:30 am, however, today is my Friday! Yay! I'll stop in tomorrow to answer this thread. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate it when that happens. I got in the habit of typing my responses on notepad, then when I'm finished, just do the cut n paste, especially for a long response. It works. I should get in the habit of doing that again. I'm going to read your post and MrPatriots, but I will respond tomorrow. I am dog tired. I got up at 5am, and it's now 3:30 am, however, today is my Friday! Yay! I'll stop in tomorrow to answer this thread. :P

 

One thing I forgot after I lost my response was a discussion in regards to the cost/ benefit of a society that owns firearms.

 

The cost is obvious. From time to time innocent people are killed by others who use a firearm to project force.

 

The benefits are that firearms equalize force projection between two or more parties. Firearms also equalize force projection between the populace and its government.

 

The discussion should stop here if anyone disagrees with my assessment and discuss, but if you agree then let's move on.....

 

Let's think about his....

 

Before we start throwing out our ideas, we need to decide what it is we wish to accomplish, what our goal/s are, when we discuss what should be done, if anything, in regards to firearms.

 

The goal, plainly stated, should be to eliminate as much harm as possible caused when a person/s uses firearms to harm innocent people. Period.

 

The question is, how can we accomplish that goal?

 

The answer lies in understanding how firearms effect society as a whole, being honest on both sides.

 

Firearms allow people to apply force (both physical and in the form of intimidation) more efficiently then they would be able to without a firearm, both in effort required, result and distance you can be from the person that is the target of harm.

 

The first question is, if the government were to ban firearm ownership, what would result?

 

1) Would fewer criminals have access to guns and therefore be less likely to harm and or intimidate others?

2) Would potential victims have less ability to defend themselves?

I think victims in this scenario are more likely to be impacted by the elimination of guns. Why?

 

To question 1):

 

While eliminating guns will almost certainly reduce the number of guns available to criminals, but the effect would be minimal (as criminals generally don't respect laws) and it doesn't address the criminals desire to victimize others in society.

The "drug war" has proven that the government cannot effectively prevent the population from obtaining items that the government deems unfit for general consumption/ ownership. The unintended consequence of the drug war has been that the government has indirectly created one of the most successful criminal enterprises on earth. If guns are made illegal, and the demand for guns remains, then guns become another lucrative business for criminals, and unlike drugs, those that purchase firearms will be more likely to use them to do harm to others.

 

To question 2)

 

How many firearms are used for protection? I can imagine scenario's where abusive husbands, or bullies are stopped because, either the victim or a third party, challenged the aggressor with a firearm.

 

Without the gun, how does a third party project force? A knife, a bat? A phone? Most people lack the confidence knowledge to use a hand held weapon like a bat or a knife so many victims will have to wait for police.

 

Guns are equal parts force and intimidation.

 

Now I realize that not every firearm owner has access to their arms all of the time, or is trained enough to use it, as many people shot are disarmed and shot with their own weapon, but this is a problem of training and cultural expectation, not ownership.

 

The last part has to do with Government.

 

Does the right for a citizen to own firearms affect the way the Government interacts with it's people? Is our government less likely to strip rights away when there is a chance that people will rise up and protect their rights with firearms if necessary?

 

I think the answer is yes. If we willingly (as a populace) give up our right to firearms ownership I believe that balance between the people and the government will swing in favor of the government. Lack of fear from reprisal from the people could result in less effort on the part of those in government to respect our freedoms.

 

For those that try to say that firearms are no match for the government and the resources that the government can deploy I'd say this. If the government is willing to kill or imprison a large portion of it's population then we really have to stop and think about how the people that make up the enforcement of our government would react.

 

Next, anyone who thinks a single person with a high powered rifle cant pose a real and significant threat to people in power, have little understanding of what a well trained individual and his rifle are capable of.

 

So when we consider the realities of firearm ownership in the US, I'd argue that, since firearms cannot realistically be removed from society, bans would primarily affect those that would not use them to do harm. Accidental deaths (children, misuse ect) could be minimized though compulsory training as well as tighter laws calling for accountability.

 

The cost to our personal freedoms will always be in jeopardy from those that feel they can project power in order to intimidate us. The cost of relinquishing our firearms could come at the cost of our personal freedom, be it from individuals within society, or the government itself. Remember when you post numbers of people that have died from firearms, remember that 340,000 Americans died fighting in WWI & II, to prevent foreign governments from projecting their influence on our way of life.

Edited by csbrown28

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, there is some kind of conspiracy going on here....No idea why it included all of the HTML in my reply....So here it is again.

