Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
My First Rifle
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1221
Location: Jefferson, USA

PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2013 2:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Right, I knew that! :lol:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ManDay
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 22 Jan 2008
Posts: 209

PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2013 8:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

First off, BoneKracker, perhaps you should drop the brain-washed, indoctrinated, puppet-strings, etc. nonsense. That's as ad-hominem as me making no difference between you and some hillbilly gun freak and as wrong as it could be.

Quote:
You don't know me, you don't know shit about me, but you think you know "the type".


That said,

BoneKracker wrote:
Reducto ad absurdium fail. Citizens don't need tanks or jets, or other heavy military weapons, for several reasons (read all before knee-jerking):

a. no modern, democratic nation's Army is going to use heavy military weapons against its own people; you won't find one case in history of any nation's military being successfully set upon its own people in full-scale warfare upon the general population; they simply refuse to do it, and such a request is usually followed shortly by coup d'etat or assassination

b. no army on Earth today, heavy weapons or not, can stand against 50 to 100 million armed men (I tell you this as a former Army officer)

c. most importantly, the deterrent effect does not require that the armed populace be able to defeat the military; the deterrent effect is achieved by merely through the potential to force the authoritarian state to overtly use heavy military force, rather than being able to achieve its ends with a more subtle use of force, such as para-military secret police (e.g., GDR's Stasi, Sparta's Krypteia) or partisan paramilitary thugs (e.g., Nazi "Brown-Shirts", Iranian "Pasdaran", or the old U.S. Democratic Party's Ku Klux Klan).


So I understand you claim the (main?) justification for the 2nd amendment assumes the army does not turn against its people. But instead it aims for defense against surpression by more subtle means. Do you think Nazi Germany could have been prevented if every citizen had been given a gun before the rise of the Nazis?

I don't think so. That's just your crude, over-simplified approach to politics. Force. Violence. You understand the 2nd amendment as a sort of "catch-all" clause. When the rest of the consitution goes down the drain, you will always have guns to defend your individual human rights.

I can now better see why you're so upset about any attempts at the 2nd amendment: It must appear to you as if that was just the beginning.

That begs the question: If the government ever happend to void the 2nd amendment, what would you do? For you, the line is crossed not only when the government actually imposes laws which infringe your understanding of right and wrong but already as soon as they deny you the potential to defend yourself against such laws.

You think this is a valid attitude? Well, perhaps in theory. For the hypothetical case, that if, sometime, possibly your country risks to be dominated by supressing forces which use means which allow you to defend yourself by means of gunfire.

But that's not how it works. The kind of situation you're afraid of doesn't knock at your door "Here I am" so you can shoot it down.

It starts innocently with laws being passed which you might consider unjust, but can't do anything against.

At some point, the first law is passed which disagrees with the consitution. It's just a single law and it triggers a social outrage, but you can't respond with violence because the executive forces are still strong and, even though they might disagree with the law themselves, they will still fight violence.

It comes about gradually. More laws follow.

You may keep your guns all the way through the process. But there is no tipping point. An authorian government is reached in constant equilibrium.

For your picturesque theory of the people defending themselves against an authorian government to hold, it requires that at some point, the people could shoot their guns at other people without reckoning with immediate retaliation or imprisonment. If the government is clever, however, that point will never be reached. At last, the guns among the people will be used by militias in favor of the new government against those who thought guns would protect them. Your theory remains but a theory.

An unlikely theory for a hypothetical situation in a parallel world.

Now, shake off your fantastic visions and open your eyes! Let's have a look at reality.

The widespread availability of guns does not protect a country against submission to an authorian government (disarming of the jews, 1933, loosening of gun laws in favor of the Nazis, 1938), nor does it restore non-authorian dominance (syria, 2011-today). Weapons facilitate violence, and they do so symetrically. Malicious forces become as more powerful as righteous ones.

Strict gun laws in a society backed by a solid constitution and a stable political system (Europe, predominantly northern regions), on the other hand, lead to greatly reduced gun violence (who would have thought: If you can't readily buy a gun, you subsequently can't readily fire it at someone).

All those theoretical, hypothetical experiments. What ifs. "What if, in fifteen years, my government wants to surpress me?", while your people have proven incapable of thinking just as far as next week...

In the meantime, while you contrive scenarios about the "The People Of The Free and Brave vs. The Evil Government"-deathmatch, thousands get shot, in the hoods, in high-schools, even in god damn elementary schools. With guns, bought like chewing-gum.

You don't have a gun problem, you have a violence problem? No shit.

