|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On April 18 2013 10:00 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 09:46 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 18 2013 09:42 ahswtini wrote:On April 18 2013 09:38 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 18 2013 09:13 ahswtini wrote:
NRA is [...] comprised of millions of everyday American citizens. Uh... you phrased it in a very loose, open-to-interpretation way, so maybe you had a different definition of "everyday American citizen" in mind. Personally, I'd strongly disagree that its members are "everyday American citizens". On the other hand, if some massive anti-gun organization existed akin to the NRA, I would also disagree that its members would be "everyday American citizens". Yes, the members are also citizens of the US everyday they live here in the US, but they really don't hold neutral views, which I would associate more comfortably with the term "everyday citizen" (one without an agenda or polarized opinion on something). So your idea of an everyday citizen is someone who has no opinion or anything? No, it's one who has an opinion held by most people, on average. I think that the opinion, on average, of NRA members, likely does not align with the opinion, on average, of US citizens as a whole collection. The problem with the average citizen, is that the average citizen knows NOTHING about the issue. If you ask them what an assault weapon is, they'll say a machine gun, or assault rifle. Except that those aren't what an "Assault Weapon" is, and are already strictly regulated. They don't realize that gun deaths are at the lowest they've been since the early 90's. They don't realize more people die from alcohol (even excluding liver failure) and alcohol related accidents. They don't realize there's 300,000,000 guns in the US, but only 300,000 gun crimes a year. Even if EVERY crime was a different gun, that still leaves 299,700,000 guns that weren't involved in a crime. The average citizen shouldn't get to decide, or even really have much say at all, because the average citizen doesn't really know what they're talking about.
That cuts both ways though. I don't think the average person is educated on the gun laws and how wildly they differ from state to state. That in some states, it's easier to get an open carry licence than it is to get a folding or bowie knife, which is outright illegal. That you can sell a gun to anyone online or at a gun show without a background check. Or that the standards for getting a gun licence in America is really just filling out a form, and there's literally no process that differentiates a responsible, experience gun owner from a nutjob like James Holmes.
The average citizen shouldn't get to decide. But the responsible gun owners, dealers and law enforcement should. I don't think anyone gun owner could say, with a straight face, that someone like Jame Holmes should be owning and operating guns legally. That alone should be enough for people to admit that gun laws in America aren't really sufficient, or at least need to be better enforced.
|
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
I can't comment on the James Holmes case, but in the cases of Loughner (Tuscon, AZ) and Cho (Virginia Tech), the background check system was let down by the fact that states are not obligated to submit all of the mental health records that they possess. Cho's mental health records weren’t sent to NICS, he was able to purchase the gun that was used in the college killings. Like I said, the NRA has supported making mental health records accessible for NICS. But the background check system in place was sufficient, it was the supporting mechanisms that were lacking.
|
On April 18 2013 10:00 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 09:46 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 18 2013 09:42 ahswtini wrote:On April 18 2013 09:38 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 18 2013 09:13 ahswtini wrote:
NRA is [...] comprised of millions of everyday American citizens. Uh... you phrased it in a very loose, open-to-interpretation way, so maybe you had a different definition of "everyday American citizen" in mind. Personally, I'd strongly disagree that its members are "everyday American citizens". On the other hand, if some massive anti-gun organization existed akin to the NRA, I would also disagree that its members would be "everyday American citizens". Yes, the members are also citizens of the US everyday they live here in the US, but they really don't hold neutral views, which I would associate more comfortably with the term "everyday citizen" (one without an agenda or polarized opinion on something). So your idea of an everyday citizen is someone who has no opinion or anything? No, it's one who has an opinion held by most people, on average. I think that the opinion, on average, of NRA members, likely does not align with the opinion, on average, of US citizens as a whole collection. The problem with the average citizen, is that the average citizen knows NOTHING about the issue. If you ask them what an assault weapon is, they'll say a machine gun, or assault rifle. Except that those aren't what an "Assault Weapon" is, and are already strictly regulated. They don't realize that gun deaths are at the lowest they've been since the early 90's. They don't realize more people die from alcohol (even excluding liver failure) and alcohol related accidents. They don't realize there's 300,000,000 guns in the US, but only 300,000 gun crimes a year. Even if EVERY crime was a different gun, that still leaves 299,700,000 guns that weren't involved in a crime. The average citizen shouldn't get to decide, or even really have much say at all, because the average citizen doesn't really know what they're talking about. Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 09:55 Defacer wrote:On April 18 2013 09:50 ahswtini wrote:On April 18 2013 09:44 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 18 2013 09:38 ahswtini wrote:
Do you really think a background check will have stopped Lanza? I can just imagine what he would've been thinking: "I could shoot my own mother right now with her guns, but that would be illegal because I haven't had a background check to allow me to have her guns!" Probably not, but maybe it is not useful to view the potential effects of small steps toward tighter gun control through the lens of how they might impact or prevent a more extreme example. Yet Obama exploits those grieving families, dragging them in front of the cameras for what? He's not a stupid man, he knows damn well these measures would not have prevented what happened at Sandy Hook. It's just his way of exploiting a tragedy to advance his agenda. Feinstein admitted that she had her AWB bill sitting on her desk waiting for the right moment to introduce it. Ummm, I think those grieving families would have done that, given ANY opportunity to do so. I can say with confidence that they're not big on guns for very personal reasons. Call it a hunch ... Darrell Scott, father of one of the children killed at Columbine, has spoken out against increased gun control. You shouldn't make assumptions about how people will act in the face of tragedy.
Claiming Sandy Hook parents, that are pro-gun control, are somehow being exploited is an equally dumb assumption. Do you think Obama is twisting their arm to advocate for more gun control? I'm sure they're political and personal position is genuine.
And now you and ahswtini are trotting out specific Columbine and Sandy Hook parents, and 'exploiting' them to defend your own position and biases. How ironic.
Truth is Ahswtini was just looking to make an irrelevant, cheap shot at Obama and I called him out on it. No biggie, moving on.
|
On April 18 2013 10:13 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 10:00 Millitron wrote:On April 18 2013 09:46 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 18 2013 09:42 ahswtini wrote:On April 18 2013 09:38 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 18 2013 09:13 ahswtini wrote:
NRA is [...] comprised of millions of everyday American citizens. Uh... you phrased it in a very loose, open-to-interpretation way, so maybe you had a different definition of "everyday American citizen" in mind. Personally, I'd strongly disagree that its members are "everyday American citizens". On the other hand, if some massive anti-gun organization existed akin to the NRA, I would also disagree that its members would be "everyday American citizens". Yes, the members are also citizens of the US everyday they live here in the US, but they really don't hold neutral views, which I would associate more comfortably with the term "everyday citizen" (one without an agenda or polarized opinion on something). So your idea of an everyday citizen is someone who has no opinion or anything? No, it's one who has an opinion held by most people, on average. I think that the opinion, on average, of NRA members, likely does not align with the opinion, on average, of US citizens as a whole collection. The problem with the average citizen, is that the average citizen knows NOTHING about the issue. If you ask them what an assault weapon is, they'll say a machine gun, or assault rifle. Except that those aren't what an "Assault Weapon" is, and are already strictly regulated. They don't realize that gun deaths are at the lowest they've been since the early 90's. They don't realize more people die from alcohol (even excluding liver failure) and alcohol related accidents. They don't realize there's 300,000,000 guns in the US, but only 300,000 gun crimes a year. Even if EVERY crime was a different gun, that still leaves 299,700,000 guns that weren't involved in a crime. The average citizen shouldn't get to decide, or even really have much say at all, because the average citizen doesn't really know what they're talking about. That cuts both ways though. I don't think the average person is educated on the gun laws and how wildly they different from state to state. That in some states, it's easier to get an open carry licence than it is to get a folding or bowie knife, which is outright illegal. That you can sell a gun to anyone online or at a gun show without a background check. Or that the standards for getting a gun licence in America is really just filling out a form, and there's literally no process that that differentiates a responsible, experience gun owner from a nutjob like James Holmes. The average citizen shouldn't get to decide. But the responsible gun owners, dealers and law enforcement should. I don't think anyone gun owner could say, with a straight face, that someone like Jame Holmes should be owning and operating guns legally. That alone should be enough for people to admit that gun laws in America aren't really sufficient, or at least need to be better enforced.
The sentiment is pretty, too bad the implementation is a farce at best, and flat out crap when honest.
Truth is, the only reason anyone can say with a straight face that James Holmes should not be owning guns, is because we can look back retrospectively and make that assessment. It's a descriptive approach as opposed to a prescriptive one.
"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it." - George Washington
Laws are not the solution. Laws are nothing but patchwork over the already crumpling frame of the failings of a given culture. The need for laws is simply a symptom, not the illness itself.
|
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
Do you think that with all the lies and misinformation that comes out of the Obama camp, that the parents are well informed about what effect the gun control measures they support will have?
|
On April 18 2013 10:24 Kimaker wrote:
"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it." - George Washington
Laws are not the solution. Laws are nothing but patchwork over the already crumpling frame of the failings of a given culture. The need for laws is simply a symptom, not the illness itself.
Bingo. Democracy and free society only works so long as its members remain virtuous and good on their own accord. Being forced to legislate to fix a behavior is emblematic of deeper societal problems.
|
On April 18 2013 10:24 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 10:13 Defacer wrote:On April 18 2013 10:00 Millitron wrote:On April 18 2013 09:46 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 18 2013 09:42 ahswtini wrote:On April 18 2013 09:38 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 18 2013 09:13 ahswtini wrote:
NRA is [...] comprised of millions of everyday American citizens. Uh... you phrased it in a very loose, open-to-interpretation way, so maybe you had a different definition of "everyday American citizen" in mind. Personally, I'd strongly disagree that its members are "everyday American citizens". On the other hand, if some massive anti-gun organization existed akin to the NRA, I would also disagree that its members would be "everyday American citizens". Yes, the members are also citizens of the US everyday they live here in the US, but they really don't hold neutral views, which I would associate more comfortably with the term "everyday citizen" (one without an agenda or polarized opinion on something). So your idea of an everyday citizen is someone who has no opinion or anything? No, it's one who has an opinion held by most people, on average. I think that the opinion, on average, of NRA members, likely does not align with the opinion, on average, of US citizens as a whole collection. The problem with the average citizen, is that the average citizen knows NOTHING about the issue. If you ask them what an assault weapon is, they'll say a machine gun, or assault rifle. Except that those aren't what an "Assault Weapon" is, and are already strictly regulated. They don't realize that gun deaths are at the lowest they've been since the early 90's. They don't realize more people die from alcohol (even excluding liver failure) and alcohol related accidents. They don't realize there's 300,000,000 guns in the US, but only 300,000 gun crimes a year. Even if EVERY crime was a different gun, that still leaves 299,700,000 guns that weren't involved in a crime. The average citizen shouldn't get to decide, or even really have much say at all, because the average citizen doesn't really know what they're talking about. That cuts both ways though. I don't think the average person is educated on the gun laws and how wildly they different from state to state. That in some states, it's easier to get an open carry licence than it is to get a folding or bowie knife, which is outright illegal. That you can sell a gun to anyone online or at a gun show without a background check. Or that the standards for getting a gun licence in America is really just filling out a form, and there's literally no process that that differentiates a responsible, experience gun owner from a nutjob like James Holmes. The average citizen shouldn't get to decide. But the responsible gun owners, dealers and law enforcement should. I don't think anyone gun owner could say, with a straight face, that someone like Jame Holmes should be owning and operating guns legally. That alone should be enough for people to admit that gun laws in America aren't really sufficient, or at least need to be better enforced. The sentiment is pretty, too bad the implementation is a farce at best, and flat out crap when honest. Truth is, the only reason anyone can say with a straight face that James Holmes should not be owning guns, is because we can look back retrospectively and make that assessment. It's a descriptive approach as opposed to a prescriptive one. "It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it." - George Washington Laws are not the solution. Laws are nothing but patchwork over the already crumpling frame of the failings of a given culture. The need for laws is simply a symptom, not the illness itself.
You are 100% WRONG.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2177323/Colorado-gun-club-owner-Glenn-Rotkovich-rejected-James-Holmes-just-WEEKS-shooting-spree-freaky-answering-message.html
http://news.yahoo.com/psychiatrist-called-threat-team-aurora-shooting-suspect-james-215740780--abc-news-topstories.html
These people clearly knew James Holmes was crazy, a threat to society, or at the very least, shouldn't be around guns prior to the massacre. Better law enforcement or coordination between gun owners, mental health caregivers and law enforcement could have triggered pre-emptive action.
Put that in your silly scrapbook of libertarian quotes and smoke it.
|
On April 18 2013 10:27 ahswtini wrote:
Do you think that with all the lies and misinformation that comes out of the Obama camp, that the parents are well informed about what effect the gun control measures they support will have?
Do you think that they care about anything other than making it harder for crazy people to get guns, no matter what the cost?
I'm not saying I agree with them or know their argument or intent, but I think that claiming that Obama brainwashed them is pretty baseless in this specific instance.