 

 

This strikes me as a highly emotional statement. No gun owner feels that liberty and happiness only apply to them. I'm surprised MrPatriot didn't pick up on this, but the saying isn't free quote applies here. People have only two methods to persuade other people, reason and force. Interestingly the firearm can be used to force others and it can defend from others trying to force you. Firearms are a force equalizer. A 100lb woman is, generally speaking, unable to defend herself from a 250lb man, but with a gun suddenly the ability to defend swings in her direction. Even if they both have a gun, if they are both well trained, the balance of force can still said to be equal, or at least closer to equal then it would be otherwise.

 

 

Realistically speaking, the chances are that the 250 lb man would take that gun away and use it on her. And if we're talking about home defense, I don't see any problem with either owning a single fire shot gun or hand gun. They need to do away with clips that hold more than 10 rounds.

 

The same can be said for the potential of government to impose tyrannical force against its population. The gun, in the case of the government, many not equal the government and the people, but it moves the two closer together.

 

Moving on....

 

Our Government has nuclear weapons. We don't stand a chance. LOL!

 

Think about motor vehicles. They were involved in the deaths of over 32,000 people in 2011. Many of those people were killed through no fault of their own. Would it be fair to say that only those that use motor vehicles have freedom and liberty? Of course not, we as a society look at the cost vs the benefit and we deem the risk of death acceptable when considering the cost.

 

 

Oh no you don't. People don't purchase cars to do mass murders. You're comparing apples to oranges and that's just silly.

 

Now having said that, we also all agree that reasonable precautions should be taken to see that as few lives are lost as possible. We accept certain restrictions such as speed limits, registration and other traffic rules to name a few.

 

Now to that, I agree. "A well regulated militia" implies that there will be rules. No one can deny what that means and be honest with themselves.

 

I think the time has come to accept that firearms are part of our culture, but conversely to accept that the ownership of firearms is a huge responsibility and along with responsibility come accountability, something I think we a nation don't ask of firearm owners.

 

I agree again. There's no way we are ever getting rid of all guns. But we do need stricter laws, and they need to be enforced this time.

 

Now I want to make it clear that I don't equate firearms and vehicles. Vehicles have, as their primary application and design purpose the transportation of goods and services and people, where firearms application and design propose is force projection. Please don't think that banning cars and guns is the same and I would never make that argument as I think it's a silly one to make.

 

Okay good.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You will never, ever be free of individuals trying to take your rights away though force. Conversely, individuals also don't have the ability to grant or protect your rights either. Don't conflate individuals to groups. The government is one group and citizens are the other (some are obviously both). What we want to avoid is the government (or any other group for that matter) from imposing it's authority on individuals. My argument is that sometimes reason isn't enough.

 

What should we do?

 

I think the only way to create laws that will increase accountability and reduce the number of deaths is for there to be a list of accountable owners. I think the list should reside with THE STATES and not with the feds and that clearly defined wording be put in place. What exactly that wording should be is a matter of some debate, but the idea would be to prevent government from abusing it.

 

 

It sounds like you're wanting to form state militias, is that correct? Am I reading you correctly? If that's the case, I'm all for it as soon as we get rid of the military and the pentagon. We don't need our armed forces any longer, once we have state militias put in place.

 

So,

 

1) Each gun be registered with the state they reside in.

 

2) Transfers of guns be done through an external entity (like an FFL)

 

3) Each owner is responsible for securing their firearms. Failure to do so can result in owners being found negligent and having their ownership privileges suspended or revoked.

 

4)To own a firearm requires a minimum amount of knowledge that must be demonstrated to the state in which you reside.

 

5) A small fee be collected to help pay for safety programs, background and mental health checks and any other programs designed to help foster responsible gun ownership.

 

 

Now this list isn't all inclusive. For each one of these provisions there is a right way to do it and a wrong way....

 

 

(Little shorter this time)

We don't need state militias since we have our armed forces. When they wrote the Constitution, there was no military. Get rid of our armed forces, and I'll sit down and have a discussion about forming state militias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How am I ignoring the liberty and freedom of each citizen? Give me one right/liberty/freedom I had advocated against.

 

When evil men do things to good people (taking their liberties away), by committing crimes such as theft, rape, or murder.....you can not blame that on a liberty that I would grant a good person. I think I need better examples to clarify what I mean.

 

How again am I ignoring the liberty and freedom of each citizen? I don't consider myself to be a liberty hypocrite and hence why I am a bit extreme when it comes to liberty.

I have a present for you. So don't say I never gave you anything. LOL!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a present for you. So don't say I never gave you anything. LOL!

 

Yea, while I like Bill Maher, it's ironic that he admits on that very same show, that he owns a gun.....

 

He's right about our other rights, both parties have trampled on the Constitution, but it's not "skeeter in Kentucky with is .22" that will protect our rights, it's millions of owners with everything from .22's to .50 cal's that will, when their tired of having their liberties trampled on, will demand their rights be respected. Their voices will only have weight because when reason fails, force is an option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yea, while I like Bill Maher, it's ironic that he admits on that very same show, that he owns a gun.....

