|
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 August 31 2018 02:44 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2018 02:19 Plansix wrote:On August 31 2018 01:43 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2018 01:12 Plansix wrote:
Did you really expect a unified opinion on gun control? If you’re going around saying what “people” think, then something approximating that, of course. If you admit there is no concensus (aside from shock at school shootings and black rifles look scary), then I have very little problem. I’ll advocate what I like among gun control legislation, and you advocate for what you like. There is no consensus beyond the status quo is unacceptable and current safeguards are ineffective. There are groups that have passed laws at the state level that have reduced gun related injuries and violence. They would argue that those laws should be more wide spread and supported by federal funding and coordination. But beyond that, you are not asking the right questions. You don't differentiate between how people feel and what they would be willing to accept. Many people feel that an AR-15 is not a gun that should be sold to civilians. But many of those people would accept tighter background checks and rules regarding mental stability over a ban on weapons like the AR-15. Yes, I’m answering those questions in ways that show they’re not the right stances. Such as when somebody says what people want to ban, he’s barking up the wrong tree. I mean, you can come here and ask what compromises you can accept and what compromises you’re asking the other side to agree to. That’s a different line of questioning.
You missed the point. The initial stances are irrelevant because they will never reflect the policy that rises from the debate.
|
|
|
On August 31 2018 02:56 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2018 01:49 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2018 01:26 JimmiC wrote:On August 31 2018 01:04 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2018 00:51 JimmiC wrote:On August 31 2018 00:31 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2018 00:16 JimmiC wrote:On August 31 2018 00:11 Excludos wrote:On August 30 2018 22:15 JimmiC wrote:
Questions: When did gun ownership and Christianity get so intertwined in the states? It is not so in other countries, if anything it is the opposite. Has it always been this way? Happened over time? One watershed moment?
Jesus and his whole forgiveness and love thing doesn't seem to fit. The pre Jesus stuff I sort of get but since Christianity focuses on the latter it is confusing to me. Ignoring some of the more ridiculous answers to this question, I think it's just happenstance. Rural people tend to be more pro guns for a variety of reasons, a lot of them to do with hunting and farming, while rural people also tend to just be more religious. Sure it doesn't really go hand in hand if you stop to think about it, but that has never really been the strong suit of religion to begin with. I see that connection, but most people in the states are not looking to take away rural long, bolt.action, barrel rifles and shot guns. Its hand guns and automatics that people want gone. Also, ill try to find where I read it, but in cities there is still a large christian pro all guns connection. Today it’s handguns and semi auto rifles, yesterday your handguns were safe and only AR-15 owners had to fear. At least that’s how I interpret “automatics” since true automatics are effectively banned. So ot is a slippery slope argument? No, not really. Gun control activists are divided on what’s next. You just told me that you’re (or “people”) are only coming for hand guns and automatics. Others tell me they’re only up in arms about AR-15. Others all guns. I think we’re already at the point where gun control activists create the fear that your favored home defense or around-town carry weapon is in the cross-sights, if you’ll pardon the pun. We’re already there. I honestly don’t know if it’s ignorance or disingenuousness at this point. The same way people in the pro gun camp have differing opinions so do people in the gun control camp, I don't that is disingenuous so much as it is the reality of the human experience. I think the people on the far sides need to be ignored and some sort of better, but probably not perfect solution could/should be found. Personally (not expecting you to speak for everyone) could you live with: a) AR/15 and bump stocks B) A ban on the above and hand guns C) The above and a requirement of licences on all long barrel guns with a max clip size of 10 bullets D) The above but only bolt action allowed E) No guns except for police and Military F) All guns no regulations I think if you polled Americans not that many would fall in E and F and yet the two sides argue like the other only wants those extremes. (This has obviously moved pretty far from my original question. And that is ok.) My preference simply isn’t on that list. I could live with certain exchanges for something in the realm of constitutional amendment of “shall issue” carry permits. I won’t stomach a single ban listed except for bump stocks on its own. I disagree that the two sides argue like E and F. Gun control advocates pretend the history isn’t unilaterally in increased regulation regardless of efficacy and impact. Gun rights/civil rights proponents know the ignorance and emotion on the issue cloud any progress for the time being. The E & F argument is a gross oversimplification for how contentious the fight is. So please, do away with “people think” unless you’re bringing up polls of the non push-poll variety. All of the options were a gross simplification, that was kind of the point to not get into the weeds of detail. I find it frustrating that every time I ask a simple question you give a very complicated sort of answer. It is also strange for people in the world outside of the states that people talk about gun rights/and civil rights as the same or even related.