But you see, if the goverment can't get the people to learn how to drive, they will have to take their cars away.

That's a solution which is guaranteed to work and to save the lifes of innocent children, now.

And no one gives a shit if BoneKracker complains that in fifteen years from now, perhaps, he will have to visit his grand-ma, who, hypothetically, could have moved to a distant town while, possibly, public transport has come to stop due to a massive blizzard.

I repeat: You prefer your guns over the lifes of the thousand of gun-shot victims each year.

And you advance but far-fetched day-dreams to stage pathetic attempts at justifying yourself.

Quote:
Wrong. The scientific studies show no link between firearm regulation and rates of violence or rates of homicide. That's cold, hard science.


Right. Cold, hard, studies. Like those cold, hard, highly scientific studies which elaborate on global warming? You closed your eyes, again, BoneKracker. Or you lowered them onto a stack of papers. Just turn on your own brain and, optionally, compare the US to civilized, democratic countries with strict gun laws.

I couldn't agree more that the US have a "people problem", a "culture", and a "social problem" and that that correlates with violence. However, yet another, if not the strongest correlation is found with gun laws. Any "study" which you may have seen which argues otherwise should be given the homeless for fire and warmth, it will be more useful to them than to the rest of the civilized world.
_________________
PDF for documents is misused. Use HTML!
Math markup for HTML5
GCPM for Footnotes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 757
Location: EU

PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2013 11:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:

I said the Federal Government needs to encourage or compel the states to have better gun control, but stay out of it. The reasons for this is that one of the primary reasons for the 2nd amendment is to serve as a deterrent to Federal tyranny. That, and to serve as a deterrent to invasion and to guarantee the common man the right to defend what's his, is why the 2nd Amendment exists. The states already cooperate quite well on motor vehicle licensing and registration. A virtual duplication of the same system, complete with inter-state cooperation agreements between all 50 states, would serve quite well, and overcome most objections to the Federal legislation that was just shot down. Any Federal legislation encouraging or compelling the states to engage in such a thing would have to expressly forbid the Federal Government from accessing the information, or requiring specific methods or levels of "compliance". That would have to remain up to each state.


Doesn't the federal govt get states to stay in line by threatening to remove highway funding (re universal drinking age).

Quote:

If indeed 90% of Americans favor universal background checks, then there you have it. Everbody puts a new booth in the Department of Motor Vehicles, and people are required to be licensed to own a gun (and to renew said license periodically), and to register their firearms (and to renew said registration periodically). This would cover the background check issue, because the states could all exchange that data. This would also address the problem of guns finding their way into criminal hands, because now, people would be held accountable for maintaining possession of their firearm. How exactly this would be done, and to what extent, would be up to each state.


Fascist.

Quote:

That's a reasonable Federal approach, and I can't imagine it not passing.


NRA. They'll stop it.
_________________
wswartzendruber wrote:
Well, every group has its nutjobs, and the Second Amendment crowd is no exception.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1564
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2013 9:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ManDay wrote:
First off, BoneKracker, perhaps you should drop the brain-washed, indoctrinated, puppet-strings, etc. nonsense. That's as ad-hominem as me making no difference between you and some hillbilly gun freak and as wrong as it could be.

No it's not; I have shown that you are thus. I have explained logically how I have deduced this. Therefore it is not ad hominem. I have pointed out the evidence, giving specific examples, such as you arguing in the face of the facts, exhibiting bigotry, and spewing huge masses of argumentum verbosium packed with nothing but logical fallacy after logical fallacy.

Quote:
You don't know me, you don't know shit about me, but you think you know "the type".

That's not an ad hominem attack; that's a summary of what you yourself said. You said, "people of your kind... blah blah blah...", and proceeded to regurgitate some preconceived, bigoted notion. Now you're suggesting that I stop using the trigger words you've been programmed to knee-jerk to, because you can't help yourself when you hear somebody say words, like "brainwashed", "indoctrinated", or "puppet strings". You're unable to control your response, and you act without thinking, because little "GOTO" statements or short-circuits have been wired into your brain by your programmers, causing you to bypass all rational thought and jump to the place they want you to be. You immediately respond to hearing any such words, "commie" or "collectivist", for example, by closing your ears, blocking out whatever is actually being said, battening down the hatches against any possible learning, and going into asshat mode.