 

He's right about our other rights, both parties have trampled on the Constitution, but it's not "skeeter in Kentucky with is .22" that will protect our rights, it's millions of owners with everything from .22's to .50 cal's that will, when their tired of having their liberties trampled on, will demand their rights be respected. Their voices will only have weight because when reason fails, force is an option.

 

Incorrect--Earl Bailey will save us.

 

http://www.theonion.com/articles/62yearold-with-gun-only-one-standing-between-natio,30984/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Realistically speaking, the chances are that the 250 lb man would take that gun away and use it on her. And if we're talking about home defense, I don't see any problem with either owning a single fire shot gun or hand gun. They need to do away with clips that hold more than 10 rounds.

 

This isn't a problem with gun ownership, but a culture that thinks that you can point a gun at someone and they will cower in fear. This is a problem with training and I'm not opposed to weeks if not months of training be required to own a gun....

 

 

 

 

The same can be said for the potential of government to impose tyrannical force against its population. The gun, in the case of the government, many not equal the government and the people, but it moves the two closer together.

 

Moving on....

 

Our Government has nuclear weapons. We don't stand a chance. LOL!

 

 

I hope you're being funny, otherwise this statement makes absolutely no sense. First, tyrannical governments want to subvert their population, not kill them. Nuclear weapons are for wiping other countries off the map, not for crowd control. If any nation on earth would nuke it's own people, the level of human outrage with be mind numbing. Nuking your population isn't even an option and it's a silly thing to say.

 

 

 

 

Think about motor vehicles. They were involved in the deaths of over 32,000 people in 2011. Many of those people were killed through no fault of their own. Would it be fair to say that only those that use motor vehicles have freedom and liberty? Of course not, we as a society look at the cost vs the benefit and we deem the risk of death acceptable when considering the cost.

 

 

Oh no you don't. People don't purchase cars to do mass murders. You're comparing apples to oranges and that's just silly.

 

Actually I stated that I wasn't trying to equate guns and cars, your right they aren't the same at all by pointing out that guns and cars have much different design functions, so I agree with you. However the point I was making is that we accept death in society when benefits clearly outweigh costs. I would agree that, given the opportunities to make significant changes in gun laws, that the cost benefit is declining. That's why I'd advocate for laws that make a real difference.

 

 

 

 

Now having said that, we also all agree that reasonable precautions should be taken to see that as few lives are lost as possible. We accept certain restrictions such as speed limits, registration and other traffic rules to name a few.

 

Now to that, I agree. "A well regulated militia" implies that there will be rules. No one can deny what that means and be honest with themselves.

 

Actually Madison, when he wrote that, knew that people feared the Government in control of a fighting force. He knew the people wanted to defend themselves so he wrote a statment that tried to walk a very careful line between self protection and government authority over a fighting force.

 

Having said that, I think I've made it clear that I support, significant, real changes to gun laws based on evidence.

 

 

 

 

I think the time has come to accept that firearms are part of our culture, but conversely to accept that the ownership of firearms is a huge responsibility and along with responsibility come accountability, something I think we a nation don't ask of firearm owners.

 

I agree again. There's no way we are ever getting rid of all guns. But we do need stricter laws, and they need to be enforced this time.

 

I've outlined several ideas for new laws, but you didn't really comment on them.

 

 

 

 

Now I want to make it clear that I don't equate firearms and vehicles. Vehicles have, as their primary application and design purpose the transportation of goods and services and people, where firearms application and design propose is force projection. Please don't think that banning cars and guns is the same and I would never make that argument as I think it's a silly one to make.

 

Okay good.

 

Ahhh...I see you got that....

 

 

 

 

You will never, ever be free of individuals trying to take your rights away though force. Conversely, individuals also don't have the ability to grant or protect your rights either. Don't conflate individuals to groups. The government is one group and citizens are the other (some are obviously both). What we want to avoid is the government (or any other group for that matter) from imposing it's authority on individuals. My argument is that sometimes reason isn't enough.

 

What should we do?

 

I think the only way to create laws that will increase accountability and reduce the number of deaths is for there to be a list of accountable owners. I think the list should reside with THE STATES and not with the feds and that clearly defined wording be put in place. What exactly that wording should be is a matter of some debate, but the idea would be to prevent government from abusing it.

 

 

It sounds like you're wanting to form state militias, is that correct? Am I reading you correctly? If that's the case, I'm all for it as soon as we get rid of the military and the pentagon. We don't need our armed forces any longer, once we have state militias put in place.

 

So,

 

1) Each gun be registered with the state they reside in.

 

2) Transfers of guns be done through an external entity (like an FFL)

 

3) Each owner is responsible for securing their firearms. Failure to do so can result in owners being found negligent and having their ownership privileges suspended or revoked.

 

4)To own a firearm requires a minimum amount of knowledge that must be demonstrated to the state in which you reside.

 

5) A small fee be collected to help pay for safety programs, background and mental health checks and any other programs designed to help foster responsible gun ownership.

 

 

Now this list isn't all inclusive. For each one of these provisions there is a right way to do it and a wrong way....

 

 

(Little shorter this time)

We don't need state militias since we have our armed forces. When they wrote the Constitution, there was no military. Get rid of our armed forces, and I'll sit down and have a discussion about forming state militias.

 

 

 

 

I think we need a national military, however, that military should have clearly defined goals, not to be used at the whim of each administration. I think ever system within the military (like the Abrahms tank), should have to justify it's existence Does America really need 9000+ tanks? If programs can't be justified, in public (unless there is some real reason for secrecy) funding should be cut and programs ended.

 

We could have used all the money that went to the wars and foreign actions to decrease our dependence on other nations and crushed them fiscally.

 

As far as militias go, I think the purpose of the states, is to protect the rights of it's citizens form a federal government that would abuse it's power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yea, while I like Bill Maher, it's ironic that he admits on that very same show, that he owns a gun.....

 

He's right about our other rights, both parties have trampled on the Constitution, but it's not "skeeter in Kentucky with is .22" that will protect our rights, it's millions of owners with everything from .22's to .50 cal's that will, when their tired of having their liberties trampled on, will demand their rights be respected. Their voices will only have weight because when reason fails, force is an option.

So what if he owns a gun? Lots of gun owners know that there should be strict laws on what type of guns should be owned by the general public, not to mention the fact that nobody is saying they want all guns confiscated.

 

I disagree. the millions of gun owners are not going to protect our Constitutional rights. If that were true, what's taking them so long? It seems the only Constitutional right they are interested in, is keeping their guns, while making the rest of us less safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what if he owns a gun? Lots of gun owners know that there should be strict laws on what type of guns should be owned by the general public, not to mention the fact that nobody is saying they want all guns confiscated.

 

I disagree. the millions of gun owners are not going to protect our Constitutional rights. If that were true, what's taking them so long? It seems the only Constitutional right they are interested in, is keeping their guns, while making the rest of us less safe.

 

Perhaps we agree more then we realize? I'm all for, what I'll call, strict responsibility on gun ownership.

 

As far as people and their rights....It seems to be human nature to be apathetic. I doubt many people realize or even care that their rights are being infringed. The rest of us, who care, can't go it alone. Change won't happen until things get much worse, until our everyday lives are effected that people will wake up.

 

I was on the board of directors of development with over 400 homes. People were encouraged to take part in the process. To have a say where their money went and how the board spent the communities money. The annual meeting would see 30-50 people (well short of 125 necessary for a quorum). The board would do whatever it wanted, even though they weren't supposed to. I was trying to hold the board accountable and tried getting people involved....No one cared. People called me a trouble maker. That is until a bridge at one end of the community had to be closed because of safety issues and people had to drive way out of their way to enter the development at the other end. When the board realized that they had spent the communities money on pet projects and not put some aside for big issues like this one, suddenly, everyone cared and 250 people showed up to our annual meeting. When it was over, I was the only member to keep a seat (because I had tried to take action to prevent these issues for years). Within 2 years everyone forgot and things went back to the way they were,

 

The point is, people want other people to do their business. The problem is, that most of the people willing to do that business are more interested in the power and authority then trying to make better communities (not the kind of people you want making decisions for you). Homeowners don't want to be troubled, not only to get involved, but to take the time to learn the issues. And this is in a community, imagine how little people in Maine care about people in New Mexico.

 

This is why mass media is so dangerous. It is the source of what most people know about their country and the world. It's not controlled by government, but by the wealthy people that own the 6 major companies that own virtually all of the network news that we see (who use their money to influence government).

 

You know what they say, things will have to get worse before they get better....

Edited by csbrown28

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New to the boards here.

 

I understand this idea that "We The People" have to be able to protect ourselves from "Government Gone Bad" or any other oppressive force. But I do have issue with how this scenario is often characterized. After all, the government is in fact made of "We The People". There are thousands upon thousands of civil servants, law enforcement personnel, millions of active duty and veterans out there who are all attached in some way to the government. You, me, our friends, sisters, brothers, cousins, uncles, sons, daughters, etc. I guess I see that as protection against some grand conspiracy. And the more informed we can be, the more we can prevent "Government Gone Bad." Quite simply, I think when we get to the point where we need guns to protect our country and keep certain powers in check, then we've probably failed in being a critical, educated, and civic-minded people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


No holds barred chat

You don't have permission to chat in this chatroom
×
×
  • Create New...