That’s because I think the simplistic approaches lose out in the face of complexity.
I’m very glad the second amendment comes directly after the first amendment in my Bill of Rights guaranteeing my civil rights from government encroachment. If that bothers Americans or non-Americans or whoever, that’s on them. My country was founded differently and thanks be to God a full repeal of those first ten amendments has not been effected. It’s a strong protector of the diversity of the American experiment when viewed against less free countries of the West.
|
It kinda feels like a whole hearted effort to stone wall any meaningful discussion.
|
|
|
On August 31 2018 03:13 Plansix wrote:
It kinda feels like a whole hearted effort to stone wall any meaningful discussion.
Don’t worry, my side always feels like the other one wants to avoid meaningful discussion too in favor of progressive banning of guns and increasing restrictions on carry and store. I’m on the side of both feelings being just an emotional response to frustration at navigating a contentious issue that is very complex.
|
On August 31 2018 03:13 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2018 03:07 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2018 02:56 JimmiC wrote:On August 31 2018 01:49 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2018 01:26 JimmiC wrote:On August 31 2018 01:04 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2018 00:51 JimmiC wrote:On August 31 2018 00:31 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2018 00:16 JimmiC wrote:On August 31 2018 00:11 Excludos wrote:
[quote]
Ignoring some of the more ridiculous answers to this question, I think it's just happenstance. Rural people tend to be more pro guns for a variety of reasons, a lot of them to do with hunting and farming, while rural people also tend to just be more religious. Sure it doesn't really go hand in hand if you stop to think about it, but that has never really been the strong suit of religion to begin with. I see that connection, but most people in the states are not looking to take away rural long, bolt.action, barrel rifles and shot guns. Its hand guns and automatics that people want gone. Also, ill try to find where I read it, but in cities there is still a large christian pro all guns connection. Today it’s handguns and semi auto rifles, yesterday your handguns were safe and only AR-15 owners had to fear. At least that’s how I interpret “automatics” since true automatics are effectively banned. So ot is a slippery slope argument? No, not really. Gun control activists are divided on what’s next. You just told me that you’re (or “people”) are only coming for hand guns and automatics. Others tell me they’re only up in arms about AR-15. Others all guns. I think we’re already at the point where gun control activists create the fear that your favored home defense or around-town carry weapon is in the cross-sights, if you’ll pardon the pun. We’re already there. I honestly don’t know if it’s ignorance or disingenuousness at this point. The same way people in the pro gun camp have differing opinions so do people in the gun control camp, I don't that is disingenuous so much as it is the reality of the human experience. I think the people on the far sides need to be ignored and some sort of better, but probably not perfect solution could/should be found. Personally (not expecting you to speak for everyone) could you live with: a) AR/15 and bump stocks B) A ban on the above and hand guns C) The above and a requirement of licences on all long barrel guns with a max clip size of 10 bullets D) The above but only bolt action allowed E) No guns except for police and Military F) All guns no regulations I think if you polled Americans not that many would fall in E and F and yet the two sides argue like the other only wants those extremes. (This has obviously moved pretty far from my original question. And that is ok.) My preference simply isn’t on that list. I could live with certain exchanges for something in the realm of constitutional amendment of “shall issue” carry permits. I won’t stomach a single ban listed except for bump stocks on its own. I disagree that the two sides argue like E and F. Gun control advocates pretend the history isn’t unilaterally in increased regulation regardless of efficacy and impact. Gun rights/civil rights proponents know the ignorance and emotion on the issue cloud any progress for the time being. The E & F argument is a gross oversimplification for how contentious the fight is. So please, do away with “people think” unless you’re bringing up polls of the non push-poll variety. All of the options were a gross simplification, that was kind of the point to not get into the weeds of detail. I find it frustrating that every time I ask a simple question you give a very complicated sort of answer. It is also strange for people in the world outside of the states that people talk about gun rights/and civil rights as the same or even related. That’s because I think the simplistic approaches lose out in the face of complexity. I’m very glad the second amendment comes directly after the first amendment in my Bill of Rights guaranteeing my civil rights from government encroachment. If that bothers Americans or non-Americans or whoever, that’s on them. My country was founded differently and thanks be to God a full repeal of those first ten amendments has not been effected. It’s a strong protector of the diversity of the American experiment when viewed against less free countries of the West. Are you upset with the amendments that were changed? I'd say they were improved upon. The states have been around a long time, there is a reason the founding fathers made ways for them to be changed. The reason you start with simplicity in a complicated discussion is to being to build a framework. Once you agree on that you have a much better chance of hammering out the details. It helps to stop the "getting lost in the weeds" and is a common way to try to mediate issues in businesses and partnerships before lawyers get involved.
You may take my reticence to use simplistic interpretations of the debate to form a framework to mean that a simplistic approach created deep flaws in the framework.
And you’d have to describe what amendments you’re referring to that were changed. I brought up the first ten. I dislike some current interpretations but I’m not universally upset about every amendment that changed another.
|
On August 31 2018 03:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2018 03:13 Plansix wrote:
It kinda feels like a whole hearted effort to stone wall any meaningful discussion. Don’t worry, my side always feels like the other one wants to avoid meaningful discussion too in favor of progressive banning of guns and increasing restrictions on carry and store. I’m on the side of both feelings being just an emotional response to frustration at navigating a contentious issue that is very complex.
It is also an effective tactic to justify upholding the status quo, which your overall goal. A politically advantageous feeling of prosecution.
|
|
|
On August 31 2018 03:33 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2018 03:26 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2018 03:13 JimmiC wrote:On August 31 2018 03:07 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2018 02:56 JimmiC wrote:On August 31 2018 01:49 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2018 01:26 JimmiC wrote:On August 31 2018 01:04 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2018 00:51 JimmiC wrote:On August 31 2018 00:31 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Today it’s handguns and semi auto rifles, yesterday your handguns were safe and only AR-15 owners had to fear.
At least that’s how I interpret “automatics” since true automatics are effectively banned. So ot is a slippery slope argument? No, not really. Gun control activists are divided on what’s next. You just told me that you’re (or “people”) are only coming for hand guns and automatics. Others tell me they’re only up in arms about AR-15. Others all guns. I think we’re already at the point where gun control activists create the fear that your favored home defense or around-town carry weapon is in the cross-sights, if you’ll pardon the pun. We’re already there. I honestly don’t know if it’s ignorance or disingenuousness at this point. The same way people in the pro gun camp have differing opinions so do people in the gun control camp, I don't that is disingenuous so much as it is the reality of the human experience. I think the people on the far sides need to be ignored and some sort of better, but probably not perfect solution could/should be found. Personally (not expecting you to speak for everyone) could you live with: a) AR/15 and bump stocks B) A ban on the above and hand guns C) The above and a requirement of licences on all long barrel guns with a max clip size of 10 bullets D) The above but only bolt action allowed E) No guns except for police and Military F) All guns no regulations I think if you polled Americans not that many would fall in E and F and yet the two sides argue like the other only wants those extremes. (This has obviously moved pretty far from my original question. And that is ok.) My preference simply isn’t on that list. I could live with certain exchanges for something in the realm of constitutional amendment of “shall issue” carry permits. I won’t stomach a single ban listed except for bump stocks on its own. I disagree that the two sides argue like E and F. Gun control advocates pretend the history isn’t unilaterally in increased regulation regardless of efficacy and impact. Gun rights/civil rights proponents know the ignorance and emotion on the issue cloud any progress for the time being. The E & F argument is a gross oversimplification for how contentious the fight is. So please, do away with “people think” unless you’re bringing up polls of the non push-poll variety. All of the options were a gross simplification, that was kind of the point to not get into the weeds of detail. I find it frustrating that every time I ask a simple question you give a very complicated sort of answer. It is also strange for people in the world outside of the states that people talk about gun rights/and civil rights as the same or even related. That’s because I think the simplistic approaches lose out in the face of complexity. I’m very glad the second amendment comes directly after the first amendment in my Bill of Rights guaranteeing my civil rights from government encroachment. If that bothers Americans or non-Americans or whoever, that’s on them. My country was founded differently and thanks be to God a full repeal of those first ten amendments has not been effected. It’s a strong protector of the diversity of the American experiment when viewed against less free countries of the West. Are you upset with the amendments that were changed? I'd say they were improved upon. The states have been around a long time, there is a reason the founding fathers made ways for them to be changed. The reason you start with simplicity in a complicated discussion is to being to build a framework. Once you agree on that you have a much better chance of hammering out the details. It helps to stop the "getting lost in the weeds" and is a common way to try to mediate issues in businesses and partnerships before lawyers get involved. You may take my reticence to use simplistic interpretations of the debate to form a framework to mean that a simplistic approach created deep flaws in the framework. And you’d have to describe what amendments you’re referring to that were changed. I brought up the first ten. I dislike some current interpretations but I’m not universally upset about every amendment that changed another. Honestly it is just hard to understand your points or what you after, you seem more interested in the act of arguing than searching for a solution to a clear problem.
perhaps it seems that way because it is that way? at what point does one reach the conclusion that that is actually the case?
|
On August 31 2018 03:26 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2018 03:21 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2018 03:13 Plansix wrote:
It kinda feels like a whole hearted effort to stone wall any meaningful discussion. Don’t worry, my side always feels like the other one wants to avoid meaningful discussion too in favor of progressive banning of guns and increasing restrictions on carry and store. I’m on the side of both feelings being just an emotional response to frustration at navigating a contentious issue that is very complex. It is also an effective tactic to justify upholding the status quo, which your overall goal. A politically advantageous feeling of prosecution.
The status quo includes gun owners with every reason to fear that ignorant gun-grabbers will craft legislation more based on emotion than fact. They can look to the history of legislation on the subject to affirm their stance. The existing state of political dialogue does favor my side at the moment, because guns rights activists aren’t likely to be duped and will stand opposed to incrementalism towards second amendment in name only.
The long game is rapprochement, with mutual feelings of respect for civil rights while crafting limited regulations and educating Americans on guns.
|
|
|
On August 31 2018 03:38 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2018 03:26 Plansix wrote:On August 31 2018 03:21 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2018 03:13 Plansix wrote:
It kinda feels like a whole hearted effort to stone wall any meaningful discussion. Don’t worry, my side always feels like the other one wants to avoid meaningful discussion too in favor of progressive banning of guns and increasing restrictions on carry and store. I’m on the side of both feelings being just an emotional response to frustration at navigating a contentious issue that is very complex. It is also an effective tactic to justify upholding the status quo, which your overall goal. A politically advantageous feeling of prosecution. The status quo includes gun owners with every reason to fear that ignorant gun-grabbers will craft legislation more based on emotion than fact. They can look to the history of legislation on the subject to affirm their stance. The existing state of political dialogue does favor my side at the moment, because guns rights activists aren’t likely to be duped and will stand opposed to incrementalism towards second amendment in name only. The long game is rapprochement, with mutual feelings of respect for civil rights while crafting limited regulations and educating Americans on guns.
The status quo also includes an epidemic of mass shootings.
|
On August 31 2018 03:33 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2018 03:26 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2018 03:13 JimmiC wrote:On August 31 2018 03:07 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2018 02:56 JimmiC wrote:On August 31 2018 01:49 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2018 01:26 JimmiC wrote:On August 31 2018 01:04 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2018 00:51 JimmiC wrote:On August 31 2018 00:31 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Today it’s handguns and semi auto rifles, yesterday your handguns were safe and only AR-15 owners had to fear.
At least that’s how I interpret “automatics” since true automatics are effectively banned. So ot is a slippery slope argument? No, not really. Gun control activists are divided on what’s next. You just told me that you’re (or “people”) are only coming for hand guns and automatics. Others tell me they’re only up in arms about AR-15. Others all guns. I think we’re already at the point where gun control activists create the fear that your favored home defense or around-town carry weapon is in the cross-sights, if you’ll pardon the pun. We’re already there. I honestly don’t know if it’s ignorance or disingenuousness at this point. The same way people in the pro gun camp have differing opinions so do people in the gun control camp, I don't that is disingenuous so much as it is the reality of the human experience. I think the people on the far sides need to be ignored and some sort of better, but probably not perfect solution could/should be found. Personally (not expecting you to speak for everyone) could you live with: a) AR/15 and bump stocks B) A ban on the above and hand guns C) The above and a requirement of licences on all long barrel guns with a max clip size of 10 bullets D) The above but only bolt action allowed E) No guns except for police and Military F) All guns no regulations I think if you polled Americans not that many would fall in E and F and yet the two sides argue like the other only wants those extremes. (This has obviously moved pretty far from my original question. And that is ok.) My preference simply isn’t on that list. I could live with certain exchanges for something in the realm of constitutional amendment of “shall issue” carry permits. I won’t stomach a single ban listed except for bump stocks on its own. I disagree that the two sides argue like E and F. Gun control advocates pretend the history isn’t unilaterally in increased regulation regardless of efficacy and impact. Gun rights/civil rights proponents know the ignorance and emotion on the issue cloud any progress for the time being. The E & F argument is a gross oversimplification for how contentious the fight is. So please, do away with “people think” unless you’re bringing up polls of the non push-poll variety. All of the options were a gross simplification, that was kind of the point to not get into the weeds of detail. I find it frustrating that every time I ask a simple question you give a very complicated sort of answer. It is also strange for people in the world outside of the states that people talk about gun rights/and civil rights as the same or even related. That’s because I think the simplistic approaches lose out in the face of complexity. I’m very glad the second amendment comes directly after the first amendment in my Bill of Rights guaranteeing my civil rights from government encroachment. If that bothers Americans or non-Americans or whoever, that’s on them. My country was founded differently and thanks be to God a full repeal of those first ten amendments has not been effected. It’s a strong protector of the diversity of the American experiment when viewed against less free countries of the West. Are you upset with the amendments that were changed? I'd say they were improved upon. The states have been around a long time, there is a reason the founding fathers made ways for them to be changed. The reason you start with simplicity in a complicated discussion is to being to build a framework. Once you agree on that you have a much better chance of hammering out the details. It helps to stop the "getting lost in the weeds" and is a common way to try to mediate issues in businesses and partnerships before lawyers get involved. You may take my reticence to use simplistic interpretations of the debate to form a framework to mean that a simplistic approach created deep flaws in the framework. And you’d have to describe what amendments you’re referring to that were changed. I brought up the first ten. I dislike some current interpretations but I’m not universally upset about every amendment that changed another. Honestly it is just hard to understand your points or what you after, you seem more interested in the act of arguing than searching for a solution to a clear problem.
Arguing from a shared basis of facts is absolutely key here. I don’t see any path forward from simplistic interpretations of pro-gun and anti-gun sides.
In the last post, I was confused at what you meant by saying I was upset (still confused) and your interpretations of civil rights (regarding the right to keep and bear arms as a constitutional civil right in the eyes of Americans is also fundamental to understanding the topic).
I can’t really transition to what solutions to what problems (if you want to go that way) when we’re discussing civil rights, constitutional amendments, what gun-control people want. These are involved in understanding the position of the other and what one side believes is wrong about characterizations done by the other side. And I’m not trying to imply there’s only two sides.
|
On August 31 2018 03:39 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2018 03:35 zlefin wrote:On August 31 2018 03:33 JimmiC wrote:On August 31 2018 03:26 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2018 03:13 JimmiC wrote:On August 31 2018 03:07 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2018 02:56 JimmiC wrote:On August 31 2018 01:49 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2018 01:26 JimmiC wrote:On August 31 2018 01:04 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
No, not really. Gun control activists are divided on what’s next. You just told me that you’re (or “people”) are only coming for hand guns and automatics. Others tell me they’re only up in arms about AR-15. Others all guns. I think we’re already at the point where gun control activists create the fear that your favored home defense or around-town carry weapon is in the cross-sights, if you’ll pardon the pun. We’re already there.
I honestly don’t know if it’s ignorance or disingenuousness at this point. The same way people in the pro gun camp have differing opinions so do people in the gun control camp, I don't that is disingenuous so much as it is the reality of the human experience. I think the people on the far sides need to be ignored and some sort of better, but probably not perfect solution could/should be found. Personally (not expecting you to speak for everyone) could you live with: a) AR/15 and bump stocks B) A ban on the above and hand guns C) The above and a requirement of licences on all long barrel guns with a max clip size of 10 bullets D) The above but only bolt action allowed E) No guns except for police and Military F) All guns no regulations I think if you polled Americans not that many would fall in E and F and yet the two sides argue like the other only wants those extremes. (This has obviously moved pretty far from my original question. And that is ok.) My preference simply isn’t on that list. I could live with certain exchanges for something in the realm of constitutional amendment of “shall issue” carry permits. I won’t stomach a single ban listed except for bump stocks on its own. I disagree that the two sides argue like E and F. Gun control advocates pretend the history isn’t unilaterally in increased regulation regardless of efficacy and impact. Gun rights/civil rights proponents know the ignorance and emotion on the issue cloud any progress for the time being. The E & F argument is a gross oversimplification for how contentious the fight is. So please, do away with “people think” unless you’re bringing up polls of the non push-poll variety. All of the options were a gross simplification, that was kind of the point to not get into the weeds of detail. I find it frustrating that every time I ask a simple question you give a very complicated sort of answer. It is also strange for people in the world outside of the states that people talk about gun rights/and civil rights as the same or even related. That’s because I think the simplistic approaches lose out in the face of complexity. I’m very glad the second amendment comes directly after the first amendment in my Bill of Rights guaranteeing my civil rights from government encroachment. If that bothers Americans or non-Americans or whoever, that’s on them. My country was founded differently and thanks be to God a full repeal of those first ten amendments has not been effected. It’s a strong protector of the diversity of the American experiment when viewed against less free countries of the West. Are you upset with the amendments that were changed? I'd say they were improved upon. The states have been around a long time, there is a reason the founding fathers made ways for them to be changed. The reason you start with simplicity in a complicated discussion is to being to build a framework. Once you agree on that you have a much better chance of hammering out the details. It helps to stop the "getting lost in the weeds" and is a common way to try to mediate issues in businesses and partnerships before lawyers get involved. You may take my reticence to use simplistic interpretations of the debate to form a framework to mean that a simplistic approach created deep flaws in the framework. And you’d have to describe what amendments you’re referring to that were changed. I brought up the first ten. I dislike some current interpretations but I’m not universally upset about every amendment that changed another. Honestly it is just hard to understand your points or what you after, you seem more interested in the act of arguing than searching for a solution to a clear problem. perhaps it seems that way because it is that way? at what point does one reach the conclusion that that is actually the case? About now for me, it is sad that we have such few representatives from the side that wants to keep all guns, because I would love to understand the logic of that position, not just get anger based responses or some odd argument fueling dance.
it's sometimes the case that there isn't an underlying logic.
in many cases on social issues it's more the case that people simply feel/believe a certain way, and the logical positions are justifications used to do what one wanted to do anyways, rather than being the true bedrock of the belief.
of course if by underlying logic you're allowed to include things that are illogical, but understandable and categorizable aspects o fhuman behavior and belief, then something could be come up with to explain the basis of where the beliefs come from; while I could speculate on such, It'd be a far cry from a good argument from someone on the other side as you would like to hear.
it would indeed be nice if we had a better selection of representatives to argue with.
|
Note the style of argument here. The demand for a shared understanding of facts and a refusal to answer basic questions are both tactics. It puts all the power of the discussion into the hands of one party attempting to maintain the status quote. While also forcing labor onto the opposing parties, requiring them to put forth facts to be approved of or denied, with zero assurances that all the facts will be agreed up ever. You see this in other debates about intractable topics like immigration. No immigration reform until the vague goal of “securing the boarder” is obtained. It is an effort to appear reasonable and open to discussion, while preserving the right to walk away claiming the other party has not fulfilled it’s half of the agreement(which they never agreed to). Folks might need to consider if this argument is in good faith, or if they are just being forced to put in a lot of effort with little to gain.
|
On August 31 2018 03:38 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2018 03:26 Plansix wrote:On August 31 2018 03:21 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2018 03:13 Plansix wrote:
It kinda feels like a whole hearted effort to stone wall any meaningful discussion. Don’t worry, my side always feels like the other one wants to avoid meaningful discussion too in favor of progressive banning of guns and increasing restrictions on carry and store. I’m on the side of both feelings being just an emotional response to frustration at navigating a contentious issue that is very complex. It is also an effective tactic to justify upholding the status quo, which your overall goal. A politically advantageous feeling of prosecution. The status quo includes gun owners with every reason to fear that ignorant gun-grabbers will craft legislation more based on emotion than fact. They can look to the history of legislation on the subject to affirm their stance. The existing state of political dialogue does favor my side at the moment, because guns rights activists aren’t likely to be duped and will stand opposed to incrementalism towards second amendment in name only. The long game is rapprochement, with mutual feelings of respect for civil rights while crafting limited regulations and educating Americans on guns.
You love to say this, but it is never quite clear to what exactly you are refering to. It is as if it is your own personal idea.
|
On August 31 2018 03:39 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2018 03:35 zlefin wrote:On August 31 2018 03:33 JimmiC wrote:On August 31 2018 03:26 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2018 03:13 JimmiC wrote:On August 31 2018 03:07 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2018 02:56 JimmiC wrote:On August 31 2018 01:49 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2018 01:26 JimmiC wrote:On August 31 2018 01:04 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
No, not really. Gun control activists are divided on what’s next. You just told me that you’re (or “people”) are only coming for hand guns and automatics. Others tell me they’re only up in arms about AR-15. Others all guns. I think we’re already at the point where gun control activists create the fear that your favored home defense or around-town carry weapon is in the cross-sights, if you’ll pardon the pun. We’re already there.
I honestly don’t know if it’s ignorance or disingenuousness at this point. The same way people in the pro gun camp have differing opinions so do people in the gun control camp, I don't that is disingenuous so much as it is the reality of the human experience. I think the people on the far sides need to be ignored and some sort of better, but probably not perfect solution could/should be found. Personally (not expecting you to speak for everyone) could you live with: a) AR/15 and bump stocks B) A ban on the above and hand guns C) The above and a requirement of licences on all long barrel guns with a max clip size of 10 bullets D) The above but only bolt action allowed E) No guns except for police and Military F) All guns no regulations I think if you polled Americans not that many would fall in E and F and yet the two sides argue like the other only wants those extremes. (This has obviously moved pretty far from my original question. And that is ok.) My preference simply isn’t on that list. I could live with certain exchanges for something in the realm of constitutional amendment of “shall issue” carry permits. I won’t stomach a single ban listed except for bump stocks on its own. I disagree that the two sides argue like E and F. Gun control advocates pretend the history isn’t unilaterally in increased regulation regardless of efficacy and impact. Gun rights/civil rights proponents know the ignorance and emotion on the issue cloud any progress for the time being. The E & F argument is a gross oversimplification for how contentious the fight is. So please, do away with “people think” unless you’re bringing up polls of the non push-poll variety. All of the options were a gross simplification, that was kind of the point to not get into the weeds of detail. I find it frustrating that every time I ask a simple question you give a very complicated sort of answer. It is also strange for people in the world outside of the states that people talk about gun rights/and civil rights as the same or even related. That’s because I think the simplistic approaches lose out in the face of complexity. I’m very glad the second amendment comes directly after the first amendment in my Bill of Rights guaranteeing my civil rights from government encroachment. If that bothers Americans or non-Americans or whoever, that’s on them. My country was founded differently and thanks be to God a full repeal of those first ten amendments has not been effected. It’s a strong protector of the diversity of the American experiment when viewed against less free countries of the West. Are you upset with the amendments that were changed? I'd say they were improved upon. The states have been around a long time, there is a reason the founding fathers made ways for them to be changed. The reason you start with simplicity in a complicated discussion is to being to build a framework. Once you agree on that you have a much better chance of hammering out the details. It helps to stop the "getting lost in the weeds" and is a common way to try to mediate issues in businesses and partnerships before lawyers get involved. You may take my reticence to use simplistic interpretations of the debate to form a framework to mean that a simplistic approach created deep flaws in the framework. And you’d have to describe what amendments you’re referring to that were changed. I brought up the first ten. I dislike some current interpretations but I’m not universally upset about every amendment that changed another. Honestly it is just hard to understand your points or what you after, you seem more interested in the act of arguing than searching for a solution to a clear problem. perhaps it seems that way because it is that way? at what point does one reach the conclusion that that is actually the case? About now for me, it is sad that we have such few representatives from the side that wants to keep all guns, because I would love to understand the logic of that position, not just get anger based responses or some odd argument fueling dance.
Plansix was talking about how this made him feel, so I suppose I’ll weigh in. It feels like you’re wanting the issue solved before bedtime or the other side is too interested in arguing or doesn’t have solutions or is angry. I find this to be more a symptom of the false desire to understand the opposing position, or personal issues interjecting themselves between your current ideas and a deeper understanding of what the other side believes and why.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
