Obama: Dont stock up on guns - Page 6 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dksuddeth · 12-11-2008, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

You can't smoke in a preschool; you can't drive your motorcycle through a shopping mall; and you can't go to a ball game without your pants on. You see, this is what some of us are getting at: You have rights to certain things, but there are reasonable limits. (And they aren't merely "as long as you don't infringe on others' rights.") You have the right to private property, but you cannot own certain materials that are banned from private ownership (specifically due to risk of public danger). This isn't an infringement on property rights; it's about reasonable restrictions.

They aren't trying to take all the guns away; they're merely limiting the availability of certain firearms. And, as has been mentioned more than once here, most Americans support that.

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?

Derwood · 12-11-2008, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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....

dksuddeth · 12-11-2008, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

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?

Derwood · 12-11-2008, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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

Baraka_Guru · 12-11-2008, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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

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?

ring · 12-11-2008, 08:40 AM

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

dksuddeth · 12-11-2008, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

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

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-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

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?

hell yes I am.

roachboy · 12-11-2008, 08:49 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...)

Baraka_Guru · 12-11-2008, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

hell yes I am.

Weird...I don't feel oppressed.

dksuddeth · 12-11-2008, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

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...)

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-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Weird...I don't feel oppressed.

so because you don't, i shouldn't either? how liberal of you. thanks.

Derwood · 12-11-2008, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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.

um, that's not how things work.

Baraka_Guru · 12-11-2008, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

so because you don't, i shouldn't either? how liberal of you. thanks.

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?

dksuddeth · 12-11-2008, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

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.

Rekna · 12-11-2008, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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.

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

dksuddeth · 12-11-2008, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

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

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-...ml#post2542922

KirStang · 12-11-2008, 10:24 AM

Mexican jewelry store 'hit.'

LiveLeak.com - 23 seconds of the Mexican drug war

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

dksuddeth · 12-11-2008, 10:34 AM

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.

Walt · 12-11-2008, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirStang

Mexican jewelry store 'hit.'

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.

powerclown · 12-11-2008, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

you'd think that there'd be no real basis for opposing locally divergent degrees and types of gun control.

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.

Rekna · 12-11-2008, 11:10 AM

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).

roachboy · 12-11-2008, 11:17 AM

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.

Walt · 12-11-2008, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

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.

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.

Rekna · 12-11-2008, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak

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.

KirStang · 12-11-2008, 12:21 PM

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

Quote:

From the UK? "If each of us carried a gun"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An insightful article this week from across the pond

"Think tank: If each of us carried a gun we could help to combat terrorism

The firearms massacres that have periodically caused shock and horror around the world have been dwarfed by the Mumbai shootings, in which a handful of gunmen left some 500 people killed or wounded.

For anybody who still believed in it, the Mumbai shootings exposed the myth of “gun control”. India had some of the strictest firearms laws in the world, going back to the Indian Arms Act of 1878, by which Britain had sought to prevent a recurrence of the Indian Mutiny.

The guns used in last week’s Bombay massacre were all “prohibited weapons” under Indian law, just as they are in Britain. In this country we have seen the irrelevance of such bans (handgun crime, for instance, doubled here within five years of the prohibition of legal pistol ownership), but the largely drug-related nature of most extreme violence here has left most of us with a sheltered awareness of the threat. We have not yet faced a determined and broad-based attack.

The Mumbai massacre also exposed the myth that arming the police force guarantees security. Sebastian D’Souza, a picture editor on the Mumbai Mirror who took some of the dramatic pictures of the assault on the Chhatrapati Shivaji railway station, was angered to find India’s armed police taking cover and apparently failing to engage the gunmen.

In Britain we might recall the prolonged failure of armed police to contain the Hungerford killer, whose rampage lasted more than four hours, and who in the end shot himself. In Dunblane, too, it was the killer who ended his own life: even at best, police response is almost always belated when gunmen are on the loose. One might think, too, of the McDonald’s massacre in San Ysidro, California, in 1984, where the Swat team waited for their leader (who was held up in a traffic jam) while 21 unarmed diners were murdered.

Rhetoric about standing firm against terrorists aside, in Britain we have no more legal deterrent to prevent an armed assault than did the people of Mumbai, and individually we would be just as helpless as victims. The Mumbai massacre could happen in London tomorrow; but probably it could not have happened to Londoners 100 years ago.

In January 1909 two such anarchists, lately come from an attempt to blow up the president of France, tried to commit a robbery in north London, armed with automatic pistols. Edwardian Londoners, however, shot back – and the anarchists were pursued through the streets by a spontaneous hue-and-cry. The police, who could not find the key to their own gun cupboard, borrowed at least four pistols from passers-by, while other citizens armed with revolvers and shotguns preferred to use their weapons themselves to bring the assailants down.

Today we are probably more shocked at the idea of so many ordinary Londoners carrying guns in the street than we are at the idea of an armed robbery. But the world of Conan Doyle’s Dr Watson, pocketing his revolver before he walked the London streets, was real. The arming of the populace guaranteed rather than disturbed the peace.

That armed England existed within living memory; but it is now so alien to our expectations that it has become a foreign country. Our image of an armed society is conditioned instead by America: or by what we imagine we know about America. It is a skewed image, because (despite the Second Amendment) until recently in much of the US it has been illegal to bear arms outside the home or workplace; and therefore only people willing to defy the law have carried weapons.

In the past two decades the enactment of “right to carry” legislation in the majority of states, and the issue of permits for the carrying of concealed firearms to citizens of good repute, has brought a radical change. Opponents of the right to bear arms predicted that right to carry would cause blood to flow in the streets, but the reverse has been true: violent crime in America has plummeted.

There are exceptions: Virginia Tech, the site of the 2007 massacre of 32 people, was one local “gun-free zone” that forbade the bearing of arms even to those with a licence to carry.

In Britain we are not yet ready to recall the final liberty of the subject listed by William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England as underpinning all others: “The right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.” We would still not be ready to do so were the Mumbai massacre to happen in London tomorrow.

“Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India,” Mahatma Gandhi said, “history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.” The Mumbai massacre is a bitter postscript to Gandhi’s comment. D’Souza now laments his own helplessness in the face of the killers: “I only wish I had had a gun rather than a camera.”

dksuddeth · 12-11-2008, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

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.

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

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.

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

Walt · 12-11-2008, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

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 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-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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

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.

dksuddeth · 12-11-2008, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak

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.

Walt · 12-11-2008, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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.

Derwood · 12-11-2008, 02:15 PM

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-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirStang

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

[citation needed]

Rekna · 12-11-2008, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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?

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.

scout · 12-11-2008, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

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]

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.

Walt · 12-11-2008, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

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?

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

Rekna · 12-11-2008, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak

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

So is Plaxaco being charged with that also?

roachboy · 12-11-2008, 03:43 PM

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.

dksuddeth · 12-11-2008, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

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-----

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

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.

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.

KirStang · 12-11-2008, 04:03 PM

Hee hee.

dksuddeth · 12-11-2008, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirStang

Hee hee.

disregard

Plan9 · 12-11-2008, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

This isn't an infringement on property rights; it's about reasonable restrictions.

They aren't trying to take all the guns away; they're merely limiting the availability of certain firearms.

+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.

dksuddeth · 12-11-2008, 04:16 PM

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.

Plan9 · 12-11-2008, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak

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

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.

12-11-2008, 08:49 AM	#208 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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...) __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-11-2008, 10:34 AM	#217 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	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. __________________ "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."

12-11-2008, 11:17 AM	#221 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-11-2008, 03:43 PM	#234 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 12-11-2008 at 03:48 PM..

12-11-2008, 04:03 PM	#236 (permalink)
KirStang Future Bureaucrat	Hee hee. Last edited by KirStang; 12-11-2008 at 04:06 PM..

12-11-2008, 08:40 AM	#206 (permalink)
ring ░ Location: ❤	I just dropped a valium bomb on all of us....

12-11-2008, 11:10 AM	#220 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	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).

12-11-2008, 04:16 PM	#239 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	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. __________________ "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."