ManDay wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
Reducto ad absurdium fail. Citizens don't need tanks or jets, or other heavy military weapons, for several reasons (read all before knee-jerking):

a. no modern, democratic nation's Army is going to use heavy military weapons against its own people; you won't find one case in history of any nation's military being successfully set upon its own people in full-scale warfare upon the general population; they simply refuse to do it, and such a request is usually followed shortly by coup d'etat or assassination

b. no army on Earth today, heavy weapons or not, can stand against 50 to 100 million armed men (I tell you this as a former Army officer)

c. most importantly, the deterrent effect does not require that the armed populace be able to defeat the military; the deterrent effect is achieved by merely through the potential to force the authoritarian state to overtly use heavy military force, rather than being able to achieve its ends with a more subtle use of force, such as para-military secret police (e.g., GDR's Stasi, Sparta's Krypteia) or partisan paramilitary thugs (e.g., Nazi "Brown-Shirts", Iranian "Pasdaran", or the old U.S. Democratic Party's Ku Klux Klan).


So I understand you claim the (main?) justification for the 2nd amendment assumes the army does not turn against its people. But instead it aims for defense against surpression by more subtle means. Do you think Nazi Germany could have been prevented if every citizen had been given a gun before the rise of the Nazis?

No, the reasons that's labeled "most importantly" is the most important. Also, I have added to your quote above edits that I made to the original, apparently after you started responding.

Guns alone are not enough. Guns are just tools, but sometimes tools are essential. There is a particular point at which the German people, had they been properly armed, could have shoved the Nazi genie back into its bottle. Once it took hold of the national consciousness through populist demagoguery and mob mentality (one very much like the left's collectivist-authoritarian PC Brigade populism today, except using a moral framework more rooted in nationalism than class warfare), it was too late for this. They reached a point where the average person "went along" rather than be on the receiving end of the stick. Once a substantial majority cross this threshold, it's too late.

There are better examples, however, such as the people of Cambodia being unable to resist the Khmer Rouge or the long-suffering peasant classes of industrial Europe who were powerless against their corporatist states.

ManDay wrote:
I don't think so. That's just your crude, over-simplified approach to politics. Force. Violence. You understand the 2nd amendment as a sort of "catch-all" clause. When the rest of the consitution goes down the drain, you will always have guns to defend your individual human rights.

No, what "this is" is another strawman. You pull an argument out of your ass that I did not make (i.e., "had the German people been armed, the Nazis never would have <something unclear>"). Then you shoot it down (or at least made a gesture of doing so, by saying "I don't think so", although you never actually put together any kind of rational argument to support that opinion). Then on this basis, you claim that my entire mental framework can be dismissed. :lol:

Nowehere do I imply the 2nd Amendment is any kind of "catch all" clause. It's just a guarantee of one important right, among many. If anything, it's an extension of the freedom of expression, and an armor plating for the concept of democracy. Should the mechanisms that normally allow the free exchange of ideas and the principles of "one man one vote" and "majority rules" ever become suppressed by threat of force, then that threat of force because null and void because the population itself has its own threat of force.

If there are any "catch-all" mechanisms in the American body of law, they are the basic human rights at the core of the Constitution. The right to carry arms is not a basic human right; it is one level higher -- it is a mechanism to protect those basic human rights. History has shown time and time again that populations have become oppressed by their governments, that nations have fallen to invasions, and that the worst atrocities against humanity come in the form of sacrifice of the individual for the good of the whole. This arming of the individual is intended to attenuate all of these threats.

ManDay wrote:
I can now better see why you're so upset about any attempts at the 2nd amendment: It must appear to you as if that was just the beginning.

I can't tell what you mean by that, but the 2nd Amendment is not the "beginning" of anything. As I said above, it's not a core human right, and it was an amendment after all. It does, however, serve as something of a trip-wire. It raises red flags in the minds of most thinking people when the state decides the people must be disarmed.

ManDay wrote:
That begs the question ...

Apparently you don't know what that phrase actually means. You should try to use big words to impress people, if you're not sure what they mean, because then you only look like a sophomoric chump. It erodes your credibility.

ManDay wrote:
That begs the question: If the government ever happend to void the 2nd amendment, what would you do? For you, the line is crossed not only when the government actually imposes laws which infringe your understanding of right and wrong but already as soon as they deny you the potential to defend yourself against such laws.

This is another strawman. It goes back to your preconceived notions and prejudices. You have been brainwashed that support for the 2nd Amendment is axiomatic (as you suggested earlier, "we need high-capacity magazines because.... uh.... 2nd Amendment!". This is nonsense, and I have also given you no reason to believe this is my thinking. As I said earlier, the 2nd Amendment is the law for a reason. Two-thirds of this nation agreed that it needed to be added to our Constitution, and they didn't do that for "no reason". I have discussed in depth the rationale behind the 2nd Amendment, and I have reiterated it above.

