Obama: Dont stock up on guns - Page 4 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dc_dux · 12-10-2008, 07:21 AM

dk or anyone....

I'll make it simple and ask again:

SO please, tell me how Obama's position is extreme or out of the mainstream when it is shared by an overwhelming majority of Americans.

Despite the fact that the NRA and other gun rights organizations outspend gun control organizations by at least 10:1 on campaigncontributions, lobbying Congress and communicating their message to the public.

campaign contributions: Gun rights groups have given more than $17 million in individual, PAC and soft money contributions to federal candidates and party committees since 1989.....Gun control advocates, meanwhile, contribute far less money than their rivals -- a total of nearly $1.7 million since 1989

lobbying: The NRA alone spent nearly $11 million lobbying elected and government officials from 1997 to 2003. But it wasn't the gun rights lobby's biggest spender. That was Gun Owners of America, which spent more than $18 million on lobbing over the same period. By contrast, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence spent under $2 million on lobbying from 1997 to 2003, and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence spent $580,000.

general communications: Since 1989, the NRA has spent more than $22 million on communications costs and independent expenditures...

OpenSecrets | Gun Control vs. Gun Rights

-----Added 10/12/2008 at 10 : 46 : 15-----

Bonus question:

You dont have to agree, but could it be reasonable for some to conclude that the NRA disseminates false or misleading information in order to generate a continuous flow of contributions necessary to maintain their advocacy efforts?

dksuddeth · 12-10-2008, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Bonus question:

You dont have to agree, but could it be reasonable for some to conclude that the NRA disseminates false or misleading information in order to generate a continuous flow of contributions necessary to maintain their advocacy efforts?

I'd say no more so than any other lobbying organization like moveon.org or truthout, brady campaign, VPC

dc_dux · 12-10-2008, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I'd say no more so than any other lobbying organization like moveon.org or truthout, brady campaign, VPC

Cool...I will take that as a YES (with a qualifier)....the NRA disseminates false or misleading information in order to generate a continuous flow of contributions necessary to maintain their advocacy efforts...and so do other advocacy organizations.

Follow up question: Why do you think the NRA spends more than 10x as much as the Brady Campaign?

NOW...back to the main question, please!

How is Obama's position extreme or out of the mainstream when it is shared by an overwhelming majority of Americans.

Are those who hold that position suggesting that 60-70% of Americans are extremists on the issue of gun control?

Note: I am trying to steer the discussion back to the OP and away from any further discussion on the intent of the 2nd amendment.

roachboy · 12-10-2008, 08:24 AM

well, this article is from the nra's pet publication "america's first freedom" and gives an idea of the infotainment that's setting up this nonsense about obama:

this is a little texxtbook of rhetorical devices.
for example, count the number of times the phrase "anti-gun agenda" shows up.

Quote:

Change for the Worse

By Wayne LaPierre, NRA Executive Vice President, and Chris W. Cox, NRA-ILA Executive Director

The 2008 elections are over. America has spoken, and proven enemies of our Second Amendment rights will soon take power in Washington, D.C. Barack Obama and Joe Biden stand ready to lead an unrelenting attack on our rights that will likely come on every front—executive, judicial, legislative and international.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden will take oaths to uphold the Constitution, but we know by their deeds and their words that they believe the Second Amendment rights of American citizens must be harshly curtailed. With Obama’s election, the anti-gunners have seized control of every lever of power in the federal government—the White House, near veto-proof majorities in Congress and the power to pack the U.S. Supreme Court and the vast federal bureaucracy with extremist gun-banners to attack our rights from a thousand directions.

The fight is coming, and nra will hit it head-on. We’ll have to work night and day to protect our freedoms from the onslaught of the Obama-Biden administration and its gun-ban crowd on Capitol Hill.

We can expect that Obama’s appointees within the executive branch will begin an assault on the Second Amendment with regulatory and enforcement decisions from day one. Those appointments will be guided by a transition team run by John Podesta, Bill Clinton’s former chief of staff. Podesta helped mastermind the lawsuit abuse designed to bankrupt our American firearm industry.

In another Clinton flashback, The Washington Post suggests that Eric Holder—who served as deputy attorney general under Janet Reno—is on the inside track to become attorney general. Holder recently burnished his anti-gun credentials in District of Columbia v. Heller, urging the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that the Second Amendment
guarantees no real right at all. Whoever becomes Obama’s attorney general, we can count on the Department of Justice being an active ally of the gun-ban groups, fighting in court to prevent the landmark Heller decision from being made applicable to state and local governments.

Further, the Obama attorney general will have a tool that Reno did not—the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE). With BATFE now under the direct control of the attorney general, rather than the treasury secretary, the agency’s full powers will be unleashed against the Second Amendment. A large majority of federally licensed firearm dealers (ffls) were driven out of business under Clinton-Reno—an Obama BATFE will likely be even more ambitious.

When the time is right—after a terrorist attack or some other atrocity—House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will fast-track gun-ban legislation that Obama and Biden will lobby for tirelessly. The weight of the White House will be brought to bear on twisting the arms of Democratic senators and congressmen elected on their promises to support gun owners’ rights.

The gun control wish list includes: bans on semi-autos, bans on centerfire rifles (by calling them “sniper rifles”), bans on .50-caliber guns, bans on small handguns, bans on hunting ammunition (of course, they won’t say that, but don’t be fooled), gun rationing (“one gun a month”), national registration, national licensing and repeal of the ban on predatory lawsuits designed to put gun manufacturers and gun stores out of business.

At the top of the Obama anti-gun agenda in Congress will no doubt be a new, permanent ban on semi-autos, repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment (so that gun control groups and anti-gun politicians can get private gun owner records from BATFE) and national legislation against gun shows.

We don’t know whether President Obama will have the opportunity to make one or more Supreme Court appointments during his term, but we do know that from his first day in office he will stack the lower federal courts with judges determined to twist the Heller decision so that it allows unlimited state and local gun bans and allows any federal ban, short of a complete ban, on all handguns.

On the international front, whomever Obama picks for secretary of state, it is now full speed ahead for Obama patron George Soros and the international gun prohibition lobby. The United States delegation at the United Nations will no longer resist international gun bans, but will now be an active supporter of using international law to impose severe gun controls on Americans.

The next step in that campaign is the draft Arms Trade Treaty. Another United Nations gun control conference will convene in 2010 where, unlike during the Bush administration, the U.S. delegation will be an enthusiastic ally of the most extreme gun-ban groups, such as the International Action Network on Small Arms (iansa) funded by billionaire Soros.

During the past eight years—with your support—we have succeeded in rolling back much of the Clinton anti-gun agenda. Despite our best efforts in the 2008 elections, the dark days for gun owners will soon return, and the first of many attacks on our rights as free men and women will be unleashed. Once again, we must all be ready to stand together to protect freedom—for ourselves and for future generations of Americans.

These next few years are either going to be our proudest moments together as nra members and as freedom-loving Americans, or they are going to be the worst nightmare that gun owners have faced or will ever face. And the difference will be decided by whether or not you and your fellow members rally together with us today and make a new commitment to stand your ground and never give an inch to the gun-ban army.

To win the battles that are surely headed our way, we are counting on your strength and your courage—every bit as much as our nation has counted on the service of our brave men and women in uniform who’ve pledged their lives in battle.

More than ever before in your life or in the life of our nation, you need to send a message to every member of the u.s. House and Senate, every federal judge, every entrenched gun-hating bureaucrat, every legislator in your home state and every enemy of freedom ...

That you’re standing tall with the nra for the next four years and, as Charlton Heston said, it is “We the People” who rule this country—not the politicians and not the media—and we will protect our cherished freedoms. Standing together, we will prevail.

Ringside at the Supreme Court

here's a bit more nra hysteria-mongering:

Gun Ban Barack Obama

this organization's gotten in bed with the extreme right and now has apparently decided to go down with the ship.
from this viewpoint, things they are doing make more sense.
it's all about the nra, not the world.

Baraka_Guru · 12-10-2008, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

How is Obama's position extreme or out of the mainstream when it is shared by an overwhelming majority of Americans.

Apparently, it's not.

I think the problem is many gun advocates aren't ready to take "Hussein" Obama at his word.

KirStang · 12-10-2008, 10:04 AM

Hmm,

While it may be true that Obama shares a belief "in line" with the majority of americans--have people stopped to think that--the majority belief is inherently baloney?

I can't tell you the many times I tell my classmates that I want to go shooting--only to be followed up with questions pertaining to violence.

Me: "Man, I'm totally gonna go to the shooting range after I'm done w/ law school finals."

Classmate: "Oh yea? Which teacher you gonna pretend the target is?"

Me:.......

Shooting guns is the same as shooting hoops. If you're good at it, you enjoy it. There is *ABSOLUTELY NO* violent attachment to them by the majority of law abiding gun owners. The violent spectre is ALWAYS INVOKED by the ignorant.

I'll concede, guns can do some dastardly things. But the majority opinion that guns = bad, is driven by media, namely movies, biased media reports, false information, and the desire to sensationalize guns and resultant deaths.

For example, everyone's heard about the 8yr old boy who shot himself in Massachussetts. But what about the CCW owner who stopped a bank robbery in Kentucky? Another who stopped a bank robbery in Texas? The woman home alone who staved off a burglary with a gun? The Homeowner in NY who did the same?

Something to think about fellas.

Plan9 · 12-10-2008, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

I think the problem is many gun advocates aren't ready to take "Hussein" Obama at his word.

Hmm, I sincerely hope that you're not using the completely irrelevant detail of the new President Elect's middle name to demean gun advocates by suggesting that we're foolish enough to relate said man with the negative connotations of a deceased Iraqi dictator / bastard and a popular world religion that has been horribly maligned by paranoid "Joe Sixpacks" and the 24/7 numb, violence-'n-fear-driven American infotainment product production machine (media).

...

Also:

LOOKITHAT! THIS IZ JUSSS 'NOTHUR COMMIE KANAHDIAN PLOT TA TAKE MUH GUNS!

dc_dux · 12-10-2008, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirStang

While it may be true that Obama shares a belief "in line" with the majority of americans--have people stopped to think that--the majority belief is inherently baloney?

I can't tell you the many times I tell my classmates that I want to go shooting--only to be followed up with questions pertaining to violence.

I'll concede, guns can do some dastardly things. But the majority opinion that guns = bad, is driven by media, namely movies, biased media reports, false information, and the desire to sensationalize guns and resultant deaths.

I think you're skirting the issue about majority support for specific public policies by bringing up personal anecdotes.

Granted, many among the American public may not be as sophisticated on guns as those practitioners....but the doesnt mean their support of reasonable gun control is baloney.

As to the false information from media, etc....it is matched by false information from the NRA.
-----Added 10/12/2008 at 01 : 30 : 19-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crompsin

Hmm, I sincerely hope that you're not using the completely irrelevant detail of the new President Elect's middle name to demean gun advocates by suggesting that we're foolish enough to relate said man with the negative connotations of a deceased Iraqi dictator / bastard and a popular world religion that has been horribly maligned by paranoid "Joe Sixpacks" and the 24/7 numb, violence-'n-fear-driven American infotainment product production machine (media).

I believe Baraka's comment was in response to an earlier post (#115) by a gun advocate referencing Hussein Obama.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

.... I posted this because soon reenacting the Clinton "assualt weapons ban" will be the "common sense approach" to gun control. Funny how this argument never materialized during the election process but as soon as Hussein Obama is elected every gun banner in the lower 48 us jumping on the band wagon once again. It's beginning to feel like 1994 all over again.

aceventura3 · 12-10-2008, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

dk or anyone....

I'll make it simple and ask again:

You dont have to agree, but could it be reasonable for some to conclude that the NRA disseminates false or misleading information in order to generate a continuous flow of contributions necessary to maintain their advocacy efforts?

In an earlier post I gave details regarding an accusation made that the NRA gave false information regarding an Obama position. I agree that Obama did not sponser new legislation that would outlaw the use of firearms when defending life in your own home but his vote was clear and the impact of his vote was clear. If he changed his view he could have let us know, but he did not. The other accusations against the NRA are questionable also and certainly not as simple as your "truth o meter" type true/false characterizations suggest.

roachboy · 12-10-2008, 10:45 AM

this link goe to a factcheck.org analysis of the nra's campaign activities against obama, and amounts to a point by point demolition:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...ets_obama.html

but hey, it's "the media"...

the know-nothing approach has resulted in zanies and regular folk who happen to like guns mingling in a giant gun shopping spree.
qui bono?
well, gun retailers.

what's the cause?

beyond the nra's attack campaign on obama, just do a search using obama gun control and you find yourself directly in the hall of mirrors that is blog-land in which the same infotainment ricochets from place to place. presumably, if enough folk post the same nonsense, it must be true.

a run on guns...boy, do i feel safer now.

Quote:

November 7, 2008
On Concerns Over Gun Control, Gun Sales Are Up
By KIRK JOHNSON

DENVER — Sales of handguns, rifles and ammunition have surged in the last week, according to gun store owners around the nation who describe a wave of buyers concerned that an Obama administration will curtail their right to bear arms.

“He’s a gun-snatcher,” said Jim Pruett, owner of Jim Pruett’s Guns and Ammo in northwest Houston, which was packed with shoppers on Thursday.

“He wants to take our guns from us and create a socialist society policed by his own police force,” added Mr. Pruett, a former radio personality, of President-elect Barack Obama.

Mr. Pruett said that sales last Saturday, just before Election Day, ran about seven times higher than a typical good Saturday.

A spot check by reporters in four other states easily found Mr. Pruett’s comments echoed from both sides of the counter.

David Nelson, a co-owner of Montana Ordnance & Supply in Missoula, Mont., said his buyers were “awake and aware and see a dangerous trend.”

Mr. Nelson said sales at his store had risen about 30 percent since Mr. Obama declared his candidacy. “People are concerned about overreaching legislation from Washington,” he said. “They are educating themselves on the Internet.”

In Colorado, would-be gun buyers set a one-day record last Saturday with the highest number of background check requests in a 24-hour period, according to figures from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation.

“We’re not really sure who is promoting the concept that a change in federal administrations might affect firearms possession rights,” said an agency spokesman, Lance Clem, “but we do know that it’s increased business considerably.”

Federal law-enforcement officials cautioned that gun sales were extremely volatile. Nationally, rifle and handgun sales surged 17 percent, for example, in May, compared with May 2007, according to Federal Bureau of Investigation figures. That was before Mr. Obama had clinched the Democratic nomination. Sales then fell and were essentially flat by September compared with the year before, even as the campaign heated up, before rising 14 percent in October. November figures were not yet available.

What is clear is that every gun seller — not to mention every advocacy group for gun ownership that depends on dues-paying members — has an incentive to stoke the concern that can prompt a gun sale. Political uncertainty, gun dealers say, is great for business.

“Clinton was the best gun salesman the gun manufacturers ever had,” said Rick Gray, owner of the Accuracy Gun Shop in Las Vegas. “Obama’s going to be right up there with him.”

Sales at his shop doubled on Wednesday, Mr. Gray said, to more than 20 guns from three to 10 on a typical day.

Asked if that made him root for Democratic candidates, Mr. Gray said no. “It’s not all about profits; it’s about what’s he going to do for the country,” he said, noting that he had supported Senator John McCain, who was the Republican nominee.

A National Rifle Association spokesman, Wayne LaPierre, dismissed the notion that the group had any incentive to increase gun sales or membership. “Ridiculous,” Mr. LaPierre said. “I hope President-elect Obama keeps his promises and protects gun rights. If he does that, we’ll be cheering.”

The political battle over guns raged fiercely throughout the campaign in many states where gun ownership is common. On Monday, the day before the election, home-delivered copies of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette arrived in plastic bags that said, “Vote Freedom First” and “Defend Freedom — Defeat Obama.” The bags were paid for by the N.R.A., whose initials were printed on each one.

Democrats fired back all over the country, with mail campaigns in many states with fliers stating flatly that as president, Mr. Obama would respect an individual’s right to own guns.

“Obama will protect our gun rights,” said one flier sent to homes in Minnesota.

In Montana, Gov. Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat, was photographed shooting his guns outdoors.

But some gun buyers and sellers never forgot, or forgave, Mr. Obama’s widely reported comment in April to a group in San Francisco that some Americans “cling to guns or religion” in times of adversity.

“It was an annoying comment, and it showed there’s a lot more to him,” said Mike Warner, 38, of Las Vegas, who was shopping for a gun there on Thursday.

Mr. Warner said he was an N.R.A. member and an owner of two guns but wanted at least one more.

Other people, even some shopping for guns, said they thought that some gun enthusiasts’ fears about Mr. Obama were unjustified. James Sykes, a gun collector who was shopping at the Gun Room in Lakewood, Colo., called the rush to buy guns “a lot of hysteria about very little.”

Mr. Sykes, who said he had voted mostly Republican in the past but supported Mr. Obama this year, said that issues like war and the global economic crisis were more pressing for him right now and that he imagined the same was true for Mr. Obama.

“My Second Amendment rights are unquestionably important to me, but so is feeding my family,” he said. “In reality, you won’t be able to afford to buy a gun if your job goes overseas.”

But markets, whether for guns or stocks and bonds, tend to move with their own internal dynamics even in — perhaps especially in — gloomy economic times.

Chris Casella, general manager of Federal Firearms Company in Oakdale, Pa., a suburb of Pittsburgh, said he had been fielding about 30 calls a day from people interested in buying assault-type rifles, especially semiautomatic weapons, often with magazines that could hold lots of ammunition.

“A lot of people are buying them as an investment,” Mr. Casella said. “Better than gold.”

Reporting was contributed by Thayer Evans from Houston; Steve Friess from Las Vegas; Dan Frosch from Lakewood, Colo.; Sean D. Hamill from Pittsburgh; and Pamela J. Podger from Missoula, Mont.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/us/07guns.html

KirStang · 12-10-2008, 10:56 AM

DC Dux, I'll take you up on that,

I have six points to make.

First, as of now, gun ownership is limited to those who have no felonious records (generally speaking, as with everything there are exceptions). In addition, Straw purchases are also illegal.

We have in effect, waiting periods, gun background checks and mental checks. Consequently, with the gun laws already in place, the extreme majority of gun owners are limited to law abiding, hard working americans who are as crime prone as you and me.

Second, what is so unreasonable of gun bans right now? It's as if sensible gun control never happened-- *it's already in place. *

Third, the last assault weapons ban restricted pistol grips (on rifles), collapsible stocks (on rifles) and magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

With respect, just what the hell does that do? It's as if a criminal who intended to kill people will somehow suddenly be unable to now that they can only shoot 10 rounds instead of 30 rounds before reloading. -Or- if pistol grips on a rifle suddenly make it capable of effectuating mass death.

A murdered person is a murdered person, regardless if the perpetrator used a knife, a baseball bat, or an Ak-47. But the media will pick up on the Ak-47 because it harkens images of terrorists and gangstas. People *LOVE* invoking the Ak-47, but in reality, it's just another rifle.

Fourth, the problem with gun laws is that they're mostly feel good legislation--at the cost of Constitutional right. They. Do. Not. Accomplish. Much. Again, with the examples I drew earlier, one sees geographical areas with *extremely strict* laws--yet have some of the highest crime rates. Of course, there are other factors beyond guns but it goes to demonstrate that gun restrictions are mostly feel good and aren't substantially effective against reducing crime rates.

England Murder Rates vs USA (England after WWII de facto banned guns, yet crime rates continue to rise)

GunCite-Gun Control-International Homicide Comparisons (showing that gun control isn't correlated with crime rates)

GunCite-Gun Control-International Homicide and Suicide Rates (further support for that...at the 5% level, there is no significant correlation of gun ownership with homicide rates)

Fifth, DC_dux, while I understand DC has a de-facto ban on guns, I'd reccomend you go out, shoot some, and learn about them. As I stated earlier, the majority opinion on supporting an AWB is supported by an underlying proposition that guns are evil. They are, in effect, no more evil than fireworks, or even chainsaws (fun or useful when used properly, deadly when misappropriated). Furthermore, an AWB will do no more but make it harder for law abiding citizens to enjoy their hobby.

Finally, even if an AWB is supported by the majority population--it does not mean that it is correct. At one point, this great nation supported slavery, jim crow laws and segregation. Were those laws inherently correct because people supported them? I submit to you that they were not. Like I stated before, majority opinion, although given great weight, is not intrinsically correct as it may be based off of false beliefs.

Tully Mars · 12-10-2008, 11:06 AM

Well the more I read the closer I get to wanting some more "arms" of my own. I think I'll start with a nuclear bomb. After all when in the US I'm assured the right to bear arms. When bearing arms why not go all out and get the best?

aceventura3 · 12-10-2008, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

Well the more I read the closer I get to wanting some more "arms" of my own. I think I'll start with a nuclear bomb. After all when in the US I'm assured the right to bear arms. When bearing arms why not go all out and get the best?

The reason you may not want to go "all out" is because, as an individual, your limitations on safely using and delivering a nuclear bomb on an intended target posing an immediate threat upon your life. In addition, people who own weapons for personal protection generally understand and accept the concept of using only enough force to eliminate life threatening risks. Those two factors lead reasonable people wanting a weapon for personal protection to cross nuclear bombs off of the list.

Plan9 · 12-10-2008, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

Well the more I read the closer I get to wanting some more "arms" of my own. I think I'll start with a nuclear bomb. After all when in the US I'm assured the right to bear arms. When bearing arms why not go all out and get the best?

All my years of training and investment in small arms and I should just apply to stereotypical dumbass American motto: "GO BIG OR GO HOME."

Thanks for the hot tip.

dc_dux · 12-10-2008, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirStang

DC Dux, I'll take you up on that,

I have six points to make.

First, as of now, gun ownership is limited to those who have no felonious records (generally speaking, as with everything there are exceptions). In addition, Straw purchases are also illegal.

We have in effect, waiting periods, gun background checks and mental checks. Consequently, with the gun laws already in place, the extreme majority of gun owners are limited to law abiding, hard working americans who are as crime prone as you and me.

Second, what is so unreasonable of gun bans right now? It's as if sensible gun control never happened-- *it's already in place. *

Third, the last assault weapons ban restricted pistol grips (on rifles), collapsible stocks (on rifles) and magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

With respect, just what the hell does that do? It's as if a criminal who intended to kill people will somehow suddenly be unable to now that they can only shoot 10 rounds instead of 30 rounds before reloading. -Or- if pistol grips on a rifle suddenly make it capable of effectuating mass death.

A murdered person is a murdered person, regardless if the perpetrator used a knife, a baseball bat, or an Ak-47. But the media will pick up on the Ak-47 because it harkens images of terrorists and gangstas. People *LOVE* invoking the Ak-47, but in reality, it's just another rifle.

Fourth, the problem with gun laws is that they're mostly feel good legislation--at the cost of Constitutional right. They. Do. Not. Accomplish. Much. Again, with the examples I drew earlier, one sees geographical areas with *extremely strict* laws--yet have some of the highest crime rates. Of course, there are other factors beyond guns but it goes to demonstrate that gun restrictions are mostly feel good and aren't substantially effective against reducing crime rates.

England Murder Rates vs USA (England after WWII de facto banned guns, yet crime rates continue to rise)

GunCite-Gun Control-International Homicide Comparisons (showing that gun control isn't correlated with crime rates)

GunCite-Gun Control-International Homicide and Suicide Rates (further support for that...at the 5% level, there is no significant correlation of gun ownership with homicide rates)

Fifth, DC_dux, while I understand DC has a de-facto ban on guns, I'd reccomend you go out, shoot some, and learn about them. As I stated earlier, the majority opinion on supporting an AWB is supported by an underlying proposition that guns are evil. They are, in effect, no more evil than fireworks, or even chainsaws (fun or useful when used properly, deadly when misappropriated). Furthermore, an AWB will do no more but make it harder for law abiding citizens to enjoy their hobby.

Finally, even if an AWB is supported by the majority population--it does not mean that it is correct. At one point, this great nation supported slavery, jim crow laws and segregation. Were those laws inherently correct because people supported them? I submit to you that they were not. Like I stated before, majority opinion, although given great weight, is not intrinsically correct as it may be based off of false beliefs.

We can both find data that supports our position...so lets toss that out of the way.

I'll keep it simple....there are an estimated 240+ million firearms in civilian hands in the US, a nation of 300 million people. Why the fuck do we need more?

That being said...buy as many hand guns and sporting weapons as you want. I dont oppose that. Neither does Obama or most Americans.

But lets also consider...

... an additional safeguard to protect children from accidentally killing themselves or friends with a gun in their home. That number may not rise to the millions, but saving a few lives or a few hundred or a few thousand is worth a mandatory child safetly lock, IMO.

..better background checks at gun shows so those felons you speak of cant purchase weapons at such locations. Will they find underground sources? Probably...but take this one source away.

...many Americans, including many police and prosecutors, simply dont see the need for average citizens to own an AK-47 or any semi-automatic weapon.... your handguns and sporting weapons should suffice for any need...and banning their production and sale will ultimately limit the supply on the streets.

Call if "feel good" or "baloney" if you like. It doesnt make your position stronger.

I chose to look at it as common sense approaches to public safety. And so do most Americans.
-----Added 10/12/2008 at 04 : 11 : 31-----
And finally, in terms of your suggestion that I go out and shoot, I dont feel a need to personally experience the thrill of a firearm to have an informed opinion on public policy.

Willravel · 12-10-2008, 01:16 PM

Bud: So I bought a gun.
Mac: Oh yeah? Did someone break into your house?
Bud: No.
Mac: Your neighbor's house?
Bud: No.
Mac: Well, do you live in a high crime area?
Bud: No.
Mac: A medium crime area?
Bud: Not really.
Mac: But you feel that someone breaking into your house or attacking you is inevitable?
Bud: Not necessarily.
Mac: Hmmm... so it's not really for self-defense.
Bud: Yes it is. I need to protect myself and my family.
Mac: From whom?
Bud: Criminals.
Mac: But you said...
Bud: Statistics don't matter. Crime can happen, therfore it will happen.
Mac: That doesn't really make sense. Is there any other reason?
Bud: Obama.
Mac: Oh! You think the government is going to oppress you. Obama's going to go all Hitler.
Bud: Yep.
Mac: Like suspending Habeas Corpus?
Bud: Yes.
Mac: Like kidnapping innocent people?
Bud: Absolutely.
Mac: Like torturing Americans?
Bud: Sure.
Mac: Like taking our guns?
Bud: Oh hell yes.
Mac: Like tapping your phones and emails?
Bud: Wait, they already did all those.
Mac: Yeah, they did. But there was a Republican in the oval office so a vast majority of gun owners assumed everything was fine.
Bud: Look, the Second Amendment gives me the right to have a gun.
Mac: Sure, but it doesn't order everyone to have a gun.
Bud: Yes it does, we need it in order to fight oppression.
Mac: You think having a few guns means that you can stand up against the Army, Navy, Air Force, or even the Coast Guard?
Bud: They won't fire on their own.
Mac: They arrested Tim McVeigh and sentenced him to death without breaking a sweat.
Bud: But he was a terrorist.
Mac: "Terrorist" is just another word for "enemy of the state" now. And if you rebelled against the government, that's what they'd call you and that's what they'd treat you like.
Bud: But there are like 50 million households with guns in the US. Believe me if we all stood up at once...
Mac: But that won't happen. No one in New Orleans even tried to prevent the police from illegally taking citizen's guns during Katrina. No one drove down to Waco to stop the ATF from massacring that cult. No one attacked Guantanamo for illegally holding people without trial or torturing. The police are being militarized, being given military weapons, equipment, and training. There's even an active Army unit stationed permanently inside the US (with more on the way). No one is standing up against them. No militia is resisting.

So why do you have a gun?

KirStang · 12-10-2008, 01:21 PM

Dux,

For the sake of argument, if data and studies supporting your position is present, then by all means present it. I'm open minded and it would be informative.

However, I strongly doubt a ban will somehow greatly reduce the supply that does find its way in to those who want it ("the streets!"). We ban drugs--which paradoxically causes the profit margins to rise, thereby inadvertently creating an incentive for taking the risk to run drugs. First, see my arguments about Mexico. Guns are rampant there despite a ban. Second, think about the prohibition, bans there were of no use to those who wanted to drink (and like illicit drugs now, were manufactured by those who saw an ability to make a profit).

However, I will agree with you on the child-lock. So long as they're not retardedly manufactured to the point where I'd have to fumble with it in the dark when I need the weapon. Ardent 2A supporters will disagree with me there, but to each their own I guess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

So why do you have a gun?

I live in a high crime area.

dksuddeth · 12-10-2008, 01:32 PM

so basically we should change the fundamental makeup and contract between the central government and the people because most people would rather not live up to their responsibility and shove it off on a government entity, something the framers of the constitution strived to prevent?

good call. I'll stay with the radical framers of the US constitution.

dc_dux · 12-10-2008, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

so basically we should change the fundamental makeup and contract between the central government and the people because most people would rather not live up to their responsibility and shove it off on a government entity, something the framers of the constitution strived to prevent?

good call. I'll stay with the radical framers of the US constitution.

dk...you dont speak for the framers unless you were there to participate in their deliberations.

Every discussion seems to come back to a 2nd amendment debate with you and your conclusion that if we dont agree with your interpretation, we are wrong.

Views opposite of yours are no less valid.

Slims · 12-10-2008, 01:38 PM

Ok, first, I am not an NRA member, and they do produce what is basically propaganda, as do most lobbying organizations.

However, I have presented my case and did so without any 'help' from the NRA. I don't think it is an unreasonable conclusion to think another AWB may be right around the corner. This is because the last democratic administration emplaced a Ban, and now they are in power again and Obama is deliberately dancing around the issue without committing either way. And particularly since, as has been argued on this board, most Americans support another ban. It is a safe bet that with both public support and a supportive administration, such legislation is only a matter of time.

"I'll keep it simple....there are an estimated 240+ million firearms in civilian hands in the US, a nation of 300 million people. Why the fuck do we need more?"

Why not?

"That being said...buy as many hand guns and sporting weapons as you want. I dont oppose that. Neither does Obama or most Americans."

But hand guns are used to commit almost all firearms-related murders. Why would any 'reasonable' person who has decided to ban guns, ignore the weapons that are actually killing people and go after ones that aren't because they 'look scary'?

More people in America are beaten to death every year than are killed by rifles and shotguns combined. I know it's a statistic of sorts, but it is a very basic one. Rifles, and in particular, 'assault rifles' are used in an astonishingly small number of crimes. They were also banned under the last AWB based on cosmetic, rather than functional characteristics. Where's the sense in that?

"... an additional safeguard to protect children from accidentally killing themselves or friends with a gun in their home. That number may not rise to the millions, but saving a few lives or a few hundred or a few thousand is worth a mandatory child safetly lock, IMO."

Ok, sell a trigger lock with every firearm. Done, problem solved, end of story.

But what lawmakers are pushing for are 'smart guns' that just don't work reliably, are expensive, and are an end-run to reduce the number and types of firearms legally available.

If your agenda is just to ban firearms, then have the balls to do so in a straightforward way.

"..better background checks at gun shows so those felons you speak of cant purchase weapons at such locations. Will they find underground sources? Probably...but take this one source away."

Ok, here's the gun show loophole: If you purchase a firearm from a private individual who is not a dealer, then the laws for personal firearms sales apply. Most states require background checks for handgun transfers, but not long guns.

If you are purchasing a firearm from a dealer at a gun show, then the normal laws for purchasing a firearm from any dealer apply, with all background checks.

There is no difference between purchasing a firearm from an individual in a gun-show or out in the parking lot. If you 'close the loophole' you are actually just killing gun shows because people won't bother to go through the hassle when they can purchase straight out of the Shotgun News, legally, without the extra requirements.

Anybody who wouldn't be subject to a background check at a gun show can purchase a weapon through a private transaction anyways.

"...many Americans, including many police and prosecutors, simply dont see the need for average citizens to own assault weapons.. your handguns and sporting weapons should suffice for any need...and banning their production and sale will ultimately limit the supply on the streets."

The first part is true, they don't see the need. Thanks to the constitution they don't have to. And again, how is a semi-automatic hunting rifle materially different from a semi-automatic 'assault-rifle'? And if you limit magazine capacity again to 10 rounds, how many lives will that save? Seems to me like you can get a lot done with 10 rounds if you are a criminal. Why not go 2 rounds?

"I chose to look at it as common sense approaches to public safety. And so do most Americans."

Your 'commen sense' approach completely ignores the real problems and instead aims at weapons that are not typically used to commit crimes ('assault weapons') because they are expensive and can't be easily concealed.

They are also the weapons that *should* be most strongly protected under the constitution as they are the closest to military-type rifles available to the general public.

And how is amending the constitution taking away it's flexibility? I fail to see it.

Willravel · 12-10-2008, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirStang

I live in a high crime area.

Bud: I do live in a high crime area.
Mac: The highest crime rate in the US belongs to Detroit. Violent crime was at 2,289 out of a population of about 860,000 in 2007. That means that you have about a 1 in 375 chance of being victimized. Of course the murder rate was only 46. So you have about a 1 in 18,700 chance of being in a situation where it's kill or be killed. Or are you going to shoot someone that tries to take $60 from your wallet?
Bud: Well they're putting my life at risk.
Mac: Not if they're just robbing you. The burglary rate in Detriot is 2,064 and the murder rate is only 46, so obviously even if you are robbed, you're probably not going to be murdered. Are you really going to kill someone for trying to take your wallet or trying to make off with your 24" tv?
Bud: What if they're not trying to rob me?
Mac: You mean someone just walks up to you and starts to attack you for no reason? How likely do you suppose that is?
Bud: I don't know. Are you saying I don't have a right to defend myself?
Mac: Not at all. I just want to know why you have a gun.
Bud: How else can I protect myself?
Mac: For the same cost as a handgun and a few rounds, which are built specifically to kill someone, you can get a better front door with better locks. Passive defense is still defense.
Bud: What if I'm walking down the street?
Mac: Have you ever had someone fill your eyes with mace? Have you ever had someone tase you?
Bud: Those aren't going to stop someone.
Mac: So you're saying that if you are the one out of 18,700, you're not at home or at work (where most people spend most of your time), you're in a place without a lot of people, and you're being attacked by someone who can't be slowed down by mace or a taser, then you want to use your gun?
Bud: Yeah.
Mac: Do you realize how unlikely that situation is?
Bud: Statistics don't matter. Crime can happen, therfore it will happen.
Mac: You said that before, it still doesn't make any sense.

dc_dux · 12-10-2008, 01:40 PM

never mind

Slims · 12-10-2008, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

dk...you dont speak for the framers unless you were there to participate in their deliberations.

Every discussion seems to come back to a 2nd amendment debate with you and your conclusion that if we dont agree with your interpretation, we are wrong.

Views opposite of yours are no less valid.

Not true, there is plenty of evidence to indicate the intent of the Founding Fathers, and much of that has already been presented in this discussion.

Arguments against gun ownership have focused on the 'need' for gun bans, and/or contemporary reinterpretations of the constitution.

Nobody has even attempted to submit articles written by the framers of the constitution or their contemporaries that indicates they were 'against' the second amendment being an individual right.

Feel free to do so.

Your 'every point of view is equally valid' argument is no more valid than my argument that the moon is made of cheese.

dc_dux · 12-10-2008, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slims

Not true, there is plenty of evidence to indicate the intent of the Founding Fathers, and much of that has already been presented in this discussion.

Arguments against gun ownership have focused on the 'need' for gun bans, and/or contemporary reinterpretations of the constitution.

Nobody has even attempted to submit articles written by the framers of the constitution or their contemporaries that indicates they were 'against' the second amendment being an individual right.

Feel free to do so.

Your 'every point of view is equally valid' argument is no more valid than my argument that the moon is made of cheese.

Bottom line..it is the Supreme Court that ultimately interprets intent.

And in this rare case, I agree with Scalia (in the DC decision) that the 2nd amendment right is not absolute and is subject to some limitations and restrictions

In the gun case, Justice Antonin Scalia led the majority in analyzing the words of the Second Amendment and the views of its framers and concluding that "they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation."

...Scalia wrote that the right he was announcing, as with other constitutional rights, "is not unlimited." The ruling should not "cast doubt," he added, on restrictions such as barring possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill or forbidding carrying arms near schools or in government buildings. He also indicated that the use of certain types of weapons could be restricted without running afoul of the Second Amendment.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202422582170

-----Added 10/12/2008 at 04 : 48 : 26-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slims

I don't think it is an unreasonable conclusion to think another AWB may be right around the corner. This is because the last democratic administration emplaced a Ban, and now they are in power again and Obama is deliberately dancing around the issue without committing either way. And particularly since, as has been argued on this board, most Americans support another ban. It is a safe bet that with both public support and a supportive administration, such legislation is only a matter of time.

IMO, it is highly unlikely that Obama or the Democratic Congress will take up an AWB anytime soon.

There are so many more pressing problems that the American public wants addressed which was why, in large part, it was not a campaign issue.

Even though an AWB has widespread public support, it is not a high priority for most.

At best, I could see it as a second term issue for Obama as a legacy but still having a difficult road to passage with the makeup of the Democrats in Congress, including 40+ who are from predominantly republican districts.

dksuddeth · 12-10-2008, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

dk...you dont speak for the framers unless you were there to participate in their deliberations.

Every discussion seems to come back to a 2nd amendment debate with you and your conclusion that if we dont agree with your interpretation, we are wrong.

Views opposite of yours are no less valid.

until they try say exactly opposite of what the framers said. Verification is relatively easy for those who would actually READ the federalist and anti-federalist papers. Once they try to say something that is the opposite of whats in those papers, yeah they are invalid.

dc_dux · 12-10-2008, 02:03 PM

dk..I've read the Federalist papers and I assume Scalia has as well.

dksuddeth · 12-10-2008, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Bottom line..it is the Supreme Court that ultimately interprets intent.

And in this rare case, I agree with Scalia (in the DC decision) that the 2nd amendment right is not absolute and is subject to some limitations and restrictions

In the gun case, Justice Antonin Scalia led the majority in analyzing the words of the Second Amendment and the views of its framers and concluding that "they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation."

...Scalia wrote that the right he was announcing, as with other constitutional rights, "is not unlimited." The ruling should not "cast doubt," he added, on restrictions such as barring possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill or forbidding carrying arms near schools or in government buildings. He also indicated that the use of certain types of weapons could be restricted without running afoul of the Second Amendment.

Law.com - Supreme Court Strikes Down D.C. Gun Ban

which should be completely and totally mind boggling, considering the amendment itself says 'shall not be infringed'. Only in a totalitarian/authoritarian mindset can someone actually believe that shall not be infringed means it can be limited and restricted.

It's also blatant disregard for the constitution and bill of rights to restrict the people to 'certain' weapons considering that the framers believed that the people should be equally armed as the standing military is, but hell no we can't have tom dick and harry running around with automatic weapons. much better to have murderous agents of the government killing citizens with automatic weapons. its the only way for 'freedom' to survive. I call it insanity.
-----Added 10/12/2008 at 05 : 07 : 39-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

dk..I've read the Federalist papers and I assume Scalia has as well.

then why do you insist on disregarding them? same with scalia. he is by no means a strict constructionist or originalist.

dc_dux · 12-10-2008, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

which should be completely and totally mind boggling, considering the amendment itself says 'shall not be infringed'. Only in a totalitarian/authoritarian mindset can someone actually believe that shall not be infringed means it can be limited and restricted.

It's also blatant disregard for the constitution and bill of rights to restrict the people to 'certain' weapons considering that the framers believed that the people should be equally armed as the standing military is, but hell no we can't have tom dick and harry running around with automatic weapons. much better to have murderous agents of the government killing citizens with automatic weapons. its the only way for 'freedom' to survive. I call it insanity.

I call it respect for the Constitution that clearly stated:

Article III

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish....

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution...

KirStang · 12-10-2008, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Bud: I do live in a high crime area.
Mac: The highest crime rate in the US belongs to Detroit. Violent crime was at 2,289 out of a population of about 860,000 in 2007. That means that you have about a 1 in 375 chance of being victimized. Of course the murder rate was only 46. So you have about a 1 in 18,700 chance of being in a situation where it's kill or be killed. Or are you going to shoot someone that tries to take $60 from your wallet?
Bud: Well they're putting my life at risk.
Mac: Not if they're just robbing you. The burglary rate in Detriot is 2,064 and the murder rate is only 46, so obviously even if you are robbed, you're probably not going to be murdered. Are you really going to kill someone for trying to take your wallet or trying to make off with your 24" tv?
Bud: What if they're not trying to rob me?
Mac: You mean someone just walks up to you and starts to attack you for no reason? How likely do you suppose that is?
Bud: I don't know. Are you saying I don't have a right to defend myself?
Mac: Not at all. I just want to know why you have a gun.
Bud: How else can I protect myself?
Mac: For the same cost as a handgun and a few rounds, which are built specifically to kill someone, you can get a better front door with better locks. Passive defense is still defense.
Bud: What if I'm walking down the street?
Mac: Have you ever had someone fill your eyes with mace? Have you ever had someone tase you?
Bud: Those aren't going to stop someone.
Mac: So you're saying that if you are the one out of 18,700, you're not at home or at work (where most people spend most of your time), you're in a place without a lot of people, and you're being attacked by someone who can't be slowed down by mace or a taser, then you want to use your gun?
Bud: Yeah.
Mac: Do you realize how unlikely that situation is?
Bud: Statistics don't matter. Crime can happen, therfore it will happen.
Mac: You said that before, it still doesn't make any sense.

Ok Willravel...these hypothetical conversations are absolutely of no value to debate.

The responses from Bud are a little skewed, dontcha think? There are a couple of other so called facts in there that are debatable too. Looked up the violent crime rates, from the FBI/DOJ Uniform Crime Reports from 2004 (I don't know where you're getting your numbers from). I want citations if you want to talk about statistics (and to be honest, I think the #'s from your hypothetical conversation are somewhat suspect).

Detroit has 914,353 residents, and in 2004 had 15,913 violent crimes.

Baltimore has 634,279 residents and in 2004 had 11,667 violent crimes.

Detroit had a 1/57 chance of victimization to a violent crime. Baltimore had a 1/54 chance. So, if a person walks alone at 10pm on a empty street, 54 times a year, would that mean they would be subject to a violent crime? I don't know, but I don't like the odds.

(Statistics found at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/documents/CIUS2004.pdf).

In addition, sure pepper spray is great, but it only incapacitates if it hits mucous membranes, and would become less effective when faced with multiple attackers/robbers.

And yes, people have gone up to others and committed violent crimes for no reason. I think you remember the youtube video with the crackhead using a baseball bat on a car.

There's an old adage from gun owners--"better to have and not need, than to need and not have."

Just my .02 cents.

Willravel · 12-10-2008, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirStang

No one would respond the way your 'bud' responds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirStang

I live in a high crime area.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Bud: I do live in a high crime area.

_________________
I'm simply applying all of the arguments which I've come across by gun proponents. If you've got something to add, you're welcome to back up Bud.

roachboy · 12-10-2008, 03:07 PM

dk--what original intent/strict construction does in order to compensate for the fact that as a procedure it chops off precedent as a frame for adapting the constitutional system to changing situations/times is to introduce stuff like the federalist papers and the (partial and problematic) accounts of the deliberations around the framing of the constitution itself as substitutes. *that* is a violation of the rules of the constitution itself. the federalist papers have no legal status--as historical documents, they're interesting--but as law, they're historical documents. the minutes of the convention are also historical documents. elevating either set of materials to boundary conditions that shape how the constitution should be interpreted amounts to a basic change in the rules of the game.

i would think you'd know this, given what a Big Deal the "intent" of the framers is to you.

that's why i argue that strict construction is incoherent every time it comes up. i didn't say it this time because i get tired of typing the same things over and over. but that's the crux of the argument. another way: you can't do what you'd like to do. it doesn't and cannot get off the ground.

what would the consequences of it be? well first off it is the "strict" position that rests on an arbitrary definition of what is and is not relevant as boundary conditions that shape legal decisions. so the first thing that would result is a kind of conservative legal despotism masequerading as a return to "basic principles".

it would be consistent if this viewpoint resulted in a considerable restriction of the role and functions of judges--it'd make them like judges are in an ideal-typical civil law system (ideal-typical because in reality, it's not like this--judges interpret)--they'd be functionaries. this because the right fears "judicial activism" which generally means latitude to interpret because latitude to interpret could result in guns being restricted and we cannot have that no no.

a correlate of this is that law would have to be written in a basically different way than it currently is, and enforced much more strictly. i suppose in principle that you'd support that, but i doubt you would once the reality of this vague idea began to be felt.

as to how you'd go about lining up contemporary capitalist social relations with the fantasy world of yeoman farmers...i dunno. it would not surprise me to find in a hypothetical "revolt" far right "patriots" imitating the khymer rouge. ugly stuff. hope i never have to see if i'm right. i doubt seriously i will have to see if i'm right, though, because there is and will be no revolt from the right.

slims: i don't think you understood my argument about original intent/strict construction--hope this clarifies it. skip over the last paragraph...it's not important.

dksuddeth · 12-10-2008, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I call it respect for the Constitution that clearly stated:

Article III

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish....

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution...

and i'm sure you felt that way after Kelo, right?
-----Added 10/12/2008 at 06 : 13 : 43-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

dk--what original intent/strict construction does in order to compensate for the fact that as a procedure it chops off precedent as a frame for adapting the constitutional system to changing situations/times is to introduce stuff like the federalist papers and the (partial and problematic) accounts of the deliberations around the framing of the constitution itself as substitutes. *that* is a violation of the rules of the constitution itself. the federalist papers have no legal status--as historical documents, they're interesting--but as law, they're historical documents. the minutes of the convention are also historical documents. elevating either set of materials to boundary conditions that shape how the constitution should be interpreted amounts to a basic change in the rules of the game.

i would think you'd know this, given what a Big Deal the "intent" of the framers is to you.

that's why i argue that strict construction is incoherent every time it comes up. i didn't say it this time because i get tired of typing the same things over and over. but that's the crux of the argument. another way: you can't do what you'd like to do. it doesn't and cannot get off the ground.

what would the consequences of it be? well first off it is the "strict" position that rests on an arbitrary definition of what is and is not relevant as boundary conditions that shape legal decisions. so the first thing that would result is a kind of conservative legal despotism masequerading as a return to "basic principles".

it would be consistent if this viewpoint resulted in a considerable restriction of the role and functions of judges--it'd make them like judges are in an ideal-typical civil law system (ideal-typical because in reality, it's not like this--judges interpret)--they'd be functionaries. this because the right fears "judicial activism" which generally means latitude to interpret because latitude to interpret could result in guns being restricted and we cannot have that no no.

a correlate of this is that law would have to be written in a basically different way than it currently is, and enforced much more strictly. i suppose in principle that you'd support that, but i doubt you would once the reality of this vague idea began to be felt.

as to how you'd go about lining up contemporary capitalist social relations with the fantasy world of yeoman farmers...i dunno. it would not surprise me to find in a hypothetical "revolt" far right "patriots" imitating the khymer rouge. ugly stuff. hope i never have to see if i'm right. i doubt seriously i will have to see if i'm right, though, because there is and will be no revolt from the right.

slims: i don't think you understood my argument about original intent/strict construction--hope this clarifies it. skip over the last paragraph...it's not important.

tell me RB, without all the fancy hyperbole, why you see original intent as damning to the progression of the United States?

KirStang · 12-10-2008, 03:19 PM

Willravel,

And then it turns out all your stats are not supported. So as it turns out, all that fancy talk in your hypo is BUNK. And I would never make the idiotic claim that "crimes can happen, therefore it would happen." (If you think about it, crimes do happen, they don't "can" happen...)

If you want to live up to your signature, quit making hit and run, unsubstantiated claims.

Go shoot and learn about guns, it'll at least remove you from the ignorant category.

dc_dux · 12-10-2008, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirStang

Detroit has 914,353 residents, and in 2004 had 15,913 violent crimes.

Baltimore has 634,279 residents and in 2004 had 11,667 violent crimes.

Detroit had a 1/57 chance of victimization to a violent crime. Baltimore had a 1/54 chance. So, if a person walks alone at 10pm on a empty street, 54 times a year, would that mean they would be subject to a violent crime? I don't know, but I don't like the odds.

(Statistics found at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/documents/CIUS2004.pdf).

In addition, sure pepper spray is great, but it only incapacitates if it hits mucous membranes, and would become less effective when faced with multiple attackers/robbers.

Just my .02 cents.

Here's the biggest problem with stats like these. ...they give no indication of where in the city these violent crimes occurred.

If I can find it, I will post a map of DC, with all of the violent crimes pinpointed by street/neighborhood last year.

In the case of DC, the vast majority were in neighborhoods where I would have no reason to travel....so my odds of being a victim are reduced significantly.

I can further reduce the likelihood by common sense actions like not using an ATM machine late at night in a dark corner of a street with little pedistrian traffic.

In terms of a home invasion, the best and most secure door and window locks or an alarm system can decrease the likelihood of being a victim.

I dont have a problem that you feel safer with a gun. I feel safe without one by taking simple actions.

roachboy · 12-10-2008, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Go shoot and learn about guns, it'll at least remove you from the ignorant category

therefore guns provide one with consciousness.
q.e.d.

KirStang · 12-10-2008, 03:28 PM

Yea, that's the thing DC_Dux. I live in Baltimore by the hospital and the law school. It's suppoed to be a nicer part of town (but it's really not). Sure, I can avoid the really bad parts of town--that doesn't prevent the bad parts of town from coming in to my area. I get one robbery/mugging alert every other week from someone heading home ("ALERT! Mugging in parking Garage!").

I used to work in DC, it's much nicer than it used to be these days. In contrast, I'd imagine Baltimore is more like what DC used to be. Everyone flees after the 5:00 pm quitting time.

I had to ride the green line home late at night..you know how bad of a rep the green line has right?

Edit: Yep. Placing RB on ignore.

Willravel · 12-10-2008, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirStang

And then it turns out all your stats are not supported.

Crime in the United States 2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirStang

So as it turns out, all that fancy talk in your hypo is BUNK.

Prove it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirStang

And I would never make the idiotic claim that "crimes can happen, therefore it would happen."

DKSuddeth made that exact argument one year ago and he's hardly the only gun proponent to make that argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirStang

Go shoot and learn about guns, it'll at least remove you from the ignorant category.

Shooting a gun will not negate statistics and logical arguments.

BTW, going back and editing a post after someone has responded is bad form.

dc_dux · 12-10-2008, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

and i'm sure you felt that way after Kelo, right?

dk.. I dont agree with every decision of the Court, particularly when the majority includes Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito.

But I respect the institution and dont presume that I know better.
-----Added 10/12/2008 at 06 : 34 : 33-----
IMO, the Constitution was intentionally drafted by the framers in vague language in many respects with the intent that it be interpreted and the framers acknowledging that the country in the future might differ from the country at the time.

KirStang · 12-10-2008, 03:41 PM

Willravel,

First, I was editting when you responded, so I apologize if it seems like I went back to edit.

Second, it's stupid to place the burden of proof on me, when you made the argument.

Third, I just disproved your statistic:

Population of Detroit - 860,971

Violent Crime rate - 19,708

Chance of violent crime - 1/43.6

VERY FAR from 1/375 as your hypothetical conversation stated. As such, those hypothetical conversations are all suspect.

Table 8 (Michigan) - Crime in the United States 2007

I rest my case.

roachboy · 12-10-2008, 03:43 PM

so what exactly does that string of decontextualized numbers mean?

12-10-2008, 07:21 AM	#121 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	dk or anyone.... I'll make it simple and ask again: SO please, tell me how Obama's position is extreme or out of the mainstream when it is shared by an overwhelming majority of Americans. Despite the fact that the NRA and other gun rights organizations outspend gun control organizations by at least 10:1 on campaigncontributions, lobbying Congress and communicating their message to the public. campaign contributions: Gun rights groups have given more than $17 million in individual, PAC and soft money contributions to federal candidates and party committees since 1989.....Gun control advocates, meanwhile, contribute far less money than their rivals -- a total of nearly $1.7 million since 1989 lobbying: The NRA alone spent nearly $11 million lobbying elected and government officials from 1997 to 2003. But it wasn't the gun rights lobby's biggest spender. That was Gun Owners of America, which spent more than $18 million on lobbing over the same period. By contrast, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence spent under $2 million on lobbying from 1997 to 2003, and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence spent $580,000. general communications: Since 1989, the NRA has spent more than $22 million on communications costs and independent expenditures... OpenSecrets \| Gun Control vs. Gun Rights -----Added 10/12/2008 at 10 : 46 : 15----- Bonus question: You dont have to agree, but could it be reasonable for some to conclude that the NRA disseminates false or misleading information in order to generate a continuous flow of contributions necessary to maintain their advocacy efforts? __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 12-10-2008 at 07:50 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

12-10-2008, 10:56 AM	#131 (permalink)
KirStang Future Bureaucrat	DC Dux, I'll take you up on that, I have six points to make. First, as of now, gun ownership is limited to those who have no felonious records (generally speaking, as with everything there are exceptions). In addition, Straw purchases are also illegal. We have in effect, waiting periods, gun background checks and mental checks. Consequently, with the gun laws already in place, the extreme majority of gun owners are limited to law abiding, hard working americans who are as crime prone as you and me. Second, what is so unreasonable of gun bans right now? It's as if sensible gun control never happened-- it's already in place. Third, the last assault weapons ban restricted pistol grips (on rifles), collapsible stocks (on rifles) and magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. With respect, just what the hell does that do? It's as if a criminal who intended to kill people will somehow suddenly be unable to now that they can only shoot 10 rounds instead of 30 rounds before reloading. -Or- if pistol grips on a rifle suddenly make it capable of effectuating mass death. A murdered person is a murdered person, regardless if the perpetrator used a knife, a baseball bat, or an Ak-47. But the media will pick up on the Ak-47 because it harkens images of terrorists and gangstas. People LOVE invoking the Ak-47, but in reality, it's just another rifle. Fourth, the problem with gun laws is that they're mostly feel good legislation--at the cost of Constitutional right. They. Do. Not. Accomplish. Much. Again, with the examples I drew earlier, one sees geographical areas with extremely strict laws--yet have some of the highest crime rates. Of course, there are other factors beyond guns but it goes to demonstrate that gun restrictions are mostly feel good and aren't substantially effective against reducing crime rates. England Murder Rates vs USA (England after WWII de facto banned guns, yet crime rates continue to rise) GunCite-Gun Control-International Homicide Comparisons (showing that gun control isn't correlated with crime rates) GunCite-Gun Control-International Homicide and Suicide Rates (further support for that...at the 5% level, there is no significant correlation of gun ownership with homicide rates) Fifth, DC_dux, while I understand DC has a de-facto ban on guns, I'd reccomend you go out, shoot some, and learn about them. As I stated earlier, the majority opinion on supporting an AWB is supported by an underlying proposition that guns are evil. They are, in effect, no more evil than fireworks, or even chainsaws (fun or useful when used properly, deadly when misappropriated). Furthermore, an AWB will do no more but make it harder for law abiding citizens to enjoy their hobby. Finally, even if an AWB is supported by the majority population--it does not mean that it is correct. At one point, this great nation supported slavery, jim crow laws and segregation. Were those laws inherently correct because people supported them? I submit to you that they were not. Like I stated before, majority opinion, although given great weight, is not intrinsically correct as it may be based off of false beliefs. Last edited by KirStang; 12-10-2008 at 12:14 PM..

12-10-2008, 11:06 AM	#132 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	Well the more I read the closer I get to wanting some more "arms" of my own. I think I'll start with a nuclear bomb. After all when in the US I'm assured the right to bear arms. When bearing arms why not go all out and get the best? __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

12-10-2008, 01:32 PM	#138 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	so basically we should change the fundamental makeup and contract between the central government and the people because most people would rather not live up to their responsibility and shove it off on a government entity, something the framers of the constitution strived to prevent? good call. I'll stay with the radical framers of the US constitution. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

12-10-2008, 01:38 PM	#140 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	Ok, first, I am not an NRA member, and they do produce what is basically propaganda, as do most lobbying organizations. However, I have presented my case and did so without any 'help' from the NRA. I don't think it is an unreasonable conclusion to think another AWB may be right around the corner. This is because the last democratic administration emplaced a Ban, and now they are in power again and Obama is deliberately dancing around the issue without committing either way. And particularly since, as has been argued on this board, most Americans support another ban. It is a safe bet that with both public support and a supportive administration, such legislation is only a matter of time. "I'll keep it simple....there are an estimated 240+ million firearms in civilian hands in the US, a nation of 300 million people. Why the fuck do we need more?" Why not? "That being said...buy as many hand guns and sporting weapons as you want. I dont oppose that. Neither does Obama or most Americans." But hand guns are used to commit almost all firearms-related murders. Why would any 'reasonable' person who has decided to ban guns, ignore the weapons that are actually killing people and go after ones that aren't because they 'look scary'? More people in America are beaten to death every year than are killed by rifles and shotguns combined. I know it's a statistic of sorts, but it is a very basic one. Rifles, and in particular, 'assault rifles' are used in an astonishingly small number of crimes. They were also banned under the last AWB based on cosmetic, rather than functional characteristics. Where's the sense in that? "... an additional safeguard to protect children from accidentally killing themselves or friends with a gun in their home. That number may not rise to the millions, but saving a few lives or a few hundred or a few thousand is worth a mandatory child safetly lock, IMO." Ok, sell a trigger lock with every firearm. Done, problem solved, end of story. But what lawmakers are pushing for are 'smart guns' that just don't work reliably, are expensive, and are an end-run to reduce the number and types of firearms legally available. If your agenda is just to ban firearms, then have the balls to do so in a straightforward way. "..better background checks at gun shows so those felons you speak of cant purchase weapons at such locations. Will they find underground sources? Probably...but take this one source away." Ok, here's the gun show loophole: If you purchase a firearm from a private individual who is not a dealer, then the laws for personal firearms sales apply. Most states require background checks for handgun transfers, but not long guns. If you are purchasing a firearm from a dealer at a gun show, then the normal laws for purchasing a firearm from any dealer apply, with all background checks. There is no difference between purchasing a firearm from an individual in a gun-show or out in the parking lot. If you 'close the loophole' you are actually just killing gun shows because people won't bother to go through the hassle when they can purchase straight out of the Shotgun News, legally, without the extra requirements. Anybody who wouldn't be subject to a background check at a gun show can purchase a weapon through a private transaction anyways. "...many Americans, including many police and prosecutors, simply dont see the need for average citizens to own assault weapons.. your handguns and sporting weapons should suffice for any need...and banning their production and sale will ultimately limit the supply on the streets." The first part is true, they don't see the need. Thanks to the constitution they don't have to. And again, how is a semi-automatic hunting rifle materially different from a semi-automatic 'assault-rifle'? And if you limit magazine capacity again to 10 rounds, how many lives will that save? Seems to me like you can get a lot done with 10 rounds if you are a criminal. Why not go 2 rounds? "I chose to look at it as common sense approaches to public safety. And so do most Americans." Your 'commen sense' approach completely ignores the real problems and instead aims at weapons that are not typically used to commit crimes ('assault weapons') because they are expensive and can't be easily concealed. They are also the weapons that should be most strongly protected under the constitution as they are the closest to military-type rifles available to the general public. And how is amending the constitution taking away it's flexibility? I fail to see it. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence Last edited by Slims; 12-10-2008 at 01:41 PM..

12-10-2008, 10:04 AM	#126 (permalink)
KirStang Future Bureaucrat	Hmm, While it may be true that Obama shares a belief "in line" with the majority of americans--have people stopped to think that--the majority belief is inherently baloney? I can't tell you the many times I tell my classmates that I want to go shooting--only to be followed up with questions pertaining to violence. Me: "Man, I'm totally gonna go to the shooting range after I'm done w/ law school finals." Classmate: "Oh yea? Which teacher you gonna pretend the target is?" Me:....... Shooting guns is the same as shooting hoops. If you're good at it, you enjoy it. There is ABSOLUTELY NO violent attachment to them by the majority of law abiding gun owners. The violent spectre is ALWAYS INVOKED by the ignorant. I'll concede, guns can do some dastardly things. But the majority opinion that guns = bad, is driven by media, namely movies, biased media reports, false information, and the desire to sensationalize guns and resultant deaths. For example, everyone's heard about the 8yr old boy who shot himself in Massachussetts. But what about the CCW owner who stopped a bank robbery in Kentucky? Another who stopped a bank robbery in Texas? The woman home alone who staved off a burglary with a gun? The Homeowner in NY who did the same? Something to think about fellas.

12-10-2008, 01:16 PM	#136 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Bud: So I bought a gun. Mac: Oh yeah? Did someone break into your house? Bud: No. Mac: Your neighbor's house? Bud: No. Mac: Well, do you live in a high crime area? Bud: No. Mac: A medium crime area? Bud: Not really. Mac: But you feel that someone breaking into your house or attacking you is inevitable? Bud: Not necessarily. Mac: Hmmm... so it's not really for self-defense. Bud: Yes it is. I need to protect myself and my family. Mac: From whom? Bud: Criminals. Mac: But you said... Bud: Statistics don't matter. Crime can happen, therfore it will happen. Mac: That doesn't really make sense. Is there any other reason? Bud: Obama. Mac: Oh! You think the government is going to oppress you. Obama's going to go all Hitler. Bud: Yep. Mac: Like suspending Habeas Corpus? Bud: Yes. Mac: Like kidnapping innocent people? Bud: Absolutely. Mac: Like torturing Americans? Bud: Sure. Mac: Like taking our guns? Bud: Oh hell yes. Mac: Like tapping your phones and emails? Bud: Wait, they already did all those. Mac: Yeah, they did. But there was a Republican in the oval office so a vast majority of gun owners assumed everything was fine. Bud: Look, the Second Amendment gives me the right to have a gun. Mac: Sure, but it doesn't order everyone to have a gun. Bud: Yes it does, we need it in order to fight oppression. Mac: You think having a few guns means that you can stand up against the Army, Navy, Air Force, or even the Coast Guard? Bud: They won't fire on their own. Mac: They arrested Tim McVeigh and sentenced him to death without breaking a sweat. Bud: But he was a terrorist. Mac: "Terrorist" is just another word for "enemy of the state" now. And if you rebelled against the government, that's what they'd call you and that's what they'd treat you like. Bud: But there are like 50 million households with guns in the US. Believe me if we all stood up at once... Mac: But that won't happen. No one in New Orleans even tried to prevent the police from illegally taking citizen's guns during Katrina. No one drove down to Waco to stop the ATF from massacring that cult. No one attacked Guantanamo for illegally holding people without trial or torturing. The police are being militarized, being given military weapons, equipment, and training. There's even an active Army unit stationed permanently inside the US (with more on the way). No one is standing up against them. No militia is resisting. So why do you have a gun?

12-10-2008, 01:40 PM	#142 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	never mind __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

12-10-2008, 02:03 PM	#146 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	dk..I've read the Federalist papers and I assume Scalia has as well. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

12-10-2008, 03:07 PM	#151 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	dk--what original intent/strict construction does in order to compensate for the fact that as a procedure it chops off precedent as a frame for adapting the constitutional system to changing situations/times is to introduce stuff like the federalist papers and the (partial and problematic) accounts of the deliberations around the framing of the constitution itself as substitutes. that is a violation of the rules of the constitution itself. the federalist papers have no legal status--as historical documents, they're interesting--but as law, they're historical documents. the minutes of the convention are also historical documents. elevating either set of materials to boundary conditions that shape how the constitution should be interpreted amounts to a basic change in the rules of the game. i would think you'd know this, given what a Big Deal the "intent" of the framers is to you. that's why i argue that strict construction is incoherent every time it comes up. i didn't say it this time because i get tired of typing the same things over and over. but that's the crux of the argument. another way: you can't do what you'd like to do. it doesn't and cannot get off the ground. what would the consequences of it be? well first off it is the "strict" position that rests on an arbitrary definition of what is and is not relevant as boundary conditions that shape legal decisions. so the first thing that would result is a kind of conservative legal despotism masequerading as a return to "basic principles". it would be consistent if this viewpoint resulted in a considerable restriction of the role and functions of judges--it'd make them like judges are in an ideal-typical civil law system (ideal-typical because in reality, it's not like this--judges interpret)--they'd be functionaries. this because the right fears "judicial activism" which generally means latitude to interpret because latitude to interpret could result in guns being restricted and we cannot have that no no. a correlate of this is that law would have to be written in a basically different way than it currently is, and enforced much more strictly. i suppose in principle that you'd support that, but i doubt you would once the reality of this vague idea began to be felt. as to how you'd go about lining up contemporary capitalist social relations with the fantasy world of yeoman farmers...i dunno. it would not surprise me to find in a hypothetical "revolt" far right "patriots" imitating the khymer rouge. ugly stuff. hope i never have to see if i'm right. i doubt seriously i will have to see if i'm right, though, because there is and will be no revolt from the right. slims: i don't think you understood my argument about original intent/strict construction--hope this clarifies it. skip over the last paragraph...it's not important. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-10-2008, 03:19 PM	#153 (permalink)
KirStang Future Bureaucrat	Willravel, And then it turns out all your stats are not supported. So as it turns out, all that fancy talk in your hypo is BUNK. And I would never make the idiotic claim that "crimes can happen, therefore it would happen." (If you think about it, crimes do happen, they don't "can" happen...) If you want to live up to your signature, quit making hit and run, unsubstantiated claims. Go shoot and learn about guns, it'll at least remove you from the ignorant category. Last edited by KirStang; 12-10-2008 at 03:23 PM..

12-10-2008, 03:28 PM	#156 (permalink)
KirStang Future Bureaucrat	Yea, that's the thing DC_Dux. I live in Baltimore by the hospital and the law school. It's suppoed to be a nicer part of town (but it's really not). Sure, I can avoid the really bad parts of town--that doesn't prevent the bad parts of town from coming in to my area. I get one robbery/mugging alert every other week from someone heading home ("ALERT! Mugging in parking Garage!"). I used to work in DC, it's much nicer than it used to be these days. In contrast, I'd imagine Baltimore is more like what DC used to be. Everyone flees after the 5:00 pm quitting time. I had to ride the green line home late at night..you know how bad of a rep the green line has right? Edit: Yep. Placing RB on ignore.

12-10-2008, 03:41 PM	#159 (permalink)
KirStang Future Bureaucrat	Willravel, First, I was editting when you responded, so I apologize if it seems like I went back to edit. Second, it's stupid to place the burden of proof on me, when you made the argument. Third, I just disproved your statistic: Population of Detroit - 860,971 Violent Crime rate - 19,708 Chance of violent crime - 1/43.6 VERY FAR from 1/375 as your hypothetical conversation stated. As such, those hypothetical conversations are all suspect. Table 8 (Michigan) - Crime in the United States 2007 I rest my case. Last edited by KirStang; 12-10-2008 at 03:47 PM..

12-10-2008, 03:43 PM	#160 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	so what exactly does that string of decontextualized numbers mean? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite