woohoo, outstanding!!!!

who gets to define reasonable and whats that definition consist of? will it be the same as mine? for those that disagree on the 'reasonableness' of the definition of reasonable, whats our recourse?

probably the same way that every other reasonable limit has been defined in our country....

so we can officially become a democratic tyranny of the majority?

what are you going on about? last time I checked, laws weren't voted on by the citizenry

If you are so certain that this is the way it works, you are already living in a democratic tyranny of the majority--one that's been around for decades.

You aren't equating the restriction of certain arms to oppression, are you?

I just dropped a valium bomb on all of us....

and when laws that limit or restrict a right that is supposed to not be infringed get passed by 51%, that is tyranny of the majority over the minority. that is what i'm going on about. You'd be incensed and enraged over that kind of BS if it was about something you cared deeply about.
-----Added 11/12/2008 at 11 : 48 : 47-----
hell yes I am.

well gee, dk, you'd think that local control would be the obvious way out for you.
multiple types of regulation.

for example, if you were to encounter a situation on the street in a city that would incline you to whip out your artillery and start shooting, the limits of your "individual responsibility" would immediately be breached. every bullet that did not hit its target would be an element that potentially causes harm to others, who are enmeshed in very different situations, who exercise their agency within those situations. you have no control over stray bullets. but you would in a sense be responsible for them. but you could not exercise that responsibility and use your weapon.

another way: if you were to draw your artillery in an urban situation, the effect of your action would be to increase the number of bullets that would whizz through the air. the purview of your "responsibility" would be immediately breached. your "individual right" to bear arms does not extend to an equivalent "right" to potentially maim or kill another person who would come into contact with the consequences of your exercise of your "individual rights" because they were, say, making dinner in the wrong spot at the wrong moment, or was walking home for a bodega at the wrong moment. in a densely populated space, your "individual rights" can and in some cases should be abrogated in the interest of the surrounding population.

notice that this entire argument hinges on the differences that distinguish the human geography of a dense urban environment from that of, say, a small town with lots of open area and a culture of hunting (for example).

so far as i can see, you have **no** coherent argument against different regulatory regimes.
your present line of the "tyranny of the majority" applies to your own position just as easily--your position, transposed into an urban environment, is *equivalent* to a claim that it is an extension of this chain: unlimited gun ownership-->right to use the gun in self-defense-->the "right" to generate "collateral damage"....so in this kind of situation, your position is the one that has as a direct consequence (in certain contexts) the trampling the rights of others (unless you think not getting shot is not a right...)

Weird...I don't feel oppressed.

RB, if a criminal who just robbed a bank leads police on a high speed chase and causes several accidents along the way, but an innocent person dies in that accident....who faces the murder charge? the bank robber, right? why on earth would we not apply that same methodology in an urban shooting? The criminal that started the drive by, if not dead at the end of it, would face additional charges for anyone hit as a result of multiple bullets?

and knock it off with the 'everyones argument not in line with my thinking is insane and incoherent'. you are not omnipotent. I'm frankly damned tired of it and about to ignore you like dunedan does.
-----Added 11/12/2008 at 12 : 03 : 39-----
so because you don't, i shouldn't either? how liberal of you. thanks.

um, that's not how things work.

I recommend against being so assumptive. It can be embarrassing to all parties involved.

So you feel oppressed? Or at least you would if there were any restrictions on owning arms? Does this have to do with the fact that you don't trust your government, that you don't feel they respect your freedoms, that they aren't just? Does this mean, if I don't feel oppressed by not having access to any firearm I want, that perhaps my society is freer and more just? Is this all just individual perspective?

Is this more about your faith in government than about the integrity of individual rights?

faith in government? I have none whatsoever. I have about as much faith in people as well. They'd sell their mother if the price was right or they felt it was needed. Cases in point, their fellow citizens would force people to sell their property and GIVE it to a NFL team owner in the hopes that it would increase city revenue.

Another case in point, the USSC directly....

The Michigan Supreme Court had found sobriety roadblocks to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, by a 6-3 decision in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional. Although acknowledging that such checkpoints infringed on a constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that the state interest in reducing drunk driving outweighed this minor infringement.

So I take it you are against Prop 8 then.... because that is exactly what happened with that.

Mexican jewelry store 'hit.'


Sad really, but goes to demonstrate the inefficacy of gun legislation.

truly sad. I believe this was a hit out on the new police chief. The only decent thing about this is the idiocy of the second gunman through the door shooting his own man.

Sucks to be bad guy #1. Thats what happens when you dont check your corners.

(Sorry, totally off topic)


Edit: I initially thought the guy sitting in the corner popped shooter #1. After a second look, it appears shooter #2 had an "oh shit" moment and started spraying when the guy in the corner stood up, hitting shooter #1 in the process. Instant karma, I suppose.

You seem to have issues with what makes other people psychologically comfortable. Me, I'm fine with the guns in urban settings issue, because it seems to me that its not law-abiding citizens with guns who are the major causes of crime in cities or anywhere for that matter. The vast majority of the time its not lawyers or teachers or mechanics or garbage men or accountants or small business owners or regular working people who prowl around town armed, committing violent crimes against the local populace. On this level I worry more about desperate people with bad intentions whether they have a gun, a lead pipe, or a butter knife.

I don't see how having guns would have helped that situation everyone was on the floor within 5 seconds of those guys barging in. There wasn't even enough time for someone to grab a gun and start shooting back.

I believe in an individuals right to own certain types of weapons but as mentioned by others there is no reason for a civilian to have an RPG in their house. A civilian doesn't need a 50 caliber sniper rifle. If the argument is for having weapons is home defense then a handgun, shotgun, or rifle would be plenty. If the argument for having weapons is self defense when out of the house then a handgun would do. Beyond this I can only see 2 reasons lawful citizens would want other weapons 1) it is cool or 2) overthrow the government if the government broke down. (With the second being the logic of very few on the fringe).

the argument is not about psychological comfort, powerclown, but rather is about the capacity of localities to regulate traffic in firearms. the militia types oppose this absolutely presumably because they link it to the black helicopters that were supposed to be ferrying united nations military personnel around the rural united states in order to take away their guns and reduce them to slavery.

alot of more ordinary gun-owners seem to oppose it on slippery-slope arguments--but in that case, i don't see why any of them would have a real problem with obama's position on the question--a general respect for the 2nd amendment, interpreted in a manner that they recognize, and a respect for localities to regulate firearms according to their particular needs and politics.

i don't think these two general groups of folk have much in common, even though they are addressed in nra propaganda as if their interests were identical.

Im hesitant to agree with your first statement. Just because the folks in the video clip were not armed shouldnt be used as an argument against civilians being able to carry weapons. Had the victims seen their attackers and had been carrying a firearm, they would have had something of a fighting chance. I think the video clip was posted to emphasize the inherent weakness of legislating firearms: Mexico has very strict gun control legislation but it didnt seem to stop these guys from acquiring fully automatic Ak's. The simple fact is good guys follow the rules. Bad guys dont. When there are rules put in place to prevent good guys from arming themselves, they will follow those rules but are putting themselves at the disadvantage in doing so.

I agree with your statement about owning RPG's. I personally classify them with all explosives - weapons capable of committing mass casualties. However, I think defining what sort of firearm a civilian may own is a slippery slope. What may make sense to me may not to you.

As for your argument against 50 cal rifles...Why shouldnt a civilian be able to own one? I dont care for them but I cant speak for everyone else. The case against 50 cals is largely an emotional issue. Those things are frickin scary. But realistically they are no more dangerous than a simple hunting rifle. You say there is no real reason why anyone should own one. I say the same thing about Ferarri's. Both are capable of performance that is beyond anything required by your everyday guy. Both are capable of inflicting death and destruction. And to some people, they are both a source of great entertainment for the people that choose to own them.

The purpose of a Ferrari is to move from point A to point b. Yes it could wreck havok or destruction but that is not it's purpose. The purpose of a 50 cal is to wreck havok or destruction. Using your logic people should be able to own and drive tanks.

A large "sniper" rifle does not provide any more defense then an ordinary rifle but does provide the ability to do a lot more damage that we don't want people doing. While were talking about weapons how about sub-machine guns? Or any other spray & pray type weapons. To me it is clear that those weapons are way to dangerous to be in the hands of everyday people.

Personally I think we could probably keep most weapons legal but would need to increase the penalties for gun violations. If we can send a first time drug offender to prison under minimum sentencing guidelines for 20 years then the same should be true for careless gun owners. Plaxico Burress should have a minimum sentence for 20 years for what he did.

A large number (and percentage) of gun enthusiasts can outshoot your average police officer. But they get SMGs.

In addition, police shootings usually include a large number of missed shots. (Wasn't there 30 some odd shots fired in NY by police against an unarmed guy in a SUV?--the Majority of them missed) By that logic, I guess we should disarm the police too.

Further support against gun control: (I cannot attest to the accuracy or the objectivity of the article)

Think tank: If each of us carried a gun . . . -Times Online

If the founders believed that soveriegn power of the nation belongs in the peoples hands, and the necessary force to maintain that power belongs in the peoples hands, why should the people allow government to restrict the types of weapons available to the people?

20 years for shooting yourself in the leg? pretty harsh, don't you think?

A Ferarris purpose is to test the limits of automotive engineering. Sure it will get you from point A to point B, but so will a Honda Civic. Why should anyone be able to own a car capable of reaching 200 mph when the highest national speed limit is 75mph? Because a car capable of 200 mph is appealing to some people. Its just damn good fun.

Please understand that Im not espousing the "defensive" qualities of a 50 caliber rifle. The reason a 50 cal rifle is so appealing is its considered by some to be the Ferarri of guns. Its big, loud, expensive and it is capable of reaching out farther than most other rifles. I cant imagine a defensive scenario where you would need to shoot anyone from 2,000 meters. But then again I cant imagine a scenario where I would need to drive 200 mph.

Im saying that a 50 caliber rifle is no more dangerous than an unassuming hunting rifle. There is simply a stigma about the 50. The fact of the matter is that both bolt action hunting rifles and 50's are capable of a high level of accuracy, defeating body armor, causing death/destruction, etc from a great distance. If you choose to make illegal 50 caliber rifles based upon their potential lethality, logically you would also have to outlaw grandpa's old hunting rifle.

Like it or not, "Spray and Pray" machine guns are available now to the general public, provided they take the time to follow BATF regulations. As far as I know, no civilian has used a legally owned automatic weapon to commit mass murder.

I dont agree with mandatory sentences for anything. I believe that takes away the courts option to address each case based upon its own unique circumstances. I am all for harsh sentences for violators of gun laws or those who use guns to commit an act of violence but I believe that the federal sentencing guidelines we have in place now are more than adequate. Instead of trying to keep guns out of the publics hands, I believe it would be better for the governing bodies to provide uniform gun safety training and trigger locks available to all and free of charge. Honestly, I feel that all of this nonsense about tougher gun laws, etc is based around an frightened publics knee-jerk reaction to the violence inherent in all societies.

As for Plaxico Burress...the guy should be doing time simply for playing for the Giants. Go Skins!
-----Added 11/12/2008 at 04 : 38 : 54-----
You have to put aside all of your personal emotions/opinions about whether or not the NYC gun laws are unconstitutional. Mr. Burress was carrying a gun in a place that he knew it to be illegal. He knowingly broke the law and must now face the consequences of his actions.

That being said, while I dont approve of NYC's stance on guns, Plaxico Burress is a douchebag that made us all look bad. The guy took a loaded Glock, stuck it in the waist band of his sweatpants and went on to get shithouse drunk in a public place. Thats beyond irresponsible.

the problem I have with all of the crap that he did, yes was totally irresponsible, but who did he hurt? Basically, except for himself, it was a victimless crime not unlike someone smoking marijuana.

I wont get into the Constitutional validity of NYC's gun laws as I suspect you and I are in agreement. And I also agree that, in this case, the only victim of this crime was Mr. Burress himself.

But Mr. Burress knowingly chose to violate the law. From what I understand he has a concealed carry permit in Florida and also in New Jersey (where he currently lives). NYC does not recognize the CC permits of other states. Mr. Burress knew this and chose to, in essence, become a criminal by entering the city with a weapon. While I can sympathize with him wanting to exercise his Constitutional rights and have the ability to protect himself, I also believe that the law must be followed. Mr. Burress will have to suffer the consequences of his actions, though it is my hope that his celebrity status will bring attention to what, I feel, are unjust laws.

Again, I think there's a lot of brave talk from gun owners about them being an Action Star and defeating the bad guys. If a situation where self defense was necessary arose, I'm guessing many gun owners would fail to live up to their own expectations
-----Added 11/12/2008 at 05 : 23 : 25-----

[citation needed]

20 years for putting hundreds of people at risk by illegally taking an illegal gun into a club where he got drunk off his ass. He could have easily hurt someone with his gun. He is clearly not a responsible gun owner.

Hell this guy got life in prison for giving a friend a phone number: FOXNews.com - Locked Up for Life, Part Three: An Appeal to the President - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News
-----Added 11/12/2008 at 05 : 43 : 42-----
And while were discussing Burress it is illegal to be over the legal limit and behind the wheel of a car. Should we make similar laws for being over the legal limit and carrying a gun? My problem with Burress is he was carrying a gun while drunk in a night club. It doesn't take a genius to realize how bad that could turn out.

Its good that everyone else there didn't have a gun or else other people might have thought someone was shooting a gun in the club and deciding to be a good citizen pulled out their gun to defend themselves. Of course they would probably be drunk also so who knows how good their judgment would be.

You may be right. I pray every night I'm never ever in a situation such as that. If I go the rest of my life and never find out it won't bother me a bit. In fact I'm quite sure I will die a much happier man. But as it stands right now I've got roughly a 50/50 chance which is a damn site better than any odds you might have.

It is already illegal to be under the influence of alcohol while carrying a firearm.

So is Plaxaco being charged with that also?

so let me see if i understand the overall position of the various folk with whom i do not agree in this thread.

A.. one problem is that the discussion happens across frames of reference. most of the anti-gun control folk talk from variants of the nra manner of framing the questions. this seems to have several parts:

a. the only relevant territory is the united states. so when one thinks about small weapons, one does not think about the transnational arms trade, the proliferation of cheap small weapons in the southern hemisphere, the outrageous consequences of this proliferation--all that matters is the us of a. but not even in its totality--the united states that controls about a third of all small weapons transfers globally is not at issue, but only the us of a that americans live in.

b. within this narrow frame, the various legal questions are routed through the same basic set of moves every time:
1. the extreme rightwing interpretation of the 2nd amendment ends up being the necessary point of departure for any discussion.
2. if you are talking to someone who works from this position, buying into (1) lands you in a diversionary discussion about strict construction. this discussion is of a piece with the other interpretive pillar that the far right brings into play--because we are pretending that the only thing separating contemporary reality from its better 18th century duplicate is--well what? i recall somewhere being told that capitalism ended in the 1850s sometime...---anyway, since we are invoking a phantom 18th century that lay hidden beneath the degeneracy of the present, embodied in phenomena like "judicial activism", it kinda follows that what is being defended through strict construction procedures about the second amendment is the identity of militia movements as the new minutemen.

so the frame of reference the far right imposes on discussions of gun control is a direct reflection of the consequences of the drift to the extreme right of populist conservatism during the late 1990s, the assimilation of fringe movements like the militia into mainstream political discourse through this shift to the far right, and of its effects on the internal politics of the nra.

B. the other main trajectory is taken by folk who simply like guns. sadly, many of these folk mirror in their own way the far right drift of the nra, but the arguments are different---using prechewed and typically meaningless pseudo-data, the central claims are: gun control doesn't work (here the move above is to follow arbitrary statistical pseudo-data with anecdotal youtube clips as if there is a case made by way of the first that is clinched by the second).

here a digression:
presumably, the solution to data like you find in this:

go here:
Regional data library - NISAT
and click on the "protect children not guns" link under the category "crime and mortality"

would be to arm preschoolers and other kids.
great idea.

the other recurrent register of "argument" that underpins the above is offhand comments about the evil "media" which generates "hysteria" that is not based on anything.

so what this sets up is a rigid frame of argumentation that folk are entirely unwilling to suspend and a self-confirming set of moves that circle around non-data that function to make it appear to the writer as though a logical conclusion is being drawn.

this is typically of a piece with an all-or-nothing position on the part of anti-gun control advocates, such that ANY controls are total control. the meanings of these controls are routed through whichever of the two main frameworks i outline above a particular comrade happens to be working with. as almost always happens, the frame determines the outcome.

then we come to the matter of projection as a technique of pretending to deal with those who do not agree: if you do not accept the position that gun controls are bad, then you are made over into a cartoon. that way, you do not have to actually pay attention to what is being said because you already know what your cartoon is going to say.

if you argue against that, sooner or later you end up being cast as some kind of Persecuting Other.

it's truly bizarre, the way these "discussions" go, the way this one has gone. i assume that we are all reasonable people, but when this particular area comes up for discussion, much of that goes out the window---not because the individual points that are made within any given post are wrong, but rather because the way this issue has been framed makes other outcomes really difficult to get to.

it is possible to have a different kind of discussion. this is unnecessary.

clearly not. but again, he only hurt himself. Now, had he hit someone else, by all means charge him with a crime of negligence or more. I've no problem with that at all.

you should already know my feelings on the drug war. I feel for this guy and I hope that something can be done for him.


this is a typical response from someone not that familiar with guns and the people that know how to handle them. That can be remedied, should you choose to actually do so. MOST gun owners react better than that. You would know this if you got to know some of them.

http://www.jimsykes.com/images/image.jpg

Hee hee.

disregard

+1 to obvious. Totally one of those "The More You Know" moments.

...

NO WAY? WAY! = Oh, but they are trying to take guns away. Slowly. A little at a time. Through the clever use of misleading labels from people that are barely subject matter experts about putting on their socks and disturbing tragedies that place blame on inanimate metal objects instead of demented people and bad social policies. The erosion of firearm rights has been occurring since the 1930s and has had many scary milestones.

Reasonable Government: Nobody needs a machine gun.
Citizen: Hmmm, okay.

Reasonable Government: Nobody needs military-style weapons and accessories.
Citizen: Why? Uh, okay.

Reasonable Government: Nobody needs a handgun with more than 10 shots.
Citizens: (sigh) Okay.

Reasonable Government: Nobody needs a handgun. Rifles only.
Citizens: (grumble) Okay.

Reasonable Government: Rifles have been found to be used by "snipers" and are dangerous.
Citizens: (DK atom bomb response)

Reasonable Government: We have all of your guns. We will take care of your every need for protection, food, and sport. Now, about those cigarettes and beer...
Citizens: Yes, master.

See the pattern here? The spiral is downward and it isn't good. Those without a clue call it "progress" and those that worry about see it as citizen incapacitation.

Relying on the police to protect you is just as smart as relying on a helmet you left in your garage to protect you while riding a motorcycle: they're both X minutes away and won't do a damn thing in the moment you need it.

It's a choice I've made as a prole who clings to guns and abortion in times of crisis.

Turns out I've never hurt myself or anyone else with my hobby. No crazy stories.

...

The George Orwell quotes in this thread are super cliche... like a cold turkey sandwich dispensed from the vending machine in some yuppie office building. We've always been at war with East Asia and anybody who says otherwise will be labeled a yeoman fetishist loony.

Exactly where do we get off telling people how to live? Must be the skin color.

Remember: Gun control is for the greater good.

crompsin, you realize that willravel is going to debunk your post with the slippery slope fallacy, right? because that would never happen here, or anywhere.

Apparently nobody has read the laws that are already on the book.

The laws that 99% of gun owners follow without question.

Maybe they should take a class and get educated or something.

no gun will make you anything but what you are anyway but now you have a gun. you are equally changed by your choice of cutlery, your choice of toilet paper, your choice of components for your sound system. if you think the commodities you accumulate define who you are and what you think, you shouldn't worry about freedom: you've already given it away.

I actually know quite a few gun owners that carry concealed weapons with them quite often. They are very responsible people. Though in this case you have a gun in a place whose sole purpose is to get people intoxicated. You cannot reasonably make a claim that people who are drunk will act with the foresight and restraint needed when carrying a lethal weapon.

This is a moot point anyway as I don't have a problem with hand guns (unless people are intoxicated) but I do have a problem with weapons in which the control of its deadliness is severely limited (submachine guns, explosives, etc). Personally I think that any accident involving guns should not be considered an accident (hunting excluded). The second someone picks up a gun they are assuming a responsibility for whatever happens because of it.

care to back that 99% stat up with a link?

I know this well. I eat generic corn flakes and my milk comes out of a box.

Yes. Oh, indeed. We are not the things we own. We are what we do. And eat.

And we are the things our society protects us against. Like fascism and smoking and gay marriage.

...

Don't read this blurb to the rest of America, though. They'll stomp your ass on Black Friday to get that to that big screen first.
-----Added 11/12/2008 at 07 : 30 : 06-----
I don't do stats. 99% would be, what, 3 standard deviations?

How would you feel about 68%?

Well, you know what they say...if it looks like one....

You know, it goes both ways. If you take away all gun controls, then everyone will have guns. Guns will be free to everyone who wants one. Even prisoners in prison. Even eight-year-olds. They will be dispersed throughout the country in vending machines that only require you recite the 2nd Amendment. Because everyone has the absolute right to bear arms.

Same logic.

See? It falls apart.

I think the second amendment is great because it serves as such a potent example of how useless the founders were with respect to making their intentions clear (or how difficult it is to write law that will apply well in two hundred years).

Second amendment? Meh. The second amendment is a lot like the bible, in that the way a person interprets the words says more about the person than the words. It is an interesting exercise in complexity: how convoluted do our interpretations have to get before we have to acknowledge that the second amendment is simply a poorly written piece of shit?

I particularly enjoy the spectacular ballet that occurs when someone places arbitrary limitations on ostensibly absolute rights (i.e. anything that can be carried is okay, except biological weapons and suitcase nukes) without acknowledging that they've just limited an absolute right. The second amendment grants absolute rights, except for these I have rather arbitrarily designated as being outside the scope of its rights-granting shroud of rights granting.

I also find the whole "anything you can carry in your hands is protected by the second" argument ridiculous. I mean come on, really? And the founders believed that such a minor right would go very far in preventing government tyranny?

I don't think people shouldn't have guns. I just think that either way, the second amendment is poorly written, and wouldn't pass muster in a 10th grade english class. If the majority of the people want guns, they should pass a fucking amendment to clarify the second amendment and shut the fuck up already.

That's it in a nutshell. Either you believe the USC gives you the right to own and carry any weapon you choose or you believe the government can limit what weapons you carry and where you may carry them. Either it grants absolute rights or those rights may be limited.

It seems to me reasonable, logical people could reach a compromise. You know somewhere between nukes and a 2 inch boy scout knife.

You'll have to forgive me for waxing philosophic but Im in the middle studying Shari'a Law for a final tomorrow. Im finding the use of intended language so as to allow for interpretation to be facinating. Please forgive the following bullshit:

Perhaps the founding fathers deliberately penned the amendment to be vague so as to allow its effect to be timeless; it can be interpretted and reinterpretted endlessly to best suit the needs of the society at any given time, while still emphasizing the importance of maintaining an armed public.

The founding fathers were smart enough to know that they could not predict the future and so left it up to us to adapt the basic idea of the amendment to our ever evolving nation without losing sight of the overall goal - to allow the people a means of personal protection and, ultimately, for revolution when all else has failed.

BTW, who the shit cares if you can pass 10th grade English or not? Im never moving to England.

Ok, I am shit hammered, so I will keep this post brief as I am in no position to post a wel thought out argument.

Ah fuck it, it's going to have to wait until tommorrow when I might be able to read the posts.

Anything I post now will be poorly reasoned, emotionally based, and will fail to consider what has already been written in this post.

Wait, seems like I'm not the only one who has been drinking...

Oh, and DKSuddeth, if you really believe what you have been posting, then how is it in your best interest to create a public record of your intentions? Doesn't seem like a very good plan to avoid the black Chinooks.

Walter, if you are going to post in your own thread, then take some time and put forward a better argument.

The founding fathers had no intention of being vague. They deliberately left a lot of things unsaid, and precedent was supposed to clarify issues that had not come up before, rather than to reinterpret what is clearly written in the constitution. Additionally I am drunk and am going to have to continue this when I am capable of formulating words and such...

Did I miss appletini night?

Perhaps vague was a bad choice of words. Perhaps Im in political concession mode as its necessary to pass my finals. Goddamned hippie school...

Im aware that the founding fathers were experienced in the dealings of a tyrannical government and I have read the Federalist Papers. Im assuming this is some of the precedent youre referring to? But in deliberately leaving things unsaid, I would suggest that they were acknowledging that they could not predict the future.

In other words, they left room for interpretation as to what constitutes "well-armed". The founding fathers could not have forseen the advent of atomic weapons, SOFLAM's and GBU's, SA-7's, Mk-19's or the Death Star. Im merely suggesting that there is a limit to what kind of weaponry should be made available to the general public.

Automatic weapons, 50 cals, high cap mags, etc all seem reasonable to me.
-----Added 11/12/2008 at 10 : 56 : 14-----
Oh, and if you ever call me out like that again, I will literally set you on fire. I've done it once, dont make me do it again.

Slims: See what you made me do?

I understand, I'm right in the middle of writing a paper that is ostensibly about data anlysis re:biofuel viscosity, and is expected to be about data analysis re:biofuel viscosity, but actually needs to be about winter temperature distributions in Minnesota. It is ironic that my professor could be so damningly vague in how he explained this assignment; a large portion of the grade will be based on its clarity and coherence. Perhaps I'm just pissed off at vague people with power over me...

I won't disagree with this idea. Their questionable comma placement just screams "Go ahead, try and figure out what the fuck we're talking about." I think it is foolish to assume that it is even possible to interpret what the constitution should mean in the context of right now with any sort of objectivity.

For many folks the constitution is this mythical thing, you know, not just the supreme law of the land, but like, the god of laws. That's the wrong way to look at it. I understand that it seems nice that there be just one way to interpret it, but being the wishy-washy deliberative motherfucker that I am, I just can't imagine that being the case.

With the issue of gun control, I'm not guided so much by the constitution, because the second amendment is less than useless. I am more inclined to think that the framers were reasonable folks and that if we are attempting to follow in their footsteps we just ought to be reasonable. I realize that this is naive, but the magnitude of that naivete is dampened by my awareness of it.

In short, I don't think that there are any good solutions. I do think that the loudest elements on both sides are self serving and full of shit.

..

timalkin, when it comes to making sensible legislation, I fail to see why we should take your hypothetical situations into account, when they are merely blatant appeals to emotion. Should we also imagine what it would be like if said criminals went after puppies and unicorns?

Gun bans will not eliminate gun crime. To think they would is to be idealistic. Further, does one honestly need to squeeze of a few hundred rounds of a fully automatic weapon to decide whether they should be banned? This is about as unnecessary as a requirement to have worked with any other banned material. You talk about reason and logic. You should know that they can be employed without having a great time regarding the issue in question.

Try not to let this "bright light of truth" blind you. It does that sometimes.

Praise the lord! Neither point is viable.

The happy medium is what we're really arguing over.

(since no pro-gun guy here actually suggested the ridiculous notion of zero restrictions on "weapon" ownership)

At this point, do we really need to have the discussion? It hasn't really borne much fruit in the past...

There are some folks who will never be happy with the happy medium because it means that they don't get to choose the arbitrary restrictions that are placed on their absolute rights. Other folks will never be happy with the happy medium because it means that everyone will have a gun.

The ridiculousness took the form of pro-gun guys suggesting that the second amendment refers to any weapon that can be carried into battle.

Really? I must be reading this wrong. How do you get to a "power would be greater than the standing army" without allowing citizens to own weapons equal to or greater then the fire power of the standing Army?

crompsin say what? :paranoid:

um...this makes no sense. even at a grammatical level, it makes no sense. "the people" is plural. it is collective. it is necessarily collective. i suppose you can twist it around to function as a singular==but that's private language stuff, the sort of thing that you read about in transcripts of conversations amongst schizophrenics.

from the oed, the etymology of the term "the people"

i suppose that if you can erase the 21st century and replace it with the 18th, you can also erase the linguistic conventions of the 18th and replace them with speculative conventions from the pre 15th century. why not, since at this level there is no distinction between "the original sense" and "playing fast and loose"---both converge of "i see what i want to see."

then maybe you should compile all of that in a neat amicus brief and explain to the USSC why they were wrong in US v. Lopez. They seem to be of the opinion that 'the people' referred to individuals.

the reason i posted that had more to do with what i take to be a basic philosophical difference between the two of us, dk---you tend to negate the social: i see individuals as social effects. the arguments either way depend on the register of information you want to play with---if you're thinking about legal subjects ("the people" is a designation for a legal subjectivity, collective personhood defined around positive and negative attributes such as the rights that the constitution claims we "inherently" bear---even as the reason we "inherently" bear them in the context of this legal order is that the constitution says we inherently bear them) the problem of separating the individual from the social is self-evident.

unless you think the constitution is not itself a social act, that the institution(s) it puts into motion are not social, etc.

maybe you think that the framers of the constitution were god's emissaries and that the constitutional order should therefore be treated as sacrocanct, beyond human understanding, not amenable to interpretation--which would be a consistent position if you yourself were not endlessly advancing interpretations. but you do, and what's more these interpretations operate on eccentric grounds. you pretend they don't because you make references to the constitution as if it meant what you say it means---but if another person does not accept your frame for running interpretations, the claims just lay there on the floor like fish would.

I'm not sure where you got your idea that the constitution is a social act, for it is not.

The US constitution is a legal document that enumerates certain and specific powers to the federal government. That is all.

so how was it written? language is a social connecting medium. this is pretty self-evident. better not to think about it.
how was it approved if not in a social forum/context?
what is a legal system if it is not a specific set of forms within which social life unfolds, an expression of social relations of power as they obtained at the point of writing and approving the constitution?
what are the courts if they aren't social institutions?

democracy is a social arrangement. "liberties" are parameters that shape social relations.



i got the idea that the constitution is a social act because it is a social act.

Do they make clips that go in that way? It looks backwards to me.

Or is it potoshopped?

It's definately backwards, but it is also photoshopped. Unless she has a double mag-holder thingy.

You can't put a magazine in backwards at all, it just isn't possible on an M4.

Though she is doing a bunch of other things wrong.

Slims, there was a huge controversy about whether it was photoshopped or not. It is not. She did not know what she was doing, there was a Youtube Video where a person demonstrated how to put a magazine in backwards (it's ass retarded, but do-able).


The photo was taken as other officers were about to correct her.

Also, the trunk on the car is ajar. You think maybe she was posing for the camera before putting her shit away?

Anyway, somebody tie this in to the OP already, or let's move on.

Now this made me laugh:

http://www.expertclick.com/images/NR...8_Christma.jpg

I thought Santa represented peace and good will...but what do I know....I celebrate Chanukah.

Cant wait til we see an armed easter bunny next spring.

Shouldn't Jesus be behind Obama, reciting the wisdom of Matthew 5:38-42?

An Eye for an Eye
"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."

Shoudnt the Christian right who complain about the left trivializing Christmas be outraged by such blatant disrespect for the holiday by using it for political purposes.

The Christian right chooses their battles, methinks.

Christmas is under attack by far worse enemies than the gun-rights advocates. :)

Perhaps they can justify it by suggesting that Santa is packing as a front line soldier to battle the left's War on Christmas.

I wish there was an accurate statistic saying what % of gun owners who own a firearm for home/self protection have ever had to use it in that manner. Not that it would prove one side or the other as "right"....I'm just curious how often guns are actually used for the reasons they were purchased

Also, a breakdown of how many people have guns JUST for self protection vs. those who also shoot at ranges, hunt, collect, etc.

What relevance would that statistic have? Being an avid boater I've probably owned well over a 100 life jackets. Of those I've had to use -0-. Same thing with fire extinguishers, owned several only used one once at home.


If you purchase something like this for protection you do so hoping you never have to use it. Kind of like a "better to have and not need, then need and not have" type thing.

I'm not saying it would prove anything. I'm simply curious of what the numbers are. As I said, I'm not trying to use these numbers to support one or the other side of the argument.

Here is what I believe:

Obama and many of his fans HOPE to confiscate my guns.

I'm stocking up on ammo because I intend to CHANGE their minds.

:thumbsup:

Spoken like a true Branch Davidian.

The argument of "guns to protect us from an oppressive government" has been rendered stupid and moot by those making it. The government is oppressive. Warrantless wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, waterboarding, no-fly lists, unwarranted search and seizures if you're within 2 hours of a border, and "free speech zones" weren't enough to make you rise up against this government, but if you think they're going to try to take away your (completely and utterly ineffective against the toys the goverment has) popguns away you're ready to go out shooting?

Give me a break.

No, give ME a break.

If politicians decided to confiscate guns, do you think they'd do it with stealth fighters and nuclear bombs? Probably not. It would be with people...and people aren't bullet-proof.

correct! so you shoot the cop, and then the cop's friends come by, and maybe you shoot one of those before the FBI, ATF, SWAT, and lots of other acronymns get involved with body armor, ballistic shields, stun and gas grenades, fully automatic weapons, and if you really pissed them off, a tank. Still think you'll win, hotstuff?

It depends on what you mean by "win".

Will I survive? Maybe not. :sad:

But will the gun confiscations continue if even half the gun owners in America take the same course of action? Maybe so. :thumbsup:

Everyone thinks they're fucking Rambo around here

..

what confiscation of guns are you talking about exactly?
does this have something to do with black helicopters?

you haven't answered the question of why you haven't taken up arms against the government for all the OTHER freedoms they've taken away

...I was kinda pissed when they started putting parental warning labels on gangsta rap CDs. Thought I was gonna have to grief-grip the gat and pop a cap in some cracker mofo with my chrome-like-my-spinners point-five-oh Deagle.
-----Added 7/1/2009 at 08 : 21 : 24-----
And why does it have to be black, huh?

...

Ya know... most military helicopters are black. Even... get this... even the UH60 Blackhawk. Maybe the military is out to get people. Oh snap, THEY DO!

/pointless contribution to constipated thread
-----Added 7/1/2009 at 08 : 32 : 53-----
Holy smokes!

Timalkin, take a second and think about this: You come across like a blithering paranoid jackass to all these illuminated never-seen-a-gun types who assume meat comes from a magical wormhole in the back of the grocery store and that this country was somehow peacefully founded on sunshine, rainbows, and equality. They figure the police will protect them from bad guys and that self-sufficiency means being able to afford a BMW.

I can play devil's advocate with the best of them in the pro-gun circle, but doing the played-out Red Dawn "Wolverines!" war cry in a very clearly anti-gun dominated politics thread is a great way to get pigeon-holed as a nutjob with a lukewarm IQ. Hell, you can still go spend $400 on a shitty Beta-C mag.

That and it makes more... verbally conservative... gun owners look bad. I'd lay down last month's MGIB payment that I own and have used more firearms and firearm-related accessories than most goofballs here at the TFP (outside of those who play with guns for a living) and ya don't see me waving the Turner Diaries and donning my pro-mask. They're a hobby most of the time and let's not forget that. I believe that guns are not a way of life unless you're in the military... or... live in Israel. Part of the responsibility of being a good gun owner is showing the enjoyment they provide as a hobby, how they can be used for good (self defense for women, for example), and that they're inanimate objects that are no more dangerous than ice cream cones or beige Victoria's Secret panties when there isn't a human there to operate them. The "...the Man out to get me!" argument is a total turd and needs to be flushed from the minds of pro-gun people who wish to be accepted by a society that has largely given up on freedom in exchange for a feeling of safety.

Point: Relax.

If the ATF comes and takes your gun. Get a good lawyer, fight it like Heller did. Who knows, you'd probably get your guns back *AND* also win some sort of tort settlement.

Didn't the Federal Courts thrash the New Orleans BATFE for violating the people's 2nd Amedment rights?

..

So then you and your friends should go to court to get your guns back, and you should tell those in this thread who are on your side to stop grandstanding about how they're gonna shoot the cops. You guys sound like lunatics when you talk like Rambo. We know you can't back it up against your "enemy."

Only those having experience with guns are qualified to discuss gun policy? WTF!

Are persons who have engaged in political protests the only ones qualified to speak about freedom of assembly?

Are women who had abortions the only ones qualified to speak about the issue of abortion rights

Are reporters the only people quailfied to speak about government restrictions on the press?

Misinformation? It was pointed out early in this thread (post #4) how the NRA engaged in the spreading of misinformation about Obama's past record and position.

Lets not forget that the NRA and other gun rights advocacy groups outspend gun control advocacy groups by more than 20-1 to spread their message and influence legislators.

Hypothetical situation:

The government confiscates citizens' guns.

Gun owners go to court. They lose.

What then? Fight back with spit-wads?

hypothetical situation, early 90s version: the united states in invaded by the united nations who wants to take away your guns and reduce us to slavery. the united nations has been ferrying missles about on flatbed rail cars and shutting troops around on black helicopters. no-one else seems to see them, but we know. it's important to be prepared to defend our militia way of life and resist this united nations tyranny.


this agitation amongst the far right is the same narrative. all that's missing is stuff about zog.


get a grip.

The government has confiscated guns in the past. There is no reason to believe that it won't attempt to do so in the future.

When was the last time the UN launched an invasion of the USA?

i used to listen alot of world wide christian radio, brought to you by viking international (buy gold now because fiat currency is about to collapse) back in the day---there were black helicopter sighting call-in shows and kurt saxon would give militia folk survivalist tips on how to survive the long war against the united nations. other shows would feature exchanges of information about the giant rockets. in the period before the oklahoma city bombing, the militia movement had lots of programming on this silly shortwave outlet--i used to listen because i thought it was funny. they also had anglo-israelite preachers who would deliverd thinly veiled anti-semetic sermons to their cars and dogs in the garage---which was of a piece with the then-fashionable way of referring to the us government as the "zionist occupation government".

this new business is just an update. "zog" has been dropped because, well, it's kinda racist. but otherwise, it's the same line.

you know, turner diaries stuff.

it's just a colorful part of the history of the militia movement.

if you're going to repeat that line, you should know whereof you speak.

The government HAS confiscated guns from American citizens. This is fact and has nothing to do with militias, conspiracy theories or Neo-Nazis.

Nice try, though.

and the united nations has used helicopters.

the point is that this line about guns is a fringe perspective. it doesn't represent the viewpoint of most gun owners, and it fundamentally misstates the politics that enframe the question. but read crompsin's post above---he makes this point better than i can.

Well, you're first off assuming that the government can get all of the guns. Good luck with that. They don't have the manpower to do it, especially not all at once, and so when you see them start taking guns away from Maine, you can get the Texans to start shooting.


Second, what will you do? Same thing you would have done with your guns. Be subjugated. To date no one has managed to explain how having a revolver or a deer rifle is going to help them. Tell me, right now, what that's gonna do against a tank. I don't care if you get 20,000 people on your side (good luck with that, too). A few tanks and a small platoon would be enough to stop it. I keep hearing "We need our guns to fight an oppressive government!" but I never hear how the guns are going to stop that government. It makes about as much sense as "I need a 10x10 section of drywall to stop the hurricane."



The next revolution isn't gonna be decided with firepower, because the government has it and we by comparison have cap guns. It's going to be an issue where either the majority of the populace revolts and refuses to do what the government says (because the government can't kill the whole country for disobedience, else there will no longer be a country to govern) or the military will become convinced that the government is broken, effect a military coup, and we'll join the ranks of Argentina.

revolutions are political.
guns are commodities.
there's a difference.

rendered stupid? I believe Dunedan made a very effective argument that caused the thought processes in alot of peoples brain come to a stuttering halt and go backwards for a bit.

Also, HAD a bunch of us gotten together and decided to fire back over "Warrantless wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, waterboarding, no-fly lists, unwarranted search and seizures if you're within 2 hours of a border, and "free speech zones", where would you have been? my guess is that you woudn't have been grabbing gun and ammo to join us, particularly since you think it's stupid to attempt to become a 'branch davidian'.
-----Added 8/1/2009 at 02 : 05 : 49-----
and whos fault would THAT be on?

Before taking up arms against the government and resorting to violence and bloodshed that is hardly likely to succeed....

I prefer to acknowledge the efforts of organziations like the ACLU that stand up for the constitutional rights of individuals and fire back w/o a weapon against warrantless wiretaps, extraordinary rendition, water boarding, no fly zones, unwarranted search and seizure, free speech zones, etc.

And urge more Americans to support such non-violent efforts of redress.