This paragraph also contains another strawman. I never said that the population should be armed to protect it against, as you put it, "such laws". I suggested that one of the reasons the population needs to be armed is to protect it from abuse of power by authoritarians. As an example, I described historical examples of abuse of power involving the use of force through paramilitary "law enforcement" entities (e.g. Stasi, Gestapo) and other extra-judicial force-wielding paramilitary partisan entities (Brown-shirts, Revolutionary Guard, Khmer Rouge). This is a historical pattern we see over and over and over again. It is not a fight against "law" as determined democratically; it is a potential fight against authoritarian abuse, some of which typically comes under the thinly-veiled guise of "law enforcement". For example, the U.S. now has a Government that openly engages in "selective enforcement" of the law, and it has rapidly growing, increasingly numerous, and increasingly paramilitary Federal "law enforcement" entities. Should it be a comfort to me or a discomfort that they are used for "selective" enforcement of the law?

ManDay wrote:
It starts innocently with laws being passed which you might consider unjust, but can't do anything against.

At some point, the first law is passed which disagrees with the consitution. It's just a single law and it triggers a social outrage, but you can't respond with violence because the executive forces are still strong and, even though they might disagree with the law themselves, they will still fight violence.

It comes about gradually. More laws follow.

You may keep your guns all the way through the process. But there is no tipping point. An authorian government is reached in constant equilibrium.

For your picturesque theory of the people defending themselves against an authorian government to hold, it requires that at some point, the people could shoot their guns at other people without reckoning with immediate retaliation or imprisonment. If the government is clever, however, that point will never be reached. At last, the guns among the people will be used by militias in favor of the new government against those who thought guns would protect them. Your theory remains but a theory.

An unlikely theory for a hypothetical situation in a parallel world.

Hyperbole aside, you make a reasonable point here. This is the first sensible thing you have said. It happens to be wrong, but it's at least somewhat sensible. It's a sign that you're starting to think. This is good.

What you say here is essentially correct in terms of how things change. However, it's important to understand that a massive armed rebellion against the state would be very much a last resort (and it's also only one of the reasons for the people to be armed). We have a federated national governance, with local, state and Federal governments. We have working democracies at all levels. We have free speech and open debate (some would say too open, and that it's like a cacophony of screaming monkeys). We have protests. We have civil disobedience and passive resistance. The possibility of forcible oppression of the majority by the state is almost inconceivable and very remote. And that is exactly the point -- the make that possibility as inconceivable and remote as possible, because it has happened time and time again in history.

Nobody is saying that the American people must take arms against their state because of impending tyranny. What's triggering this debate is an attempt by the extremists of one partisan group, who happen to indeed be collectivist authoritarians, to disarm the population, against the will of the majority. People are simply saying, "No. It's like this for a reason."

If that group were actually interested in minimizing "gun violence", they would do something like what I suggested earlier. But they are not pursuing such an approach. Some of them are extremists actually seeking to disarm the population (these are a small number who have been trying to do this forever). Most of them are opportunistic politicians glomming into an emotional issue to differentiate themselves from their opponents for their own political advantage. I hope those two sentences aren't too abstract for you; let me know if you need examples or a more in-depth description. Most of the Democrats taking up this "cause" don't really give a rat's ass about gun control; they just know that the extremists who do have struck a chord momentarily, and they want on that bandwagon at election time. This is not "conspiracy theory"; this is simply how the real world works.

If Obama, for example, really gave a shit about gun violence, he'd be going after inner-city, minority-on-minority shooting, which is the majority or it. He'd being going after registration (and not at Federal level, which will never be tolerated). He'd be meeting with the State Governors. But, the truth is that he doesn't give a shit; all he cares about is keeping a Democrat majority in the Senate, because if he loses that, the Republicans will impeach his ass like they did Clinton (for Fast & Furious, for going to war in Libya without Congressional approval, for the Benghazi cover-up, and for a growing laundry list they've been waiting for the opportunity to use). So he wants Senate Democrats to do well in the mid-terms. This is why you don't see him meeting with the state Governors about building a distributed inter-state firearms registry and background check system which the Feds will stay out of, and instead all you see is Obama saying, "There must be a vote! They deserve a vote!" He doesn't care that it's not going to pass; he just wants a "vote", so that Senate Democrats can point at their opposition and say "ZOMG, voted against background checks!"