It's not a stretch to imagine that that a parent whose child was shot in a shooting spree might just hate guns, and hate people that want to protect gun rights, period. You don't have to like their argument or Obama, but there's no reward or pride in busting the chops of the parents of murdered children.
|
On April 18 2013 10:33 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 10:24 Kimaker wrote:On April 18 2013 10:13 Defacer wrote:On April 18 2013 10:00 Millitron wrote:On April 18 2013 09:46 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 18 2013 09:42 ahswtini wrote:On April 18 2013 09:38 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 18 2013 09:13 ahswtini wrote:
NRA is [...] comprised of millions of everyday American citizens. Uh... you phrased it in a very loose, open-to-interpretation way, so maybe you had a different definition of "everyday American citizen" in mind. Personally, I'd strongly disagree that its members are "everyday American citizens". On the other hand, if some massive anti-gun organization existed akin to the NRA, I would also disagree that its members would be "everyday American citizens". Yes, the members are also citizens of the US everyday they live here in the US, but they really don't hold neutral views, which I would associate more comfortably with the term "everyday citizen" (one without an agenda or polarized opinion on something). So your idea of an everyday citizen is someone who has no opinion or anything? No, it's one who has an opinion held by most people, on average. I think that the opinion, on average, of NRA members, likely does not align with the opinion, on average, of US citizens as a whole collection. The problem with the average citizen, is that the average citizen knows NOTHING about the issue. If you ask them what an assault weapon is, they'll say a machine gun, or assault rifle. Except that those aren't what an "Assault Weapon" is, and are already strictly regulated. They don't realize that gun deaths are at the lowest they've been since the early 90's. They don't realize more people die from alcohol (even excluding liver failure) and alcohol related accidents. They don't realize there's 300,000,000 guns in the US, but only 300,000 gun crimes a year. Even if EVERY crime was a different gun, that still leaves 299,700,000 guns that weren't involved in a crime. The average citizen shouldn't get to decide, or even really have much say at all, because the average citizen doesn't really know what they're talking about. That cuts both ways though. I don't think the average person is educated on the gun laws and how wildly they different from state to state. That in some states, it's easier to get an open carry licence than it is to get a folding or bowie knife, which is outright illegal. That you can sell a gun to anyone online or at a gun show without a background check. Or that the standards for getting a gun licence in America is really just filling out a form, and there's literally no process that that differentiates a responsible, experience gun owner from a nutjob like James Holmes. The average citizen shouldn't get to decide. But the responsible gun owners, dealers and law enforcement should. I don't think anyone gun owner could say, with a straight face, that someone like Jame Holmes should be owning and operating guns legally. That alone should be enough for people to admit that gun laws in America aren't really sufficient, or at least need to be better enforced. The sentiment is pretty, too bad the implementation is a farce at best, and flat out crap when honest. Truth is, the only reason anyone can say with a straight face that James Holmes should not be owning guns, is because we can look back retrospectively and make that assessment. It's a descriptive approach as opposed to a prescriptive one. "It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it." - George Washington Laws are not the solution. Laws are nothing but patchwork over the already crumpling frame of the failings of a given culture. The need for laws is simply a symptom, not the illness itself. You are 100% WRONG. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2177323/Colorado-gun-club-owner-Glenn-Rotkovich-rejected-James-Holmes-just-WEEKS-shooting-spree-freaky-answering-message.htmlhttp://news.yahoo.com/psychiatrist-called-threat-team-aurora-shooting-suspect-james-215740780--abc-news-topstories.htmlThese people clearly knew James Holmes was crazy, a threat to society, or at the very least, shouldn't be around guns prior to the massacre. Put that in your silly scrapbook of libertarian quotes and smoke it.
Arbitrary.
Crazy is as crazy does. That's it. Anything else is a tacit admission that you are a fortune-teller privy to knowledge beyond that of mere mortals.
And as a preface: I find Libertarians to be well intentioned and preferable to Progressives, Leftists, Socialists, Marxists and blissfully ignorant Statists, but ultimately deluded as the rest of the crowd who passively consume Enlightenment thought because it's the cultural norm without ever asking if thought existed before the Enlightenment and gasp* that it may have said some true things NOT said in the Enlightenment.
My opinions are decidedly non-libertarian and would colloquially and inaccurately be called fascist in some cases. I'm actually something of an anti-statist Fascist. Go figure, right?
George Washington wasn't a libertarian. I'm not sure what you're insinuating with that line.
And I quit smoking about 4 months ago. Nasty habit.
|
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
How am I busting the chops of the parents now? You just called me out earlier for making a "cheap shot" at Obama. Make up your mind.
|
NRA is [...] comprised of millions of everyday American citizens. [/QUOTE]
Uh... you phrased it in a very loose, open-to-interpretation way, so maybe you had a different definition of "everyday American citizen" in mind. Personally, I'd strongly disagree that its members are "everyday American citizens". On the other hand, if some massive anti-gun organization existed akin to the NRA, I would also disagree that its members would be "everyday American citizens". Yes, the members are also citizens of the US everyday they live here in the US, but they really don't hold neutral views, which I would associate more comfortably with the term "everyday citizen" (one without an agenda or polarized opinion on something). [/QUOTE]
So your idea of an everyday citizen is someone who has no opinion or anything?[/QUOTE]
No, it's one who has an opinion held by most people, on average. I think that the opinion, on average, of NRA members, likely does not align with the opinion, on average, of US citizens as a whole collection. [/QUOTE]
The problem with the average citizen, is that the average citizen knows NOTHING about the issue. If you ask them what an assault weapon is, they'll say a machine gun, or assault rifle. Except that those aren't what an "Assault Weapon" is, and are already strictly regulated. They don't realize that gun deaths are at the lowest they've been since the early 90's. They don't realize more people die from alcohol (even excluding liver failure) and alcohol related accidents. They don't realize there's 300,000,000 guns in the US, but only 300,000 gun crimes a year. Even if EVERY crime was a different gun, that still leaves 299,700,000 guns that weren't involved in a crime.
The average citizen shouldn't get to decide, or even really have much say at all, because the average citizen doesn't really know what they're talking about.[/QUOTE]
That cuts both ways though. I don't think the average person is educated on the gun laws and how wildly they differ from state to state. That in some states, it's easier to get an open carry license than it is to get a folding or bowie knife, which is outright illegal. That you can sell a gun to anyone online or at a gun show without a background check. Or that the standards for getting a gun license in America is really just filling out a form, and there's literally no process that differentiates a responsible, experience gun owner from a nutjob like James Holmes.
The average citizen shouldn't get to decide. But the responsible gun owners, dealers and law enforcement should. I don't think anyone gun owner could say, with a straight face, that someone like Jame Holmes should be owning and operating guns legally. That alone should be enough for people to admit that gun laws in America aren't really sufficient, or at least need to be better enforced.
[/QUOTE]
There is no "license" to buy a gun in 99.9 cases. 98% of of all gun sold at guns shows do get a background check. Look at it from a purely economic standpoint. The dealers at a gun show pay money to have a booth. Do you think they would buy a booth if they could make more money just walking around the show to sell their wares.
I am not sure what you mean by online sales?
There are sites like gunbroker but if you are the seller you mail in to an FFL near the buyers location not straight to the buyer. You can circumvent a background check it you go on to a "craiglist" type site and buy something face to face in intrastate commerce. But I would not call this online sales. It is the same it I put an ad in my local paper and met face to face for intrastate commerce. Or are you talking about Curios and Relics License in which you can buy guns direct to your house straight from a distrubtor.
|
On April 18 2013 10:43 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 10:33 Defacer wrote:On April 18 2013 10:24 Kimaker wrote:On April 18 2013 10:13 Defacer wrote:On April 18 2013 10:00 Millitron wrote:On April 18 2013 09:46 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 18 2013 09:42 ahswtini wrote:On April 18 2013 09:38 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 18 2013 09:13 ahswtini wrote:
NRA is [...] comprised of millions of everyday American citizens. Uh... you phrased it in a very loose, open-to-interpretation way, so maybe you had a different definition of "everyday American citizen" in mind. Personally, I'd strongly disagree that its members are "everyday American citizens". On the other hand, if some massive anti-gun organization existed akin to the NRA, I would also disagree that its members would be "everyday American citizens". Yes, the members are also citizens of the US everyday they live here in the US, but they really don't hold neutral views, which I would associate more comfortably with the term "everyday citizen" (one without an agenda or polarized opinion on something). So your idea of an everyday citizen is someone who has no opinion or anything? No, it's one who has an opinion held by most people, on average. I think that the opinion, on average, of NRA members, likely does not align with the opinion, on average, of US citizens as a whole collection. The problem with the average citizen, is that the average citizen knows NOTHING about the issue. If you ask them what an assault weapon is, they'll say a machine gun, or assault rifle. Except that those aren't what an "Assault Weapon" is, and are already strictly regulated. They don't realize that gun deaths are at the lowest they've been since the early 90's. They don't realize more people die from alcohol (even excluding liver failure) and alcohol related accidents. They don't realize there's 300,000,000 guns in the US, but only 300,000 gun crimes a year. Even if EVERY crime was a different gun, that still leaves 299,700,000 guns that weren't involved in a crime. The average citizen shouldn't get to decide, or even really have much say at all, because the average citizen doesn't really know what they're talking about. That cuts both ways though. I don't think the average person is educated on the gun laws and how wildly they different from state to state. That in some states, it's easier to get an open carry licence than it is to get a folding or bowie knife, which is outright illegal. That you can sell a gun to anyone online or at a gun show without a background check. Or that the standards for getting a gun licence in America is really just filling out a form, and there's literally no process that that differentiates a responsible, experience gun owner from a nutjob like James Holmes. The average citizen shouldn't get to decide. But the responsible gun owners, dealers and law enforcement should. I don't think anyone gun owner could say, with a straight face, that someone like Jame Holmes should be owning and operating guns legally. That alone should be enough for people to admit that gun laws in America aren't really sufficient, or at least need to be better enforced. The sentiment is pretty, too bad the implementation is a farce at best, and flat out crap when honest. Truth is, the only reason anyone can say with a straight face that James Holmes should not be owning guns, is because we can look back retrospectively and make that assessment. It's a descriptive approach as opposed to a prescriptive one. "It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it." - George Washington Laws are not the solution. Laws are nothing but patchwork over the already crumpling frame of the failings of a given culture. The need for laws is simply a symptom, not the illness itself. You are 100% WRONG. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2177323/Colorado-gun-club-owner-Glenn-Rotkovich-rejected-James-Holmes-just-WEEKS-shooting-spree-freaky-answering-message.htmlhttp://news.yahoo.com/psychiatrist-called-threat-team-aurora-shooting-suspect-james-215740780--abc-news-topstories.htmlThese people clearly knew James Holmes was crazy, a threat to society, or at the very least, shouldn't be around guns prior to the massacre. Put that in your silly scrapbook of libertarian quotes and smoke it. Arbitrary. Crazy is as crazy does. That's it. Anything else is a tacit admission that you are a fortune-teller privy to knowledge beyond that of mere mortals. And as a preface: I find Libertarians to be well intentioned and preferable to Progressives, Leftists, Socialists, Marxists and blissfully ignorant Statists, but ultimately deluded as the rest of the crowd who passively consume Enlightenment thought because it's the cultural norm without ever asking if thought existed before the Enlightenment and gasp* that it may have said some true things NOT said in the Enlightenment. My opinions are decidedly non-libertarian and would colloquially and inaccurately be called fascist in some cases. I'm actually something of an anti-statist Fascist. Go figure, right? George Washington wasn't a libertarian. I'm not sure what you're insinuating with that line. And I quit smoking about 4 months ago. Nasty habit.
Those people weren't fortune tellers. They were responsible people exercising their best judgment and doing their jobs. They were qualified to evaluate James Holmes mental capacity, period.
And if James Holmes where required to pass some kind of mental/criminal background check, or need to be sponsored by a licensed gun owner (standard in Canada) to either get a license or buy guns in a store or online, it would have made it much more difficult for him to amass his arsenal, and could have saved lives.
This again, not fortune telling. These are logical and fair statements and ideas.
And libertarians (and all ideologies) co-opt all sorts of crap. I'm sure there is a libertarian out their mining quotes from the Gospel and saying, "See! See! Jesus says that we should all do whatever the fuck we want and fend for ourselves!"
|
On April 18 2013 10:49 norjoncal wrote:
There is no "license" to buy a gun in 99.9 cases. 98% of of all gun sold at guns shows do get a background check. Look at it from a purely economic standpoint. The dealers at a gun show pay money to have a booth. Do you think they would buy a booth if they could make more money just walking around the show to sell their wares.
I am not sure what you mean by online sales?
There are sites like gunbroker but if you are the seller you mail in to an FFL near the buyers location not straight to the buyer. You can circumvent a background check it you go on to a "craiglist" type site and buy something face to face in intrastate commerce. But I would not call this online sales. It is the same it I put an ad in my local paper and met face to face for intrastate commerce. Or are you talking about Curios and Relics License in which you can buy guns direct to your house straight from a distrubtor.
Thanks for the clarification. It still sounds ridiculously easy to buy a gun legally, frankly.
|
On April 18 2013 10:52 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 10:43 Kimaker wrote:On April 18 2013 10:33 Defacer wrote:On April 18 2013 10:24 Kimaker wrote:On April 18 2013 10:13 Defacer wrote:On April 18 2013 10:00 Millitron wrote:On April 18 2013 09:46 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 18 2013 09:42 ahswtini wrote:On April 18 2013 09:38 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 18 2013 09:13 ahswtini wrote:
NRA is [...] comprised of millions of everyday American citizens. Uh... you phrased it in a very loose, open-to-interpretation way, so maybe you had a different definition of "everyday American citizen" in mind. Personally, I'd strongly disagree that its members are "everyday American citizens". On the other hand, if some massive anti-gun organization existed akin to the NRA, I would also disagree that its members would be "everyday American citizens". Yes, the members are also citizens of the US everyday they live here in the US, but they really don't hold neutral views, which I would associate more comfortably with the term "everyday citizen" (one without an agenda or polarized opinion on something). So your idea of an everyday citizen is someone who has no opinion or anything? No, it's one who has an opinion held by most people, on average. I think that the opinion, on average, of NRA members, likely does not align with the opinion, on average, of US citizens as a whole collection. The problem with the average citizen, is that the average citizen knows NOTHING about the issue. If you ask them what an assault weapon is, they'll say a machine gun, or assault rifle. Except that those aren't what an "Assault Weapon" is, and are already strictly regulated. They don't realize that gun deaths are at the lowest they've been since the early 90's. They don't realize more people die from alcohol (even excluding liver failure) and alcohol related accidents. They don't realize there's 300,000,000 guns in the US, but only 300,000 gun crimes a year. Even if EVERY crime was a different gun, that still leaves 299,700,000 guns that weren't involved in a crime. The average citizen shouldn't get to decide, or even really have much say at all, because the average citizen doesn't really know what they're talking about. That cuts both ways though. I don't think the average person is educated on the gun laws and how wildly they different from state to state. That in some states, it's easier to get an open carry licence than it is to get a folding or bowie knife, which is outright illegal. That you can sell a gun to anyone online or at a gun show without a background check. Or that the standards for getting a gun licence in America is really just filling out a form, and there's literally no process that that differentiates a responsible, experience gun owner from a nutjob like James Holmes. The average citizen shouldn't get to decide. But the responsible gun owners, dealers and law enforcement should. I don't think anyone gun owner could say, with a straight face, that someone like Jame Holmes should be owning and operating guns legally. That alone should be enough for people to admit that gun laws in America aren't really sufficient, or at least need to be better enforced. The sentiment is pretty, too bad the implementation is a farce at best, and flat out crap when honest. Truth is, the only reason anyone can say with a straight face that James Holmes should not be owning guns, is because we can look back retrospectively and make that assessment. It's a descriptive approach as opposed to a prescriptive one. "It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it." - George Washington Laws are not the solution. Laws are nothing but patchwork over the already crumpling frame of the failings of a given culture. The need for laws is simply a symptom, not the illness itself. You are 100% WRONG. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2177323/Colorado-gun-club-owner-Glenn-Rotkovich-rejected-James-Holmes-just-WEEKS-shooting-spree-freaky-answering-message.htmlhttp://news.yahoo.com/psychiatrist-called-threat-team-aurora-shooting-suspect-james-215740780--abc-news-topstories.htmlThese people clearly knew James Holmes was crazy, a threat to society, or at the very least, shouldn't be around guns prior to the massacre. Put that in your silly scrapbook of libertarian quotes and smoke it. Arbitrary. Crazy is as crazy does. That's it. Anything else is a tacit admission that you are a fortune-teller privy to knowledge beyond that of mere mortals. And as a preface: I find Libertarians to be well intentioned and preferable to Progressives, Leftists, Socialists, Marxists and blissfully ignorant Statists, but ultimately deluded as the rest of the crowd who passively consume Enlightenment thought because it's the cultural norm without ever asking if thought existed before the Enlightenment and gasp* that it may have said some true things NOT said in the Enlightenment. My opinions are decidedly non-libertarian and would colloquially and inaccurately be called fascist in some cases. I'm actually something of an anti-statist Fascist. Go figure, right? George Washington wasn't a libertarian. I'm not sure what you're insinuating with that line. And I quit smoking about 4 months ago. Nasty habit. Those people weren't fortune tellers. They were responsible people exercising their best judgment and doing their jobs. They were qualified to evaluate James Holmes mental capacity, period. And if James Holmes where required to pass some kind of mental/criminal background check, or need to be sponsored by a licence gun owner (standard in Canada) to either get a licence or buy guns in a store or online, it would have made it much more difficult for him to amass his arsenal, and could have saved lives. This again, not fortune telling. These are logical and fair statements and ideas. And libertarians (and all ideologies) co-opt all sorts of crap. I'm sure there is a libertarian out their mining quotes from the Gospel and saying, "See! See! Jesus says that we should all do whatever the fuck we want and fend for ourselves!"
Maybe.
But the truth?
+ Show Spoiler +
And the quote was included because it eloquently and concisely summarized my point. I'm still not sure why it became a target.
|
On April 18 2013 10:45 ahswtini wrote:
How am I busting the chops of the parents now? You just called me out earlier for making a "cheap shot" at Obama. Make up your mind.
Your right. In a nutshell: there's no point in using the parents to bash Obama because I'd be shocked if the parents cared or gave a shit about what Obama thinks, they have their own reasons and their own agenda. Fair enough?
|
On April 18 2013 10:59 Kimaker wrote:
And the quote was included because it eloquently and concisely summarized my point. I'm still not sure why it became a target.
The quote became a target because I thought it was obvious and random attempt to be eloquent and grandiose on the internet, which I find hilarious. It's not personal at all.
|
|
|
The 12 questions on the ATF form. Answer YES to #1 and NO to all the rest, with some exceptions...and you can get a gun.
1 Are you the buyer of this firearm? (straw purchase question)
2 Are you a felon?
3 Are you under felony indictment?
4 Are you a fugitive? Got a warrant?
5 Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
6 Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?
7 Dishonorable discharge?
8 Any protective orders / restraining orders?
9 Any domestic violence charges?
10 Have you renounced US citizenship?
11 Illegal alien?
12 Non-immigrant alien?
#5 and #6 are the really critical ones. Because to my knowledge almost none of the mass murders I can think of have really lied on their ATF form. I don't think any have been **ADJUDICATED** or **COMITTED** to a mental institution. They may have been batshit crazy..but no court said so in advance.
#5 Some people say Loughner lied on his ATF form because he smoked weed. Well if it is interpreted that way... then looking at the number of admitted pot smokers...and the number of gun owners in the US.... there are many many many millions of felons and/or ineligible buyers of guns then.
They only way to enforce mental health would be to have a psychologist at every gun dealer...with regular 2-3 year mandatory mental health checks for every gun owner. Impossible.
You don't know what is inside someone's head. Intent is the absolute hardest thing to prove in a court of law.
And right now we don't have Tom Cruise and the Department of PreCrime.
The point of this ^^^ is that...the ATF form IS the background check. What else then..that would be effective..can you add to it?
|
On April 18 2013 11:01 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 10:59 Kimaker wrote:
And the quote was included because it eloquently and concisely summarized my point. I'm still not sure why it became a target. The quote became a target because I thought it was obvious and random attempt to be eloquent and grandiose on the internet, which I find hilarious. It's not personal at all.
Excuse me, I apologize for taking your argument seriously. I was unaware that he proper etiquette online was to be either: aloof or trolling. 
|
On April 18 2013 11:05 RCMDVA wrote:
The 12 questions on the ATF form. Answer YES to #1 and NO to all the rest, with some exceptions...and you can get a gun.
1 Are you the buyer of this firearm?
2 Are you a felon?
3 Are you under felony indictment?
4 Are you a fugitive? Got a warrant?
5 Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
6 Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?
7 Dishonorable discharge?
8 Any protective orders / restraining orders?
9 Any domestic violence charges?
10 Have you renounced US citizenship?
11 Illegal alien?
12 Non-immigrant alien?
#5 and #6 are the really critical ones. Because to my knowledge almost none of the mass murders I can think of have really lied on their ATF form. I don't think any have been **ADJUDICATED** or **COMITTED** to a mental institution. They may have been batshit crazy..but no court said so in advance.
#5 Some people say Loughner lied on his ATF form because he smoked weed. Well if it is interpreted that way... then looking at the number of admitted pot smokers...and the number of gun owners in the US.... there are many many many millions of felons and/or ineligible buyers of guns then.
They only way to enforce mental health would be to have a psychologist at every gun dealer...with regular 2-3 year mandatory mental health checks for every gun owner. Impossible.
You don't know what is inside someone's head. Intent is the absolute hardest thing to prove in a court of law.
And right now we don't have Tom Cruise and the Department of PreCrime.
The point of this ^^^ is that...the ATF form IS the background check. What else then..that would be effective..can you add to it?
Personally, I think their should be a form of graduated licensing to own and operating firearms.
You don't need a psychologist at every gun dealer. What you need is a person to spend four weekends in a firearm safety and training course run by law enforcement officials or a certified instructor. You don't have to be a genius to decide that the guy that can't maintain eye contact might not be mature or mentally stable enough to have a gun.
I honestly think the best people to decide who should have guns are responsible gun owners. Meh, dare to dream.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
