|
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 24 2013 11:02 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 10:59 kmillz wrote:On April 24 2013 10:51 Defacer wrote:On April 24 2013 10:15 kmillz wrote:On April 24 2013 06:50 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Kmillz you ought to not argue like Sean Hannity. Just saying. Discussions will be more productive. It would behoove you (and a lot of people in this thread) not to argue like Piers Morgan, you bring up all of the same points he brought up when he got eviscerated in a debate. If you're going to just make a vague accusation of sounding like a very conservative talking head (hint: I'm not conservative) then at least share your reasoning for the accusation. Off-topic, but I don't remember an argument that Morgan got 'eviscerated' in. To be fair, Morgan dragged out the most cartoonish and craziest of Yosemite Sams to 'argue' with. All I remember was a carousel of obnoxious angry guys yelling at an obnoxious smug guy. Well, he goes on a 5 minute tangent about "do you think we should be allowed to own tanks" in one debate with these 2 women and just doesn't let it go, and even when they give him an answer (which is, some people own tanks, fighter jets, etc. etc. and how often do you hear them in the news committing crimes? so yes) he still keeps going on about it just because he isn't hearing the answer he wants to hear. It was just really annoying. Then he goes on and on about 10 round magazines being the limit, and just doesn't seem to let things go and keeps trying to argue the same points over and over again despite already getting a reasonable answer. Um, people own tanks? Like, operational ones?
Schwarzy does. Not sure if it's functional, though. Not sure if the government would bother either. It would look more appropriate in a museum than on the street, lol.
|
On April 24 2013 12:12 Sermokala wrote:+ Show Spoiler [Fulloriginalpostforreference] +On April 24 2013 10:43 Myrddraal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 13:33 Sermokala wrote:On April 23 2013 13:27 Myrddraal wrote:On April 23 2013 13:01 Sermokala wrote:On April 23 2013 12:48 FallDownMarigold wrote:
On the topic of using "right to bear arms to keep the gov. at bay" stuff, I wonder... If the US government decided one day, "let's murder the US civilian population in order to do evil stuff and profit and bad stuff dictators Illuminati etc", would it matter whether or not the US civilian population had unlimited access to handguns and rifles of their choosing? Would it matter if gun control had already been imposed, causing a decrease in the civilian population's access to, say, assault rifles?
Speaking of "SCOTUS", there is this one guy who works there who makes a pretty strong point: The amount of sophistication and firepower required to thwart or even stall a modern government armed with tanks and jet fighter-bombers would be highly unusual in society at large. No amount of rifles/handguns would matter. US citizens armed with unlimited handguns and rifles of their choosing would fare no better against the US military vs. US citizens armed with a limited array of handguns and shotguns, or even US citizens restricted to knives and baseball bats.
The notion that unrestricted gun control is necessary in order to empower the ability to form effective militias to counter tyranny is absolutely laughable in this day and age. The fact that you think tanks jet fighter-bombers would have an impact on a country as large population wise and geographically wise shows how ignorant you are on it. From whence shall we expect this approach of danger? Shall some giant military force materialize out of nowhere and subjugate out lands? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia...could not by force take a drink from the Mississippi or hope to hold the Rockies in the trial of a thousand years. the US military is a lot smaller in actual manpower these days then it ever was in proportion to the population. Us having Guns would make a huge difference when soldiers march down main street. They can't afford to have a tank roll next to them and wouldn't be many of them marching anyway. A few thousand people with pistols or long rifles against a dozen or so soldiers would make a huge difference on what they have. This whole argument is moot anyway. You need to put forward an argument to justify taking away our guns. I don't need to have an argument to keep them. And until someone finally puts forward an actual argument to tell a country guy why he needs to lose his freedoms because of city problems gun control might become at thing again in the USA. Well at least we agree on some things. Using the second amendment as an argument for gun control or gun regulation is moot because nobody is trying to take away your guns they are simply trying to put in place laws that make it more difficult for the wrong people to have access to guns. As people have already stated guns are already controlled to some extent, so whether you like it or not, gun control is a thing in the USA. I wouldn't really be so keen on saying that there is any gun control in the USA. Not even by comparison to other countries there really isn't that much out there that stops me in anyway on getting my hands on a ton of firepower I have no need for. fill out a form here, get a stamp there, buy my local sheriff a drink, and I can get anything I have money for. Is that good I think? God no but gun control supporters have been beaten back generation after generation in america so that their only hope is in extreme thoughts and minimal actions. Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 13:41 Fruscainte wrote:
"Shall not be infringed"
It's like a cake. It started in 1934 with the National Firearms Act where you asked for half of our cake and we gave it to you. Then in 1938 you wanted another quarter of the cake, so we gave it to you in the form of the Federal Firearms Act. Then in 1968 you took another eighth of the cake with the Gun Control Act. In 1986 you began taking down the last scraps of the cake, leaving us with what is now just crumbs with the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act. And then you grabbed a little scraper and began scraping up the crumbs with the 1990 Crime Control Act and 1994 Brady Handgun Act.
Now we're left sitting here with just a handful of crumbs left, and what do you people do?
"Waaah gun owners won't concede anything! They're unreasonable! We just want to pass some minor legislation! Gun legislation is inevitable and we just want a little bit, why don't you learn to compromise?!"
I'm getting conflicting messages here. Which is it, is it the current level of control doing essentially nothing, or is it taking every little scrap of your cake? "Shall not be infringed" Do you honestly think for a second that that is a good idea in the slightest? Yes, why not let the gangs have machine guns and rocket launchers, wouldn't want to go against the second amendment right? Let's just let criminals and psychopaths have access to whatever they want, wouldn't want to encroach on their freedom, it will be okay though, everyone will still be safe because they can equip themselves just as easily, it will truly be a utopia to behold! I'm sorry but if that is your idea of cake, then perhaps you would be better off living in some places in Africa, where none of these silly laws and regulations will hold you back. As for what "we people" are doing, "I" am not doing anything, I am merely interested in the logical and ethical discussion on how accessible something as powerful as a gun should be to people and every time another shooting happens I have a look at this thread and see people spouting the same selfish bullshit along the lines of "You can't take away my guns!". Try to look beyond yourself, and see that innocent lives are being taken away unjustly which is part of the price to pay for your freedoms. If you really can't stand the idea of giving up a small part of your freedom or privacy on the off chance that it may save someone else's life, then I don't understand how you can claim to support the nation whose constitution you fight so hard to protect. Show nested quote +I'm getting conflicting messages here. Which is it, is it the current level of control doing essentially nothing, or is it taking every little scrap of your cake? Borderline sarcasm in anyway and can best be described as dickish snobbery.
I plead guilty to borderline sarcasm, though it was mostly to point out the ridiculous over exaggerations in his post, and I do admit to finding it humorous that you could both have such polar opposite opinions while being on the same side of the argument.
Show nested quote +"Shall not be infringed" Do you honestly think for a second that that is a good idea in the slightest? Lets look at this one right here. This line is the most coherent part of his second paragraph and it makes no god damm sense at all. Look bro I know you think that this constitution thing that defines how your nation works has got your people pretty far in the past 250 years. But do you even think that it was a good idea in any way in the slightest? Well seeing how were I live has no crime and we all have guns... yeah I think it might have been a good idea. What does he even want to set up with this sentence? Is he trying to tell me that I think that "shall not be infringed" means that guns + government = literaly hitler?
So anecdotal evidence of where you live, means that this 250 year old document should be taken literally to the word? From one of your other posts it sounds like you live in the country, do you think this would hold true in a city environment? Can you please explain to me how giving everyone unrestricted access to guns in American cities would result in the same zero crime environment that you are lucky enough to live in?
Show nested quote +Yes, why not let the gangs have machine guns and rocket launchers, wouldn't want to go against the second amendment right? Let's just let criminals and psychopaths have access to whatever they want, wouldn't want to encroach on their freedom. So lets make a law for those people who are going to break the law so that they won't get something because this group that we're going to define as people who break the law are going to follow the law. If that last sentence made any sense to you go see a doctor. Lets study for a moment just how dripping these words are with hate. You can feel him snapping his fingers like this was mean girls mentally after every haphazardly delivered punctuation point. Lets just not have laws for these criminals to break and watch the madness unfold.
I see, so what you are trying to tell me is that this group we're going to define as breaking the law is going to break the law, so the laws do nothing, so we should have no laws.
As for how dripping with hate my words are, I'm still not seeing it, more like incredulity that you can't see that having literally zero restrictions on firearms would not be beneficial.
Show nested quote + It will be okay though, everyone will still be safe because they can equip themselves just as easily. this is where it really goes off the deep end. Hes not even playing for his own team the whole time Or is he?, ! Show nested quote +it will truly be a utopia to behold! I'm sorry but if that is your idea of cake, then perhaps you would be better off living in some places in Africa, where none of these silly laws and regulations will hold you back. Literally trying to convince me into moving to Africa, but thats not even the crazy part of it. Lets break down what hes communicating. I'm sorry if Modern America is your idea of good, but you'd be better off living in Africa because that would be more like the America you want to live in then the america that you are living in. I'm just going to let that one soak in for a bit because we've got to move onto paragraph 2.
This was not aimed at you, since you said that gun control was pretty much non-existent. This was aimed at Fruscainte who seems so frustrated with his "handful of crumbs", perhaps I should have suggested he move to the country instead.
Show nested quote +As for what "we people" are doing, "I" am not doing anything, I am merely interested in the logical and ethical discussion on how accessible something as powerful as a gun should be to people Because when you want logical and ethical discussion with people you turn your entire post into sarcasm to attempt to make a joke out of it at the expense of whoever your picking a fight with. The only way I can make his post make any sense at all is to use the exact same speaking style as him. Its literaly like speaking another language but without any idea of what the words mean. Show nested quote +every time another shooting happens I have a look at this thread and see people spouting the same selfish bullshit along the lines of "You can't take away my guns!". Try to look beyond yourself, and see that innocent lives are being taken away unjustly which is part of the price to pay for your freedoms. If you really can't stand the idea of giving up a small part of your freedom or privacy on the off chance that it may save someone else's life, then I don't understand how you can claim to support the nation whose constitution you fight so hard to protect. The bolded "my" is what really gets me out of all this. Its not the thinly veiled attempt to cast blame on me for the murder of innocent people. Its not the complete elitist dickishness of assuming that I don't give a shit about innocent people dieing. Its not some this snide insistence that because I don't believe in a police state I must hate my country. Its not him trying to make giving up fundamental rights as small potatoes. Its not even that he ends his post with effectively "I have no understanding of where your coming from or why you don't support handing over your guns". Its this one small pignoted point of pure jingoistic notion of it being about me and mine own problem. This gigantically offensive notion of how I must be the doing all of this because I need my guns in some way. The way that its so lightly passed off as humor long after you never tried to be funny. Hes not even doing it to come off this poorly. Thats not the point at all. I'm not even offended or that pissed off by the whole thing. Hes just being a dick and trying to pass off his ignorance and hate with sarcasm and make the whole thing just one big joke.
I'm not trying to blame anyone for anything, I'm just saying that freedoms have costs when people can use those freedoms to harm others.
If you have read my others posts, you would know that I don't support "handing over your guns" but I do support ideas that some people consider to "infringe" their freedoms and privacy for example (not specific): licenses, background checks, registers.
If you want to give the impression that you actually care about innocent lives, and the issue itself rather than seeming like all you care about it your own right to own guns, perhaps you should avoid posting things like this:
This whole argument is moot anyway. You need to put forward an argument to justify taking away our guns. I don't need to have an argument to keep them. And until someone finally puts forward an actual argument to tell a country guy why he needs to lose his freedoms because of city problems gun control might become at thing again in the USA.
|
On April 24 2013 13:19 Myrddraal wrote:If you want to give the impression that you actually care about innocent lives, and the issue itself rather than seeming like all you care about it your own right to own guns, perhaps you should avoid posting things like this: Show nested quote +
This whole argument is moot anyway. You need to put forward an argument to justify taking away our guns. I don't need to have an argument to keep them. And until someone finally puts forward an actual argument to tell a country guy why he needs to lose his freedoms because of city problems gun control might become at thing again in the USA.
As one who would probably agree with Sermokala's position here, I say we do want to protect innocent lives, but we want to do so while recognizing the right to safely own and operate firearms by law-abiding citizens. Because we don't believe that our safe ownership and operation of firearms as law-abiding citizens is the problem that is causing the gun violence we see today. We're suggesting that the problem lies elsewhere, while many, many others so vehemently assert that it must be because of a "loose" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment or the proliferation of firearms or the size of magazines or the legality of loosely-termed "assault weapons."
|
This whole argument is moot anyway. You need to put forward an argument to justify taking away our guns. I don't need to have an argument to keep them. And until someone finally puts forward an actual argument to tell a country guy why he needs to lose his freedoms because of city problems gun control might become at thing again in the USA.
I'm just going to go ahead and repeat myself a bit here, because as an outsider I find this perspective fascinating.
The thing I found the most bewildering about the Sandy Hook, Aurora and Virginia Tech shootings was that the first law these perpetrators broke (more or less) was shoot a bunch of people in a public space. And while I think law-abiding citizens should be able to own guns, it doesn't seem like gun legislation in most states makes it particularly difficult for criminals to build an arsenal legally.
But let's put gun crime aside. There's a a lot gun death and injury that results from accidents, or over-reacting to a perceived threat, suicide, or just plan incompetence.
From Sermokala's point of view, he see things like mandatory background checks, licensing and training as an imposition or limitation on 'his freedoms'.
I see it more like a civic duty — one that differentiates responsible, serious gun owners from 'the commoners' and riff-raff that just want to play with guns and use them frivolously or stupidly.
So to answer the question ... Why should a country guy need to lose his 'freedoms' because of city problems?
1) It's not just a city problem. There's people that use guns irresponsibly everywhere, and it isn't that hard to think of someone in your life, regardless of their intent or character, that probably isn't mature, responsible or stable enough to own a gun.
2) Because you're a good citizen, and are willing to inconvenience yourself it it means making it more difficult for stupid people from having a gun.
3) Because you want people to not just respect guns, but actual gun owners. You have no issue being held to a higher standard than a mental-case or freshman in college. In fact, you want to be held to a higher standard, because it doesn't weaken your freedoms — it actually STRENGTHENS and PROTECTS them.
If a majority of legal gun owners were disciplined, knowledgeable or well-trained, no one would talk about the second amendment being antiquated. It would be a non-issue.
|
On April 24 2013 13:52 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 13:19 Myrddraal wrote:If you want to give the impression that you actually care about innocent lives, and the issue itself rather than seeming like all you care about it your own right to own guns, perhaps you should avoid posting things like this:
This whole argument is moot anyway. You need to put forward an argument to justify taking away our guns. I don't need to have an argument to keep them. And until someone finally puts forward an actual argument to tell a country guy why he needs to lose his freedoms because of city problems gun control might become at thing again in the USA.
As one who would probably agree with Sermokala's position here, I say we do want to protect innocent lives, but we want to do so while recognizing the right to safely own and operate firearms by law-abiding citizens. Because we don't believe that our safe ownership and operation of firearms as law-abiding citizens is the problem that is causing the gun violence we see today. We're suggesting that the problem lies elsewhere, while many, many others so vehemently assert that it must be because of a "loose" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment or the proliferation of firearms or the size of magazines or the legality of loosely-termed "assault weapons."
I agree wholeheartedly that law abiding citizens are not the cause of the vast majority of gun violence, that it is mostly to do with socioeconomic issues, however I feel like those issues are extremely difficult to fix and having fairly lax gun regulations along with said issues is a dangerous combination.
The main thing in these kinds of discussions which bothers me, is when people on the pro-gun get up in arms about their freedoms or point to the second amendment when confronted by ideas that do not hinder safe operation of firearms such as needing a license to buy a gun. Some people will argue that the license will do nothing, I'm fine with that, if you're able to put forth a solid argument, but I fail to see how some people can argue that their freedom to "buy a gun without a license" matches up to the potential good that it could do if implemented and enforced correctly.
|
On April 24 2013 14:15 Myrddraal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 13:52 cLAN.Anax wrote:On April 24 2013 13:19 Myrddraal wrote:If you want to give the impression that you actually care about innocent lives, and the issue itself rather than seeming like all you care about it your own right to own guns, perhaps you should avoid posting things like this:
This whole argument is moot anyway. You need to put forward an argument to justify taking away our guns. I don't need to have an argument to keep them. And until someone finally puts forward an actual argument to tell a country guy why he needs to lose his freedoms because of city problems gun control might become at thing again in the USA.
As one who would probably agree with Sermokala's position here, I say we do want to protect innocent lives, but we want to do so while recognizing the right to safely own and operate firearms by law-abiding citizens. Because we don't believe that our safe ownership and operation of firearms as law-abiding citizens is the problem that is causing the gun violence we see today. We're suggesting that the problem lies elsewhere, while many, many others so vehemently assert that it must be because of a "loose" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment or the proliferation of firearms or the size of magazines or the legality of loosely-termed "assault weapons." I agree wholeheartedly that law abiding citizens are not the cause of the vast majority of gun violence, that it is mostly to do with socioeconomic issues, however I feel like those issues are extremely difficult to fix and having fairly lax gun regulations along with said issues is a dangerous combination. The main thing in these kinds of discussions which bothers me, is when people on the pro-gun get up in arms about their freedoms or point to the second amendment when confronted by ideas that do not hinder safe operation of firearms such as needing a license to buy a gun. Some people will argue that the license will do nothing, I'm fine with that, if you're able to put forth a solid argument, but I fail to see how some people can argue that their freedom to "buy a gun without a license" matches up to the potential good that it could do if implemented and enforced correctly.
We say it won't prove effective because one who is heck-bent on causing harm will find ways around existing laws to cause said harm. Legislation is not magic; background checks, safety tests, and gun licensing only prevent people from legally acquiring firearms. I am one who's still okay with those checks and tests and licenses (so long as it doesn't lead to a national registry) because I don't see them doing harm or increasing the problem at all. But I still contend that they are insufficient and other methods, methods those on the left do not often espouse, must be pursued.
|
On April 24 2013 14:31 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 14:15 Myrddraal wrote:On April 24 2013 13:52 cLAN.Anax wrote:On April 24 2013 13:19 Myrddraal wrote:If you want to give the impression that you actually care about innocent lives, and the issue itself rather than seeming like all you care about it your own right to own guns, perhaps you should avoid posting things like this:
This whole argument is moot anyway. You need to put forward an argument to justify taking away our guns. I don't need to have an argument to keep them. And until someone finally puts forward an actual argument to tell a country guy why he needs to lose his freedoms because of city problems gun control might become at thing again in the USA.
As one who would probably agree with Sermokala's position here, I say we do want to protect innocent lives, but we want to do so while recognizing the right to safely own and operate firearms by law-abiding citizens. Because we don't believe that our safe ownership and operation of firearms as law-abiding citizens is the problem that is causing the gun violence we see today. We're suggesting that the problem lies elsewhere, while many, many others so vehemently assert that it must be because of a "loose" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment or the proliferation of firearms or the size of magazines or the legality of loosely-termed "assault weapons." I agree wholeheartedly that law abiding citizens are not the cause of the vast majority of gun violence, that it is mostly to do with socioeconomic issues, however I feel like those issues are extremely difficult to fix and having fairly lax gun regulations along with said issues is a dangerous combination. The main thing in these kinds of discussions which bothers me, is when people on the pro-gun get up in arms about their freedoms or point to the second amendment when confronted by ideas that do not hinder safe operation of firearms such as needing a license to buy a gun. Some people will argue that the license will do nothing, I'm fine with that, if you're able to put forth a solid argument, but I fail to see how some people can argue that their freedom to "buy a gun without a license" matches up to the potential good that it could do if implemented and enforced correctly. We say it won't prove effective because one who is heck-bent on causing harm will find ways around existing laws to cause said harm. Legislation is not magic; background checks, safety tests, and gun licensing only prevent people from legally acquiring firearms. I am one who's still okay with those checks and tests and licenses (so long as it doesn't lead to a national registry) because I don't see them doing harm or increasing the problem at all. But I still contend that they are insufficient and other methods, methods those on the left do not often espouse, must be pursued.
Yes I am well aware, I wasn't trying to argue this point because it's been repeated a million times before as has your counter argument, it just goes round in circles. At least the approach that you have actually allows a discussion. Could you give me a couple of brief examples of other methods that pro-gun supporters would be more likely to adopt?
|
On April 24 2013 14:50 Myrddraal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 14:31 cLAN.Anax wrote:On April 24 2013 14:15 Myrddraal wrote:On April 24 2013 13:52 cLAN.Anax wrote:On April 24 2013 13:19 Myrddraal wrote:If you want to give the impression that you actually care about innocent lives, and the issue itself rather than seeming like all you care about it your own right to own guns, perhaps you should avoid posting things like this:
This whole argument is moot anyway. You need to put forward an argument to justify taking away our guns. I don't need to have an argument to keep them. And until someone finally puts forward an actual argument to tell a country guy why he needs to lose his freedoms because of city problems gun control might become at thing again in the USA.
As one who would probably agree with Sermokala's position here, I say we do want to protect innocent lives, but we want to do so while recognizing the right to safely own and operate firearms by law-abiding citizens. Because we don't believe that our safe ownership and operation of firearms as law-abiding citizens is the problem that is causing the gun violence we see today. We're suggesting that the problem lies elsewhere, while many, many others so vehemently assert that it must be because of a "loose" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment or the proliferation of firearms or the size of magazines or the legality of loosely-termed "assault weapons." I agree wholeheartedly that law abiding citizens are not the cause of the vast majority of gun violence, that it is mostly to do with socioeconomic issues, however I feel like those issues are extremely difficult to fix and having fairly lax gun regulations along with said issues is a dangerous combination. The main thing in these kinds of discussions which bothers me, is when people on the pro-gun get up in arms about their freedoms or point to the second amendment when confronted by ideas that do not hinder safe operation of firearms such as needing a license to buy a gun. Some people will argue that the license will do nothing, I'm fine with that, if you're able to put forth a solid argument, but I fail to see how some people can argue that their freedom to "buy a gun without a license" matches up to the potential good that it could do if implemented and enforced correctly. We say it won't prove effective because one who is heck-bent on causing harm will find ways around existing laws to cause said harm. Legislation is not magic; background checks, safety tests, and gun licensing only prevent people from legally acquiring firearms. I am one who's still okay with those checks and tests and licenses (so long as it doesn't lead to a national registry) because I don't see them doing harm or increasing the problem at all. But I still contend that they are insufficient and other methods, methods those on the left do not often espouse, must be pursued. Yes I am well aware, I wasn't trying to argue this point because it's been repeated a million times before as has your counter argument, it just goes round in circles. At least the approach that you have actually allows a discussion. Could you give me a couple of brief examples of other methods that pro-gun supporters would be more likely to adopt?
True, and fair enough.
I had a liberal agree with me on this conclusion on another site. I would support legislation that would expand background checks if it also allowed for those who passed to carry on public property. If we are to trust them in their own homes with firearms, I believe we should be able to trust them in the public square with them too. Tougher checks, tests, and licenses would account for that public trust. Private property would still be up to the respective owners, so people and businesses with private property could elect to enforce gun-free zones on their property.
Also, though widely unpopular, I don't think the effectiveness of armed guards can be argued. Areas of great concentrations of wealth are protected by armed security, and are only deterred in the face of superior firepower; why should we not protect our schoolchildren in the same way? Permitting legal carriers to carry on public property, open or concealed, would also serve as "armed guards" of sorts, including teachers in public schools. + Show Spoiler [Tangent.] +privatizing the school system would let gun-control advocates choose to keep their institutions and instructors gun-free, but that leads into a whole other topic altogether, and will only serve to complicate this one, but it intrigued me and I thought it was worth mentioning 
|
On April 24 2013 14:13 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +
This whole argument is moot anyway. You need to put forward an argument to justify taking away our guns. I don't need to have an argument to keep them. And until someone finally puts forward an actual argument to tell a country guy why he needs to lose his freedoms because of city problems gun control might become at thing again in the USA.
I'm just going to go ahead and repeat myself a bit here, because as an outsider I find this perspective fascinating. The thing I found the most bewildering about the Sandy Hook, Aurora and Virginia Tech shootings was that the first law these perpetrators broke (more or less) was shoot a bunch of people in a public space. And while I think law-abiding citizens should be able to own guns, it doesn't seem like gun legislation in most states makes it particularly difficult for criminals to build an arsenal legally. But let's put gun crime aside. There's a a lot gun death and injury that results from accidents, or over-reacting to a perceived threat, suicide, or just plan incompetence. From Sermokala's point of view, he see things like mandatory background checks, licensing and training as an imposition or limitation on 'his freedoms'. I see it more like a civic duty — one that differentiates responsible, serious gun owners from 'the commoners' and riff-raff that just want to play with guns and use them frivolously or stupidly. So to answer the question ... Why should a country guy need to lose his 'freedoms' because of city problems? 1) It's not just a city problem. There's people that use guns irresponsibly everywhere, and it isn't that hard to think of someone in your life, regardless of their intent or character, that probably isn't mature, responsible or stable enough to own a gun. 2) Because you're a good citizen, and are willing to inconvenience yourself it it means making it more difficult for stupid people from having a gun. 3) Because you want people to not just respect guns, but actual gun owners. You have no issue being held to a higher standard than a mental-case or freshman in college. In fact, you want to be held to a higher standard, because it doesn't weaken your freedoms — it actually STRENGTHENS and PROTECTS them. If a majority of legal gun owners were disciplined, knowledgeable or well-trained, no one would talk about the second amendment being antiquated. It would be a non-issue.
I think most people agree on both sides of the issue that background checks and licensing are reasonable to certain extents.
There is just a massive level of distrust from gun owners because they see what happened in NZ and in the UK.
Passing knee jerk reaction laws like the one in NY The Assault Weapon ban certainly do not help. They shoved a deeply flawed law through the legislation process before a proper reading could take place (iirc). The law has the most ridiculous criteria like bayonet lugs resulting in it being an assault weapon which makes guns that are not even semi automatic be classified as an assault weapon. Gun owners look at that then look at their thousands of dollars they have put into their hobby and they are scared that their harmless firearms are going to be randomly taken away on a technicality.
An example of seemingly random bans is the firearms instructor I took my course from has a set of 17th century French Duelling Pistols that the Canadian Government wanted to destroy entirely after they changed the minimum barrel length of pistols. (Not just deactivate completely destroy). The single shot pistols which were presumably worth quite a large sum because it is an antique had to be destroyed. The one shot pistol must be a menace on society because it's 16.5 inch length but the 17 inch M1911 .45 with a 7 shot semi automatic mag is fine?
The same thing happened in Canada with the AR-15s. There was a period where they were unrestricted and Canadians bought them believing they would be able to hunt with them. Shortly after the Gov't changed their mind and restricted the weapon so now Canadians who could not afford the Restricted license had to turn them in with no compensation and those with the restricted license can now only use them at a range with the permission of the RCMP. Thats not very fair at all.
The demonization of the AR-15 and other "Assault Weapons" is completely ridiculous. Any gun can be lethal. Nothing about an AR-15 is deadlier than a simple SKS other than a can of black spray paint. The SKS even shoots a larger round but it has a wooden stock so it must be safe >.>...
People who just genuinely don't have a clue about firearms really need to stay quiet in the debate when it comes to finer details about legislating. Honestly it just makes people hostile and makes the discussion 100x harder than it needs to be.
|
On April 24 2013 15:13 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 14:50 Myrddraal wrote:On April 24 2013 14:31 cLAN.Anax wrote:On April 24 2013 14:15 Myrddraal wrote:On April 24 2013 13:52 cLAN.Anax wrote:On April 24 2013 13:19 Myrddraal wrote:If you want to give the impression that you actually care about innocent lives, and the issue itself rather than seeming like all you care about it your own right to own guns, perhaps you should avoid posting things like this:
This whole argument is moot anyway. You need to put forward an argument to justify taking away our guns. I don't need to have an argument to keep them. And until someone finally puts forward an actual argument to tell a country guy why he needs to lose his freedoms because of city problems gun control might become at thing again in the USA.
As one who would probably agree with Sermokala's position here, I say we do want to protect innocent lives, but we want to do so while recognizing the right to safely own and operate firearms by law-abiding citizens. Because we don't believe that our safe ownership and operation of firearms as law-abiding citizens is the problem that is causing the gun violence we see today. We're suggesting that the problem lies elsewhere, while many, many others so vehemently assert that it must be because of a "loose" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment or the proliferation of firearms or the size of magazines or the legality of loosely-termed "assault weapons." I agree wholeheartedly that law abiding citizens are not the cause of the vast majority of gun violence, that it is mostly to do with socioeconomic issues, however I feel like those issues are extremely difficult to fix and having fairly lax gun regulations along with said issues is a dangerous combination. The main thing in these kinds of discussions which bothers me, is when people on the pro-gun get up in arms about their freedoms or point to the second amendment when confronted by ideas that do not hinder safe operation of firearms such as needing a license to buy a gun. Some people will argue that the license will do nothing, I'm fine with that, if you're able to put forth a solid argument, but I fail to see how some people can argue that their freedom to "buy a gun without a license" matches up to the potential good that it could do if implemented and enforced correctly. We say it won't prove effective because one who is heck-bent on causing harm will find ways around existing laws to cause said harm. Legislation is not magic; background checks, safety tests, and gun licensing only prevent people from legally acquiring firearms. I am one who's still okay with those checks and tests and licenses (so long as it doesn't lead to a national registry) because I don't see them doing harm or increasing the problem at all. But I still contend that they are insufficient and other methods, methods those on the left do not often espouse, must be pursued. Yes I am well aware, I wasn't trying to argue this point because it's been repeated a million times before as has your counter argument, it just goes round in circles. At least the approach that you have actually allows a discussion. Could you give me a couple of brief examples of other methods that pro-gun supporters would be more likely to adopt? True, and fair enough. I had a liberal agree with me on this conclusion on another site. I would support legislation that would expand background checks if it also allowed for those who passed to carry on public property. If we are to trust them in their own homes with firearms, I believe we should be able to trust them in the public square with them too. Tougher checks, tests, and licenses would account for that public trust. Private property would still be up to the respective owners, so people and businesses with private property could elect to enforce gun-free zones on their property. Also, though widely unpopular, I don't think the effectiveness of armed guards can be argued. Areas of great concentrations of wealth are protected by armed security, and are only deterred in the face of superior firepower; why should we not protect our schoolchildren in the same way? Permitting legal carriers to carry on public property, open or concealed, would also serve as "armed guards" of sorts, including teachers in public schools. + Show Spoiler [Tangent.] +privatizing the school system would let gun-control advocates choose to keep their institutions and instructors gun-free, but that leads into a whole other topic altogether, and will only serve to complicate this one, but it intrigued me and I thought it was worth mentioning
Well every mass shooting except for one have occurred in NA in Gun Free Zones. I think security guards or a liaison police officer at schools would be a very good thing. Idk why people are so against teachers who go through multiple strict courses that have several refreshers a year should not be allowed to conceal carry at school. What makes them different from Joe Blow plumber who concealed carries?
|
On April 24 2013 15:13 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 14:50 Myrddraal wrote:On April 24 2013 14:31 cLAN.Anax wrote:On April 24 2013 14:15 Myrddraal wrote:On April 24 2013 13:52 cLAN.Anax wrote:On April 24 2013 13:19 Myrddraal wrote:If you want to give the impression that you actually care about innocent lives, and the issue itself rather than seeming like all you care about it your own right to own guns, perhaps you should avoid posting things like this:
This whole argument is moot anyway. You need to put forward an argument to justify taking away our guns. I don't need to have an argument to keep them. And until someone finally puts forward an actual argument to tell a country guy why he needs to lose his freedoms because of city problems gun control might become at thing again in the USA.
As one who would probably agree with Sermokala's position here, I say we do want to protect innocent lives, but we want to do so while recognizing the right to safely own and operate firearms by law-abiding citizens. Because we don't believe that our safe ownership and operation of firearms as law-abiding citizens is the problem that is causing the gun violence we see today. We're suggesting that the problem lies elsewhere, while many, many others so vehemently assert that it must be because of a "loose" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment or the proliferation of firearms or the size of magazines or the legality of loosely-termed "assault weapons." I agree wholeheartedly that law abiding citizens are not the cause of the vast majority of gun violence, that it is mostly to do with socioeconomic issues, however I feel like those issues are extremely difficult to fix and having fairly lax gun regulations along with said issues is a dangerous combination. The main thing in these kinds of discussions which bothers me, is when people on the pro-gun get up in arms about their freedoms or point to the second amendment when confronted by ideas that do not hinder safe operation of firearms such as needing a license to buy a gun. Some people will argue that the license will do nothing, I'm fine with that, if you're able to put forth a solid argument, but I fail to see how some people can argue that their freedom to "buy a gun without a license" matches up to the potential good that it could do if implemented and enforced correctly. We say it won't prove effective because one who is heck-bent on causing harm will find ways around existing laws to cause said harm. Legislation is not magic; background checks, safety tests, and gun licensing only prevent people from legally acquiring firearms. I am one who's still okay with those checks and tests and licenses (so long as it doesn't lead to a national registry) because I don't see them doing harm or increasing the problem at all. But I still contend that they are insufficient and other methods, methods those on the left do not often espouse, must be pursued. Yes I am well aware, I wasn't trying to argue this point because it's been repeated a million times before as has your counter argument, it just goes round in circles. At least the approach that you have actually allows a discussion. Could you give me a couple of brief examples of other methods that pro-gun supporters would be more likely to adopt? True, and fair enough. I had a liberal agree with me on this conclusion on another site. I would support legislation that would expand background checks if it also allowed for those who passed to carry on public property. If we are to trust them in their own homes with firearms, I believe we should be able to trust them in the public square with them too. Tougher checks, tests, and licenses would account for that public trust. Private property would still be up to the respective owners, so people and businesses with private property could elect to enforce gun-free zones on their property. Also, though widely unpopular, I don't think the effectiveness of armed guards can be argued. Areas of great concentrations of wealth are protected by armed security, and are only deterred in the face of superior firepower; why should we not protect our schoolchildren in the same way? Permitting legal carriers to carry on public property, open or concealed, would also serve as "armed guards" of sorts, including teachers in public schools. + Show Spoiler [Tangent.] +privatizing the school system would let gun-control advocates choose to keep their institutions and instructors gun-free, but that leads into a whole other topic altogether, and will only serve to complicate this one, but it intrigued me and I thought it was worth mentioning
Interesting suggestions, as for the first it seems like a reasonable compromise, but do you mean it would transfer carry with all guns? Because I am having trouble rationalising allowing guns that do not have a clear reason to be carried in public (ie self defense).
And the second if I was going to allow teachers to carry guns in schools, I would also want to hold them to an even higher standard of tests (eg a yearly psychological examination). So yeah this also seems like a possibility that both sides could agree on, as while I think that teachers would still be vulnerable to making mistakes, even just the possibility of them being armed should help deter school shootings.
|
On April 24 2013 15:13 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 14:50 Myrddraal wrote:On April 24 2013 14:31 cLAN.Anax wrote:On April 24 2013 14:15 Myrddraal wrote:On April 24 2013 13:52 cLAN.Anax wrote:On April 24 2013 13:19 Myrddraal wrote:If you want to give the impression that you actually care about innocent lives, and the issue itself rather than seeming like all you care about it your own right to own guns, perhaps you should avoid posting things like this:
This whole argument is moot anyway. You need to put forward an argument to justify taking away our guns. I don't need to have an argument to keep them. And until someone finally puts forward an actual argument to tell a country guy why he needs to lose his freedoms because of city problems gun control might become at thing again in the USA.
As one who would probably agree with Sermokala's position here, I say we do want to protect innocent lives, but we want to do so while recognizing the right to safely own and operate firearms by law-abiding citizens. Because we don't believe that our safe ownership and operation of firearms as law-abiding citizens is the problem that is causing the gun violence we see today. We're suggesting that the problem lies elsewhere, while many, many others so vehemently assert that it must be because of a "loose" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment or the proliferation of firearms or the size of magazines or the legality of loosely-termed "assault weapons." I agree wholeheartedly that law abiding citizens are not the cause of the vast majority of gun violence, that it is mostly to do with socioeconomic issues, however I feel like those issues are extremely difficult to fix and having fairly lax gun regulations along with said issues is a dangerous combination. The main thing in these kinds of discussions which bothers me, is when people on the pro-gun get up in arms about their freedoms or point to the second amendment when confronted by ideas that do not hinder safe operation of firearms such as needing a license to buy a gun. Some people will argue that the license will do nothing, I'm fine with that, if you're able to put forth a solid argument, but I fail to see how some people can argue that their freedom to "buy a gun without a license" matches up to the potential good that it could do if implemented and enforced correctly. We say it won't prove effective because one who is heck-bent on causing harm will find ways around existing laws to cause said harm. Legislation is not magic; background checks, safety tests, and gun licensing only prevent people from legally acquiring firearms. I am one who's still okay with those checks and tests and licenses (so long as it doesn't lead to a national registry) because I don't see them doing harm or increasing the problem at all. But I still contend that they are insufficient and other methods, methods those on the left do not often espouse, must be pursued. Yes I am well aware, I wasn't trying to argue this point because it's been repeated a million times before as has your counter argument, it just goes round in circles. At least the approach that you have actually allows a discussion. Could you give me a couple of brief examples of other methods that pro-gun supporters would be more likely to adopt? True, and fair enough. I had a liberal agree with me on this conclusion on another site. I would support legislation that would expand background checks if it also allowed for those who passed to carry on public property. If we are to trust them in their own homes with firearms, I believe we should be able to trust them in the public square with them too. Tougher checks, tests, and licenses would account for that public trust. Private property would still be up to the respective owners, so people and businesses with private property could elect to enforce gun-free zones on their property. Also, though widely unpopular, I don't think the effectiveness of armed guards can be argued. Areas of great concentrations of wealth are protected by armed security, and are only deterred in the face of superior firepower; why should we not protect our schoolchildren in the same way? Permitting legal carriers to carry on public property, open or concealed, would also serve as "armed guards" of sorts, including teachers in public schools. + Show Spoiler [Tangent.] +privatizing the school system would let gun-control advocates choose to keep their institutions and instructors gun-free, but that leads into a whole other topic altogether, and will only serve to complicate this one, but it intrigued me and I thought it was worth mentioning
If would be nice if getting a license for concealed or open carry actually meant something, required serious training, and was equivalent to being a highly trained security guard. Not only would it improve public safety, but it would create a new market for ongoing training and education.
And frankly, it would help the gun community's image. It's the George Zimmerman's of the world that make the idea of carrying a weapon in public unpalatable.
|
On April 24 2013 16:03 Myrddraal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 15:13 cLAN.Anax wrote:On April 24 2013 14:50 Myrddraal wrote:On April 24 2013 14:31 cLAN.Anax wrote:On April 24 2013 14:15 Myrddraal wrote:On April 24 2013 13:52 cLAN.Anax wrote:On April 24 2013 13:19 Myrddraal wrote:If you want to give the impression that you actually care about innocent lives, and the issue itself rather than seeming like all you care about it your own right to own guns, perhaps you should avoid posting things like this:
This whole argument is moot anyway. You need to put forward an argument to justify taking away our guns. I don't need to have an argument to keep them. And until someone finally puts forward an actual argument to tell a country guy why he needs to lose his freedoms because of city problems gun control might become at thing again in the USA.
As one who would probably agree with Sermokala's position here, I say we do want to protect innocent lives, but we want to do so while recognizing the right to safely own and operate firearms by law-abiding citizens. Because we don't believe that our safe ownership and operation of firearms as law-abiding citizens is the problem that is causing the gun violence we see today. We're suggesting that the problem lies elsewhere, while many, many others so vehemently assert that it must be because of a "loose" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment or the proliferation of firearms or the size of magazines or the legality of loosely-termed "assault weapons." I agree wholeheartedly that law abiding citizens are not the cause of the vast majority of gun violence, that it is mostly to do with socioeconomic issues, however I feel like those issues are extremely difficult to fix and having fairly lax gun regulations along with said issues is a dangerous combination. The main thing in these kinds of discussions which bothers me, is when people on the pro-gun get up in arms about their freedoms or point to the second amendment when confronted by ideas that do not hinder safe operation of firearms such as needing a license to buy a gun. Some people will argue that the license will do nothing, I'm fine with that, if you're able to put forth a solid argument, but I fail to see how some people can argue that their freedom to "buy a gun without a license" matches up to the potential good that it could do if implemented and enforced correctly. We say it won't prove effective because one who is heck-bent on causing harm will find ways around existing laws to cause said harm. Legislation is not magic; background checks, safety tests, and gun licensing only prevent people from legally acquiring firearms. I am one who's still okay with those checks and tests and licenses (so long as it doesn't lead to a national registry) because I don't see them doing harm or increasing the problem at all. But I still contend that they are insufficient and other methods, methods those on the left do not often espouse, must be pursued. Yes I am well aware, I wasn't trying to argue this point because it's been repeated a million times before as has your counter argument, it just goes round in circles. At least the approach that you have actually allows a discussion. Could you give me a couple of brief examples of other methods that pro-gun supporters would be more likely to adopt? True, and fair enough. I had a liberal agree with me on this conclusion on another site. I would support legislation that would expand background checks if it also allowed for those who passed to carry on public property. If we are to trust them in their own homes with firearms, I believe we should be able to trust them in the public square with them too. Tougher checks, tests, and licenses would account for that public trust. Private property would still be up to the respective owners, so people and businesses with private property could elect to enforce gun-free zones on their property. Also, though widely unpopular, I don't think the effectiveness of armed guards can be argued. Areas of great concentrations of wealth are protected by armed security, and are only deterred in the face of superior firepower; why should we not protect our schoolchildren in the same way? Permitting legal carriers to carry on public property, open or concealed, would also serve as "armed guards" of sorts, including teachers in public schools. + Show Spoiler [Tangent.] +privatizing the school system would let gun-control advocates choose to keep their institutions and instructors gun-free, but that leads into a whole other topic altogether, and will only serve to complicate this one, but it intrigued me and I thought it was worth mentioning Interesting suggestions, as for the first it seems like a reasonable compromise, but do you mean it would transfer carry with all guns? Because I am having trouble rationalising allowing guns that do not have a clear reason to be carried in public (ie self defense). And the second if I was going to allow teachers to carry guns in schools, I would also want to hold them to an even higher standard of tests (eg a yearly psychological examination). So yeah this also seems like a possibility that both sides could agree on, as while I think that teachers would still be vulnerable to making mistakes, even just the possibility of them being armed should help deter school shootings.
I'm okay with renewals as well.
One shouldn't have to "rationalize" anything if they are a law-abiding citizen. There isn't a clear reason for me to do a lot of things in public, but if they're not illegal, who cares? Why this recently applies to certain types of guns eludes me. People may suddenly see me as a monster if I sling an M4 over my shoulder (only because the presence of the gun, strangely), but if I break no law (i.e. point it at no one, threaten no one with it, beat no one with it) and have all the legal shenanigans passed, I don't see why I shouldn't have the freedom to do that. If I pass all the tests to be trusted to keep a Glock behind my belt, why shouldn't I be trusted to carry an "assault rifle" if I pass all those tests as well? Make the checks more thorough if you like, but I don't think it should be impossible or illegal for a peace-loving citizen to happen to have a mean-looking piece of metal on them.
|
On April 24 2013 16:02 tokicheese wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 15:13 cLAN.Anax wrote:On April 24 2013 14:50 Myrddraal wrote:On April 24 2013 14:31 cLAN.Anax wrote:On April 24 2013 14:15 Myrddraal wrote:On April 24 2013 13:52 cLAN.Anax wrote:On April 24 2013 13:19 Myrddraal wrote:If you want to give the impression that you actually care about innocent lives, and the issue itself rather than seeming like all you care about it your own right to own guns, perhaps you should avoid posting things like this:
This whole argument is moot anyway. You need to put forward an argument to justify taking away our guns. I don't need to have an argument to keep them. And until someone finally puts forward an actual argument to tell a country guy why he needs to lose his freedoms because of city problems gun control might become at thing again in the USA.
As one who would probably agree with Sermokala's position here, I say we do want to protect innocent lives, but we want to do so while recognizing the right to safely own and operate firearms by law-abiding citizens. Because we don't believe that our safe ownership and operation of firearms as law-abiding citizens is the problem that is causing the gun violence we see today. We're suggesting that the problem lies elsewhere, while many, many others so vehemently assert that it must be because of a "loose" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment or the proliferation of firearms or the size of magazines or the legality of loosely-termed "assault weapons." I agree wholeheartedly that law abiding citizens are not the cause of the vast majority of gun violence, that it is mostly to do with socioeconomic issues, however I feel like those issues are extremely difficult to fix and having fairly lax gun regulations along with said issues is a dangerous combination. The main thing in these kinds of discussions which bothers me, is when people on the pro-gun get up in arms about their freedoms or point to the second amendment when confronted by ideas that do not hinder safe operation of firearms such as needing a license to buy a gun. Some people will argue that the license will do nothing, I'm fine with that, if you're able to put forth a solid argument, but I fail to see how some people can argue that their freedom to "buy a gun without a license" matches up to the potential good that it could do if implemented and enforced correctly. We say it won't prove effective because one who is heck-bent on causing harm will find ways around existing laws to cause said harm. Legislation is not magic; background checks, safety tests, and gun licensing only prevent people from legally acquiring firearms. I am one who's still okay with those checks and tests and licenses (so long as it doesn't lead to a national registry) because I don't see them doing harm or increasing the problem at all. But I still contend that they are insufficient and other methods, methods those on the left do not often espouse, must be pursued. Yes I am well aware, I wasn't trying to argue this point because it's been repeated a million times before as has your counter argument, it just goes round in circles. At least the approach that you have actually allows a discussion. Could you give me a couple of brief examples of other methods that pro-gun supporters would be more likely to adopt? True, and fair enough. I had a liberal agree with me on this conclusion on another site. I would support legislation that would expand background checks if it also allowed for those who passed to carry on public property. If we are to trust them in their own homes with firearms, I believe we should be able to trust them in the public square with them too. Tougher checks, tests, and licenses would account for that public trust. Private property would still be up to the respective owners, so people and businesses with private property could elect to enforce gun-free zones on their property. Also, though widely unpopular, I don't think the effectiveness of armed guards can be argued. Areas of great concentrations of wealth are protected by armed security, and are only deterred in the face of superior firepower; why should we not protect our schoolchildren in the same way? Permitting legal carriers to carry on public property, open or concealed, would also serve as "armed guards" of sorts, including teachers in public schools. + Show Spoiler [Tangent.] +privatizing the school system would let gun-control advocates choose to keep their institutions and instructors gun-free, but that leads into a whole other topic altogether, and will only serve to complicate this one, but it intrigued me and I thought it was worth mentioning Well every mass shooting except for one have occurred in NA in Gun Free Zones. I think security guards or a liaison police officer at schools would be a very good thing. Idk why people are so against teachers who go through multiple strict courses that have several refreshers a year should not be allowed to conceal carry at school. What makes them different from Joe Blow plumber who concealed carries?
I think the real problem is that you can't police everything. And at first blush, it seems like such a slippery slope. First schools, than what else? The park? The beach? The realtor's office?
The average person hates government surveillance, or the idea of a police state. But what makes living in a world where there's armed security everywhere any better? I don't know if I would be more or less paranoid, to be honest.
Pro-Gun advocates are afraid of losing all their guns, gun control advocates are afraid of guns permeating every aspect of life. It's kind of funny.
|
On April 24 2013 16:19 cLAN.Anax wrote:
Make the checks more thorough if you like, but I don't think it should be impossible or illegal for a peace-loving citizen to happen to have a mean-looking piece of metal on them.
If you want the option to look badass, have you considered moving to a country like Pakistan or Liberia? 
|
United States24569 Posts
Hmmm... teachers with concealed carry would require them to dress differently.
Maybe students would behave better though!
|
On April 24 2013 16:20 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 16:02 tokicheese wrote:On April 24 2013 15:13 cLAN.Anax wrote:On April 24 2013 14:50 Myrddraal wrote:On April 24 2013 14:31 cLAN.Anax wrote:On April 24 2013 14:15 Myrddraal wrote:On April 24 2013 13:52 cLAN.Anax wrote:On April 24 2013 13:19 Myrddraal wrote:If you want to give the impression that you actually care about innocent lives, and the issue itself rather than seeming like all you care about it your own right to own guns, perhaps you should avoid posting things like this:
This whole argument is moot anyway. You need to put forward an argument to justify taking away our guns. I don't need to have an argument to keep them. And until someone finally puts forward an actual argument to tell a country guy why he needs to lose his freedoms because of city problems gun control might become at thing again in the USA.
As one who would probably agree with Sermokala's position here, I say we do want to protect innocent lives, but we want to do so while recognizing the right to safely own and operate firearms by law-abiding citizens. Because we don't believe that our safe ownership and operation of firearms as law-abiding citizens is the problem that is causing the gun violence we see today. We're suggesting that the problem lies elsewhere, while many, many others so vehemently assert that it must be because of a "loose" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment or the proliferation of firearms or the size of magazines or the legality of loosely-termed "assault weapons." I agree wholeheartedly that law abiding citizens are not the cause of the vast majority of gun violence, that it is mostly to do with socioeconomic issues, however I feel like those issues are extremely difficult to fix and having fairly lax gun regulations along with said issues is a dangerous combination. The main thing in these kinds of discussions which bothers me, is when people on the pro-gun get up in arms about their freedoms or point to the second amendment when confronted by ideas that do not hinder safe operation of firearms such as needing a license to buy a gun. Some people will argue that the license will do nothing, I'm fine with that, if you're able to put forth a solid argument, but I fail to see how some people can argue that their freedom to "buy a gun without a license" matches up to the potential good that it could do if implemented and enforced correctly. We say it won't prove effective because one who is heck-bent on causing harm will find ways around existing laws to cause said harm. Legislation is not magic; background checks, safety tests, and gun licensing only prevent people from legally acquiring firearms. I am one who's still okay with those checks and tests and licenses (so long as it doesn't lead to a national registry) because I don't see them doing harm or increasing the problem at all. But I still contend that they are insufficient and other methods, methods those on the left do not often espouse, must be pursued. Yes I am well aware, I wasn't trying to argue this point because it's been repeated a million times before as has your counter argument, it just goes round in circles. At least the approach that you have actually allows a discussion. Could you give me a couple of brief examples of other methods that pro-gun supporters would be more likely to adopt? True, and fair enough. I had a liberal agree with me on this conclusion on another site. I would support legislation that would expand background checks if it also allowed for those who passed to carry on public property. If we are to trust them in their own homes with firearms, I believe we should be able to trust them in the public square with them too. Tougher checks, tests, and licenses would account for that public trust. Private property would still be up to the respective owners, so people and businesses with private property could elect to enforce gun-free zones on their property. Also, though widely unpopular, I don't think the effectiveness of armed guards can be argued. Areas of great concentrations of wealth are protected by armed security, and are only deterred in the face of superior firepower; why should we not protect our schoolchildren in the same way? Permitting legal carriers to carry on public property, open or concealed, would also serve as "armed guards" of sorts, including teachers in public schools. + Show Spoiler [Tangent.] +privatizing the school system would let gun-control advocates choose to keep their institutions and instructors gun-free, but that leads into a whole other topic altogether, and will only serve to complicate this one, but it intrigued me and I thought it was worth mentioning Well every mass shooting except for one have occurred in NA in Gun Free Zones. I think security guards or a liaison police officer at schools would be a very good thing. Idk why people are so against teachers who go through multiple strict courses that have several refreshers a year should not be allowed to conceal carry at school. What makes them different from Joe Blow plumber who concealed carries? I think the real problem is that you can't police everything. And at first blush, it seems like such a slippery slope. First schools, than what else? The park? The beach? The realtor's office? The average person hates government surveillance, or the idea of a police state. But what makes living in a world where there's armed security everywhere any better? I don't know if I would be more or less paranoid, to be honest. Pro-Gun advocates are afraid of losing all their guns, gun control advocates are afraid of guns permeating every aspect of life. It's kind of funny.
I don't think it's unreasonable to have armed guards at schools. I mean my high school a police officer as the school cop who was always there. With how horribly retarded some police officers are I can't see a rather well educated teacher with strict requirements being any worse. They are practically giving a badge to anyone who is willing to serve in Surrey as a cop lol.
Honestly I think putting armed guards at every movie theatre for a James Homes or at every school for a Lanza is a waste of money anways. It seems strange that the least likely way for someone to be harmed is a school shooting and yet they get the most attention. Pistols are used in most gun crime while NY bans scary assault weapons because of one shooting.
|
On April 24 2013 17:12 tokicheese wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 16:20 Defacer wrote:On April 24 2013 16:02 tokicheese wrote:On April 24 2013 15:13 cLAN.Anax wrote:On April 24 2013 14:50 Myrddraal wrote:On April 24 2013 14:31 cLAN.Anax wrote:On April 24 2013 14:15 Myrddraal wrote:On April 24 2013 13:52 cLAN.Anax wrote:On April 24 2013 13:19 Myrddraal wrote:If you want to give the impression that you actually care about innocent lives, and the issue itself rather than seeming like all you care about it your own right to own guns, perhaps you should avoid posting things like this:
This whole argument is moot anyway. You need to put forward an argument to justify taking away our guns. I don't need to have an argument to keep them. And until someone finally puts forward an actual argument to tell a country guy why he needs to lose his freedoms because of city problems gun control might become at thing again in the USA.
As one who would probably agree with Sermokala's position here, I say we do want to protect innocent lives, but we want to do so while recognizing the right to safely own and operate firearms by law-abiding citizens. Because we don't believe that our safe ownership and operation of firearms as law-abiding citizens is the problem that is causing the gun violence we see today. We're suggesting that the problem lies elsewhere, while many, many others so vehemently assert that it must be because of a "loose" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment or the proliferation of firearms or the size of magazines or the legality of loosely-termed "assault weapons." I agree wholeheartedly that law abiding citizens are not the cause of the vast majority of gun violence, that it is mostly to do with socioeconomic issues, however I feel like those issues are extremely difficult to fix and having fairly lax gun regulations along with said issues is a dangerous combination. The main thing in these kinds of discussions which bothers me, is when people on the pro-gun get up in arms about their freedoms or point to the second amendment when confronted by ideas that do not hinder safe operation of firearms such as needing a license to buy a gun. Some people will argue that the license will do nothing, I'm fine with that, if you're able to put forth a solid argument, but I fail to see how some people can argue that their freedom to "buy a gun without a license" matches up to the potential good that it could do if implemented and enforced correctly. We say it won't prove effective because one who is heck-bent on causing harm will find ways around existing laws to cause said harm. Legislation is not magic; background checks, safety tests, and gun licensing only prevent people from legally acquiring firearms. I am one who's still okay with those checks and tests and licenses (so long as it doesn't lead to a national registry) because I don't see them doing harm or increasing the problem at all. But I still contend that they are insufficient and other methods, methods those on the left do not often espouse, must be pursued. Yes I am well aware, I wasn't trying to argue this point because it's been repeated a million times before as has your counter argument, it just goes round in circles. At least the approach that you have actually allows a discussion. Could you give me a couple of brief examples of other methods that pro-gun supporters would be more likely to adopt? True, and fair enough. I had a liberal agree with me on this conclusion on another site. I would support legislation that would expand background checks if it also allowed for those who passed to carry on public property. If we are to trust them in their own homes with firearms, I believe we should be able to trust them in the public square with them too. Tougher checks, tests, and licenses would account for that public trust. Private property would still be up to the respective owners, so people and businesses with private property could elect to enforce gun-free zones on their property. Also, though widely unpopular, I don't think the effectiveness of armed guards can be argued. Areas of great concentrations of wealth are protected by armed security, and are only deterred in the face of superior firepower; why should we not protect our schoolchildren in the same way? Permitting legal carriers to carry on public property, open or concealed, would also serve as "armed guards" of sorts, including teachers in public schools. + Show Spoiler [Tangent.] +privatizing the school system would let gun-control advocates choose to keep their institutions and instructors gun-free, but that leads into a whole other topic altogether, and will only serve to complicate this one, but it intrigued me and I thought it was worth mentioning Well every mass shooting except for one have occurred in NA in Gun Free Zones. I think security guards or a liaison police officer at schools would be a very good thing. Idk why people are so against teachers who go through multiple strict courses that have several refreshers a year should not be allowed to conceal carry at school. What makes them different from Joe Blow plumber who concealed carries? I think the real problem is that you can't police everything. And at first blush, it seems like such a slippery slope. First schools, than what else? The park? The beach? The realtor's office? The average person hates government surveillance, or the idea of a police state. But what makes living in a world where there's armed security everywhere any better? I don't know if I would be more or less paranoid, to be honest. Pro-Gun advocates are afraid of losing all their guns, gun control advocates are afraid of guns permeating every aspect of life. It's kind of funny. I don't think it's unreasonable to have armed guards at schools. I mean my high school a police officer as the school cop who was always there. With how horribly retarded some police officers are I can't see a rather well educated teacher with strict requirements being any worse. They are practically giving a badge to anyone who is willing to serve in Surrey as a cop lol. Honestly I think putting armed guards at every movie theatre for a James Homes or at every school for a Lanza is a waste of money anways. It seems strange that the least likely way for someone to be harmed is a school shooting and yet they get the most attention. Pistols are used in most gun crime while NY bans scary assault weapons because of one shooting.
To be clear, I don't think it's unreasonable either. But it's an over-correction to the rare scenario of a maniac going on a mass shooting spree.
Armed guards frankly make more sense in cities or neighborhoods with high crime rates or gang activity than a random school in suburbia.
|
On April 24 2013 15:13 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 14:50 Myrddraal wrote:On April 24 2013 14:31 cLAN.Anax wrote:On April 24 2013 14:15 Myrddraal wrote:On April 24 2013 13:52 cLAN.Anax wrote:On April 24 2013 13:19 Myrddraal wrote:If you want to give the impression that you actually care about innocent lives, and the issue itself rather than seeming like all you care about it your own right to own guns, perhaps you should avoid posting things like this:
This whole argument is moot anyway. You need to put forward an argument to justify taking away our guns. I don't need to have an argument to keep them. And until someone finally puts forward an actual argument to tell a country guy why he needs to lose his freedoms because of city problems gun control might become at thing again in the USA.
As one who would probably agree with Sermokala's position here, I say we do want to protect innocent lives, but we want to do so while recognizing the right to safely own and operate firearms by law-abiding citizens. Because we don't believe that our safe ownership and operation of firearms as law-abiding citizens is the problem that is causing the gun violence we see today. We're suggesting that the problem lies elsewhere, while many, many others so vehemently assert that it must be because of a "loose" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment or the proliferation of firearms or the size of magazines or the legality of loosely-termed "assault weapons." I agree wholeheartedly that law abiding citizens are not the cause of the vast majority of gun violence, that it is mostly to do with socioeconomic issues, however I feel like those issues are extremely difficult to fix and having fairly lax gun regulations along with said issues is a dangerous combination. The main thing in these kinds of discussions which bothers me, is when people on the pro-gun get up in arms about their freedoms or point to the second amendment when confronted by ideas that do not hinder safe operation of firearms such as needing a license to buy a gun. Some people will argue that the license will do nothing, I'm fine with that, if you're able to put forth a solid argument, but I fail to see how some people can argue that their freedom to "buy a gun without a license" matches up to the potential good that it could do if implemented and enforced correctly. We say it won't prove effective because one who is heck-bent on causing harm will find ways around existing laws to cause said harm. Legislation is not magic; background checks, safety tests, and gun licensing only prevent people from legally acquiring firearms. I am one who's still okay with those checks and tests and licenses (so long as it doesn't lead to a national registry) because I don't see them doing harm or increasing the problem at all. But I still contend that they are insufficient and other methods, methods those on the left do not often espouse, must be pursued. Yes I am well aware, I wasn't trying to argue this point because it's been repeated a million times before as has your counter argument, it just goes round in circles. At least the approach that you have actually allows a discussion. Could you give me a couple of brief examples of other methods that pro-gun supporters would be more likely to adopt? True, and fair enough. I had a liberal agree with me on this conclusion on another site. I would support legislation that would expand background checks if it also allowed for those who passed to carry on public property. If we are to trust them in their own homes with firearms, I believe we should be able to trust them in the public square with them too. Tougher checks, tests, and licenses would account for that public trust. Private property would still be up to the respective owners, so people and businesses with private property could elect to enforce gun-free zones on their property. Also, though widely unpopular, I don't think the effectiveness of armed guards can be argued. Areas of great concentrations of wealth are protected by armed security, and are only deterred in the face of superior firepower; why should we not protect our schoolchildren in the same way? Permitting legal carriers to carry on public property, open or concealed, would also serve as "armed guards" of sorts, including teachers in public schools. + Show Spoiler [Tangent.] +privatizing the school system would let gun-control advocates choose to keep their institutions and instructors gun-free, but that leads into a whole other topic altogether, and will only serve to complicate this one, but it intrigued me and I thought it was worth mentioning
Do you need a license to claim freedom from unreasonable searches?Do you need a license to practice your religion?
I live Idaho. You can open carry everywhere except schools and the airports. Owners of private property can ask you to leave if you are open carrying. Idaho is also a "shall issue state" meaning if you pass the tests/checks you have to be issued a CCW permit. This is in comparison to CA "may issue state" meaning you could pass everything and they could deny you CCW. This is why often there are more CCW permits issued in Conservative counties than Liberal controlled counties even though the liberal counties have ten times the population.
We an even open carry in our Capital!![[image loading]](http://brightcove04.o.brightcove.com/13293232001/13293232001_2185304090001_F0319E1DFBD943098691778FABA43E80.jpg?pubId=13293232001) ![[image loading]](http://media.idahostatesman.com/smedia/2013/02/23/16/49/t2xgo.AuSt.36.jpeg)
|
On April 24 2013 17:12 tokicheese wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 16:20 Defacer wrote:On April 24 2013 16:02 tokicheese wrote:On April 24 2013 15:13 cLAN.Anax wrote:On April 24 2013 14:50 Myrddraal wrote:On April 24 2013 14:31 cLAN.Anax wrote:On April 24 2013 14:15 Myrddraal wrote:On April 24 2013 13:52 cLAN.Anax wrote:On April 24 2013 13:19 Myrddraal wrote:If you want to give the impression that you actually care about innocent lives, and the issue itself rather than seeming like all you care about it your own right to own guns, perhaps you should avoid posting things like this:
This whole argument is moot anyway. You need to put forward an argument to justify taking away our guns. I don't need to have an argument to keep them. And until someone finally puts forward an actual argument to tell a country guy why he needs to lose his freedoms because of city problems gun control might become at thing again in the USA.
As one who would probably agree with Sermokala's position here, I say we do want to protect innocent lives, but we want to do so while recognizing the right to safely own and operate firearms by law-abiding citizens. Because we don't believe that our safe ownership and operation of firearms as law-abiding citizens is the problem that is causing the gun violence we see today. We're suggesting that the problem lies elsewhere, while many, many others so vehemently assert that it must be because of a "loose" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment or the proliferation of firearms or the size of magazines or the legality of loosely-termed "assault weapons." I agree wholeheartedly that law abiding citizens are not the cause of the vast majority of gun violence, that it is mostly to do with socioeconomic issues, however I feel like those issues are extremely difficult to fix and having fairly lax gun regulations along with said issues is a dangerous combination. The main thing in these kinds of discussions which bothers me, is when people on the pro-gun get up in arms about their freedoms or point to the second amendment when confronted by ideas that do not hinder safe operation of firearms such as needing a license to buy a gun. Some people will argue that the license will do nothing, I'm fine with that, if you're able to put forth a solid argument, but I fail to see how some people can argue that their freedom to "buy a gun without a license" matches up to the potential good that it could do if implemented and enforced correctly. We say it won't prove effective because one who is heck-bent on causing harm will find ways around existing laws to cause said harm. Legislation is not magic; background checks, safety tests, and gun licensing only prevent people from legally acquiring firearms. I am one who's still okay with those checks and tests and licenses (so long as it doesn't lead to a national registry) because I don't see them doing harm or increasing the problem at all. But I still contend that they are insufficient and other methods, methods those on the left do not often espouse, must be pursued. Yes I am well aware, I wasn't trying to argue this point because it's been repeated a million times before as has your counter argument, it just goes round in circles. At least the approach that you have actually allows a discussion. Could you give me a couple of brief examples of other methods that pro-gun supporters would be more likely to adopt? True, and fair enough. I had a liberal agree with me on this conclusion on another site. I would support legislation that would expand background checks if it also allowed for those who passed to carry on public property. If we are to trust them in their own homes with firearms, I believe we should be able to trust them in the public square with them too. Tougher checks, tests, and licenses would account for that public trust. Private property would still be up to the respective owners, so people and businesses with private property could elect to enforce gun-free zones on their property. Also, though widely unpopular, I don't think the effectiveness of armed guards can be argued. Areas of great concentrations of wealth are protected by armed security, and are only deterred in the face of superior firepower; why should we not protect our schoolchildren in the same way? Permitting legal carriers to carry on public property, open or concealed, would also serve as "armed guards" of sorts, including teachers in public schools. + Show Spoiler [Tangent.] +privatizing the school system would let gun-control advocates choose to keep their institutions and instructors gun-free, but that leads into a whole other topic altogether, and will only serve to complicate this one, but it intrigued me and I thought it was worth mentioning Well every mass shooting except for one have occurred in NA in Gun Free Zones. I think security guards or a liaison police officer at schools would be a very good thing. Idk why people are so against teachers who go through multiple strict courses that have several refreshers a year should not be allowed to conceal carry at school. What makes them different from Joe Blow plumber who concealed carries? I think the real problem is that you can't police everything. And at first blush, it seems like such a slippery slope. First schools, than what else? The park? The beach? The realtor's office? The average person hates government surveillance, or the idea of a police state. But what makes living in a world where there's armed security everywhere any better? I don't know if I would be more or less paranoid, to be honest. Pro-Gun advocates are afraid of losing all their guns, gun control advocates are afraid of guns permeating every aspect of life. It's kind of funny. I don't think it's unreasonable to have armed guards at schools. I mean my high school a police officer as the school cop who was always there. With how horribly retarded some police officers are I can't see a rather well educated teacher with strict requirements being any worse. They are practically giving a badge to anyone who is willing to serve in Surrey as a cop lol. Honestly I think putting armed guards at every movie theatre for a James Homes or at every school for a Lanza is a waste of money anways. It seems strange that the least likely way for someone to be harmed is a school shooting and yet they get the most attention. Pistols are used in most gun crime while NY bans scary assault weapons because of one shooting.
hard cases make bad law :/
|
|
|
|
|
|
4203
2080
303
EPT