ManDay wrote:
Now, shake off your fantastic visions and open your eyes! Let's have a look at reality.
The widespread availability of guns does not protect a country against submission to an authorian government (disarming of the jews, 1933, loosening of gun laws in favor of the Nazis, 1938), nor does it restore non-authorian dominance (syria, 2011-today).

How does the disarming of German Jews serve as an example of the widespread availability of guns? The Syrian rebels are mounting an effective rebellion. I don't know what you were trying to say here, but you failed to make any kind of point that supports your position.

ManDay wrote:
Weapons facilitate violence, and they do so symetrically. Malicious forces become as more powerful as righteous ones.

You're babbling. How do malicious forces become more powerful than righteous ones if weapons facilitate violence symmetrically? Maybe you believe that humans are inherently evil, and therefore should be rendered as powerless as possible (except for the Government, of course, which in inherently good and can therefore be trusted to do it)? :lol:

Also, weapons don't facilitate violence, they simply make it more harmful or lethal. If weapons facilitate violence, then why does every nation on Earth insist on having a military, and why does noone question their right to do so? They have it for their own defense and security, and what happens to nations with inferior ones? They don't just vanish from the face of the Earth because they only have rifles while we have planes and tanks and jets. So, by your logic, they should just give up having any weapons at all. But, if they did that, somebody like China or France or Italy would just show up and take everything they have. By having at least some defense, which would force any such aggressor to at least visibly wage a war and kill lots of people, they create a barrier. So what are most weapons out there actually achieving? Violence or peace and security? The point here is that it's not weapons that create violence; it's people. Before anybody used the jawbone of an ass to strike his fellow man, punches, kicks, bites were used.

ManDay wrote:
Strict gun laws in a society backed by a solid constitution and a stable political system (Europe, predominantly northern regions), on the other hand, lead to greatly reduced gun violence (who would have thought: If you can't readily buy a gun, you subsequently can't readily fire it at someone).

You are suggesting anecdotal evidence. I can produce an equal amount of anecdotal evidence that argues to the contrary. Find me a scientifically-conducted study by a credible source that demonstrates a causal link between the availability of firearms and rates of violence or violent crime, and I'll listen. If it's true, somebody would have been able to prove it so by now.

Rates of gun violence are low where there are few guns, as one would expect, but rates of violence have no relationship to rates of guns. I would even expect homicide rates to be higher where there are guns, but even that can't be demonstrated statistically (outside of cherry-picked examples).

ManDay wrote:
Quote:
Wrong. The scientific studies show no link between firearm regulation and rates of violence or rates of homicide. That's cold, hard science.


Right. Cold, hard, studies. Like those cold, hard, highly scientific studies which elaborate on global warming? You closed your eyes, again, BoneKracker. Or you lowered them onto a stack of papers. Just turn on your own brain and, optionally, compare the US to civilized, democratic countries with strict gun laws.

A red herring, more prejudice, and another strawman, all in one. Well done! :roll: I can show you credible, somewhat statistically valid climate change studies that validate the hypothesis that human activities are a predominate cause of global warming. However, I cannot show you one similarly or more credible study that demonstrates that guns cause violence or that taking away guns reduces violence (and if you can show me one, I will apologize and shut up, and if you can show me three, I will change my position on this). You say, "use your brain", like it's "common sense". That's just more argumentum ad populum. Of course it seems like "common sense" to you, because that's what you've been indoctrinated with, and that's what everybody in your echo chamber mindlessly parrots back and forth. It's comforting, avoids cognitive dissonance, and rationalizes your helpless condition.

ManDay wrote:
I couldn't agree more that the US have a "people problem", a "culture", and a "social problem" and that that correlates with violence. However, yet another, if not the strongest correlation is found with gun laws. Any "study" which you may have seen which argues otherwise should be given the homeless for fire and warmth, it will be more useful to them than to the rest of the civilized world.

If such a correlation exists, then show me the study (a statistically valid one, conducted with scientific rigor, from a credible source). Let's see it. You're the one proposing we change, let's see some persuasive evidence. No vignettes; no anecdotal evidence, no web pages with cherry-picked statistics -- let's see a credible, statistically sound, peer-reviewed study. I'm sure with all the emotion people have invested in this, and with it being an important issue of social policy for every nation on Earth, there must be many such such studies. Let's see one.
_________________
True Liberals are individualists. Democrats, on the other hand, are authoritarian collectivists.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1564
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2013 10:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:

I said the Federal Government needs to encourage or compel the states to have better gun control, but stay out of it. The reasons for this is that one of the primary reasons for the 2nd amendment is to serve as a deterrent to Federal tyranny. That, and to serve as a deterrent to invasion and to guarantee the common man the right to defend what's his, is why the 2nd Amendment exists. The states already cooperate quite well on motor vehicle licensing and registration. A virtual duplication of the same system, complete with inter-state cooperation agreements between all 50 states, would serve quite well, and overcome most objections to the Federal legislation that was just shot down. Any Federal legislation encouraging or compelling the states to engage in such a thing would have to expressly forbid the Federal Government from accessing the information, or requiring specific methods or levels of "compliance". That would have to remain up to each state.


Doesn't the federal govt get states to stay in line by threatening to remove highway funding (re universal drinking age).

Quote:

If indeed 90% of Americans favor universal background checks, then there you have it. Everbody puts a new booth in the Department of Motor Vehicles, and people are required to be licensed to own a gun (and to renew said license periodically), and to register their firearms (and to renew said registration periodically). This would cover the background check issue, because the states could all exchange that data. This would also address the problem of guns finding their way into criminal hands, because now, people would be held accountable for maintaining possession of their firearm. How exactly this would be done, and to what extent, would be up to each state.


Fascist.

:lol:

No, I'm a pragmatic. We do have a problem. It would be nice to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and the seriously mentally ill. Some people might say my suggestion is too authoritarian, but it at least cuts Federal authoritarianism out of the equation. In answer to your question about withholding of funds and the sort, the legislation would have to be written to forbid this kind of influence.

I think a sane approach that this by the NRA would engage the state governors and try to get them to regulate by local situation. For example, I think there's a strong argument that firearms don't really belong in areas of high population density (and perhaps it should be up to cities to forbid them like NYC has done), but that restrictions in areas of low population density should be minimal, and suburban areas is should have laws that generously support home defense and castle doctrine. Some degree of consistency across states would gradually be achieved by adoption of best practices (i.e., "what works") as happens in most areas of law.
juniper wrote:
Quote:
That's a reasonable Federal approach, and I can't imagine it not passing.

NRA. They'll stop it.

They might try, but they'd have a lot less popular support in attempting to do so. It would be progress. It's the approach that should be taken. What's going on now at the National level is nothing but populist demagoguery and political theater. Not everything needs to be addressed at the National level, and this issue in particular should be taboo for the U.S. Federal Executive Branch.
_________________
True Liberals are individualists. Democrats, on the other hand, are authoritarian collectivists.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 655
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2013 10:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ManDay wrote:
perhaps you should drop the brain-washed, indoctrinated, puppet-strings, etc. nonsense.


Heed your own advice, troll.
_________________
“If the words 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" don't include the right to experiment with your own consciousness, then the Declaration of Independence isn't worth the hemp it was written on.” ~ T. McKenna
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1564
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2013 11:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another possibility would be a better framework, at the level of the states, for the organization and supervision of local militia. Every town and every county ought to have one. This would bring a great number of the more dangerous weapons under adult supervision, raise the average level of firearms safety training (and marksmanship, a defense benefit), provide for the establishment of professionally-run ranges so people aren't plinking cans in their back yards with AR-15s.

We don't hear about that sort of idea, though, because it doesn't support the collectivist-authoritarian agenda, with requires a monopoly on the use of force. They are terrified of the very idea of militias, which are precisely what the 2nd Amendment was most explicitly created to enable.
_________________
True Liberals are individualists. Democrats, on the other hand, are authoritarian collectivists.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1564
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2013 12:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Muso wrote:
ManDay wrote:
perhaps you should drop the brain-washed, indoctrinated, puppet-strings, etc. nonsense.


Heed your own advice, troll.

Those are "trigger words". Heavily indoctrinated people automatically react to them by closing their minds and offering knee-jerk responses. It's not their fault once they are programmed. It's a reflex action.

They are programmed to protect the integrity of the indoctrinated worldview by avoiding cognitive dissonance. The knee-jerk responses and bullshit talking points, often quite irrelevant, allow them to feel like they have actively dealt with the "attack", when in fact, the response is really passive. It's the old putting your fingers in your ear and going "La la la! Can't hear you! MmmmMa Ma Ma! Can't hear you! La la la!" :lol:
_________________
True Liberals are individualists. Democrats, on the other hand, are authoritarian collectivists.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ManDay
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 22 Jan 2008
Posts: 209

PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2013 8:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker, I'm not going to continue this debate with you. You will probably think that that just confirms "my type" in that I take it to my heels as soon as I'm faced with "highly logical and rational" counter arguments. Please, be my guest.

If, however, you ever happen to stumble into another debate about gun laws with someone else, which I'm sure you will, consider the following, before you raise yourself onto some sort of meta-level above the debate from where you allege that your opponent is biased and indoctrinated beyond redemption:

There are basically two paths which such a debate can take: One is the hypothetical path, on which you argue whether the 2nd amendment protects you against surpressive goverments (I say: No, it wont). The other is the practical path, on which you ask whether strict gun laws would prevent (fatal) violence today (I say: Obviously, with or without anecdotal evidence, just use common sense). And last, there is a conclusion to be reached on whether, in terms of the respective probablities of the paths, one outweighs the other.

For example, even if I agreed that there is a remote chance that the application of the 2nd amendment today will protect you of a hypothetically surpressive goverment in fifteen years from now, given the chances that this is actually going to be the case (as in: an authoritarian government emerges and the 2nd amendment will help you protect yourself against it), I'd argue, this is not worth the unnecessary deaths of hundreds, today.

I think I'm not the only opponent of permissive gun laws who thinks the claim that taking guns away from people will reduce the amount of gun-violence (e.g. school massacres) follows from common sense. And like me, I suppose, most people are not willing to humor a debate about that seemingly obvious fact which, according to our opinion, could only be denied with utmost ignorance. Therefore, this is likely going to be a dead-end for you and I think it would be good for you, if you thought that through by yourself. Not by "scientific studies", nor by "anecdotal evidence". Just think about what immediate consequences it would have, if someone who's willing to run amok in a school is faced with tremendous problems obtaining any sort of gun. What consequences would it have, if the monopole of guns is in the hands of law-enforcement?

The other path, the hypothetical one, surely is more debatable. But no one, me included, will entertain a debate if you portray such apparent arrogance and refuse to question your position in that matter. You can't expect to be taken seriously if your responses are thickened by allegations about how incapable your opponent was at forming coherent thoughts (or something along those lines). Admitted, I implied similar things in my initial comment. But leading a lasting debate in that fashion is impossible.

Also, there is no way but using examples from history to reach any conclusive outcome on this path. By laying out your personal net of theories of how an authotarian government attempts to reach dominance and how the 2nd amendment will prevent that, you're convincing no one but yourself. You will have to come up with real-world examples. Eligible ones, that is. For example the political system has to match, etc. Then, I wouldn't be surprised if you can convincingly argue why the 2nd amendment does indeed help with that hypothetical case.

PS: You were right as far as my use of "begging the question" is concerned. I mistook the meaning of the term. Also, the example of disarming the jews was merely meant to illustrate that if an authoritarian government wants to deprive the people of their weapons, it will do so, either way.
_________________
PDF for documents is misused. Use HTML!
Math markup for HTML5
GCPM for Footnotes


Last edited by ManDay on Fri May 10, 2013 8:25 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 655
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2013 8:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ManDay wrote:
BoneKracker, I'm not going to continue this debate with you. You will probably think that that just confirms "my type" in that I take it to my heels as soon as I'm faced with "highly logical and rational" counter arguments. Please, be my guest.


You could have just said, "You're right".
_________________
“If the words 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" don't include the right to experiment with your own consciousness, then the Declaration of Independence isn't worth the hemp it was written on.” ~ T. McKenna
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 757
Location: EU

PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2013 1:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's a question. What, if anything, should happen to the parents?
_________________
wswartzendruber wrote:
Well, every group has its nutjobs, and the Second Amendment crowd is no exception.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sikpuppy
n00b
n00b


Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 34
Location: Central Coast, NSW

PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2013 2:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
Here's a question. What, if anything, should happen to the parents?

They obviously don't have a clue about firearm safety so should probably be stripped of their firearms. They won't, of course, since this sort of thing "just happens", like shit. Negligence charges should be brought one would think, but from the language of the official response I doubt that's going to happen. There might be a feeling that the parents have suffered enough, but compared to the slain child I don't think so.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1221
Location: Jefferson, USA

PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2013 2:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
Here's a question. What, if anything, should happen to the parents?

Per my own beliefs, the parents should both be tried as accessories to murder.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 757
Location: EU

PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2013 4:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wswartzendruber wrote:
juniper wrote:
Here's a question. What, if anything, should happen to the parents?

Per my own beliefs, the parents should both be tried as accessories to murder.


remaining child loses both parents then.
_________________
wswartzendruber wrote:
Well, every group has its nutjobs, and the Second Amendment crowd is no exception.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1564
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2013 7:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ManDay wrote:
BoneKracker, I'm not going to continue this debate with you. You will probably think that that just confirms "my type" in that I take it to my heels as soon as I'm faced with "highly logical and rational" counter blah blah blah..."

In other words, you still find yourself unable to persuasively justify your position. Repeatedly blurting that "it's common sense", that "everybody says so", and trying to hide behind a voluminous smoke screen of blatant logical fallacies is not working. You have even demonstrated that you have not listened to my actual position on the matter and continue to argue against your preconceived notions of it (your last post contained even more strawmen).

What I have taken the time to explain to you are not my "fantasies"; they are the rationale that have shaped our Constitution, as represented in thousands of pages of discussion and debate at the time of its creation, modification, and continuous challenging and interpretation.

The fact that you can't justify your beliefs rationally ought to tell you something. You can go through life thinking what others tell you to, or you can open your mind and learn to think for yourself. I wish you well.
_________________
True Liberals are individualists. Democrats, on the other hand, are authoritarian collectivists.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1564
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2013 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sikpuppy wrote:
juniper wrote:
Here's a question. What, if anything, should happen to the parents?

They obviously don't have a clue about firearm safety so should probably be stripped of their firearms. They won't, of course, since this sort of thing "just happens", like shit. Negligence charges should be brought one would think, but from the language of the official response I doubt that's going to happen. There might be a feeling that the parents have suffered enough, but compared to the slain child I don't think so.

There should be an investigation into whether the shooter's mother was negligent. If so, she should be charged. (Were the guns locked up? Was she aware her son was dangerous?)
_________________
True Liberals are individualists. Democrats, on the other hand, are authoritarian collectivists.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 757
Location: EU

PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2013 8:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
sikpuppy wrote:
juniper wrote:
Here's a question. What, if anything, should happen to the parents?

They obviously don't have a clue about firearm safety so should probably be stripped of their firearms. They won't, of course, since this sort of thing "just happens", like shit. Negligence charges should be brought one would think, but from the language of the official response I doubt that's going to happen. There might be a feeling that the parents have suffered enough, but compared to the slain child I don't think so.

There should be an investigation into whether the shooter's mother was negligent. If so, she should be charged. (Were the guns locked up? Was she aware her son was dangerous?)


her son is 5 i believe.

I've got a pretty responsible near 5 year old. She can read. she can clean up and make some of her own food. In short, and of course you should take this as a pretty proud dad, she is really bright.

I wouldn't give her a gun. but my bar is high.
_________________
wswartzendruber wrote:
Well, every group has its nutjobs, and the Second Amendment crowd is no exception.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1564
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2013 11:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
sikpuppy wrote:
juniper wrote:
Here's a question. What, if anything, should happen to the parents?

They obviously don't have a clue about firearm safety so should probably be stripped of their firearms. They won't, of course, since this sort of thing "just happens", like shit. Negligence charges should be brought one would think, but from the language of the official response I doubt that's going to happen. There might be a feeling that the parents have suffered enough, but compared to the slain child I don't think so.

There should be an investigation into whether the shooter's mother was negligent. If so, she should be charged. (Were the guns locked up? Was she aware her son was dangerous?)


her son is 5 i believe.

I've got a pretty responsible near 5 year old. She can read. she can clean up and make some of her own food. In short, and of course you should take this as a pretty proud dad, she is really bright.

I wouldn't give her a gun. but my bar is high.

Sorry, I was lost. For some reason, I thought you were talking about the parents of the Sandy Hook shooter. Sorry about that.

There is nothing wrong with giving a child a firearm, provided it is only used with proper supervision. I think 5 is too young, though. Kids that age lack the coordination to safely handle a gun, and they also may not understand the consequences of unsafe handling. They may not be able to distinguish what they are doing from play.

Personally, I believe parents who properly expose their children to firearms, with proper safety and marksmanship training, are a lot less likely to have their kid later do something stupid with one. It's kind of like how martial arts training keeps people out of fights by making them aware.

In this case, it seems obvious to me there was negligence. I think the loss of a child is punishment enough, but I hope the parent(s) understand their negligence is what caused the death.

Somebody else mentioned it I think, but any crime involving a firearm should probably include suspension of the right to have them, the length of that suspension being proportional to the severity of the crime (or more precisely, the danger to the public). In this case, it wouldn't be out of line to suspend their right to have firearms until all of their children reach adulthood, unless that would cause some kind of hardship.

Something positive could also be gained from this, if the parent(s) are willing to share what they've learned from the experience with others. If so, that should be taken into account in determining any punishment.
_________________
True Liberals are individualists. Democrats, on the other hand, are authoritarian collectivists.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum