Derwood

And another part of the problem is that you 2nd Amendment people always assume that's what our intentions are

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

Cimarron29414

You are perfectly welcome to submit where you want to see the line, Derwood. I'm making no assumptions. I'm not debating until I know with whom I am engaged.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

Derwood

I'm personally anti-gun, but the country is to big and the borders too porous for any real gun control measures to succeed.

I respect the 2nd Amendment, but I find it hard to make the leap that the founders would feel the same about today's weapons that they did about those of their time. The Constitution was written at a time of muskets and single shot pistols. Stating unconditionally that they'd feel the same way about 33 round magazines and automatic weapons (etc., etc.)

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

StanT

The problem with 2nd amendment folks is that they see the issue as black and white / all or nothing. I've lived with some certifiable "gun nuts", I'm pretty damned indifferent to gun ownership, in general. There is clearly an escalating issue with gun violence and an absolute refusal to even discuss the issue among 2nd amendment folks. I also find it intellectually dishonest to continually quote the portion of the second amendment that you like, while ignoring it's qualifying clause.

The situation in Arizona doesn't happen without a gun. Mental health is the problem, but he's lucky to kill a single targeted person with a knife or baseball bat. Guns aren't the problem, but their easy access to criminals and/or insane is a problem.

dksuddeth

the framers wrote the constitution with the idea that the people could always retain power over the central government, especially with their experience that a standing army was the bane to liberty. They also grudgingly agreed that a standing army was necessary for defense, but that the people should be as well armed as that standing army to maintain their liberty.

you find it hard to make that leap simply because you are anti gun and are unable to accept that the framers believed that the people should always be more powerful than the government.

---------- Post added at 05:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:47 PM ----------

the 'well regulated militia' consists of 'we the people'. as George Mason said, "who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers."

it's not the national guard and it's not law enforcement.

__________________
"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."

Willravel

If I could go back in time and un-invent guns, I would. Short of that, I know it's impossible to eliminate gun ownership. It will never happen.

The line is necessity. What's necessary for home defense and hunting? Balance that with what's necessary to ensure that criminals can't be too well armed. Does an extended clip mean your home or person is safer than normal clips? Does it mean more efficient or effective hunting? Or is it more deaths and injuries at a shooting? Do you need an automatic rifle to defend your house from common criminals or to take down a buck?

KirStang

I agree access is the issue. But when it comes to magazine capacity, it's as if the government is limiting the speed limit to 30mph for EVERYONE because ONE nut drove his SUV through a crowded market at 80 mph.

Another point, Self and home defense or hunting is what is palatable for the average joe--pointing out the second amendment's prefatory 'necessary to the security of a free state,' as well as the common meaning of the term 'militia' illuminates the true meaning of the second amendment--as another check and balance against government and over concentration of power. I know this sounds like tin-foil hattery, but under a plain meaning as well as how the militia operated back then (grabbing the household rifle and heading out), this would justify the need for 30 round magazines and fully auto weapons--to fight tyranny or foreign invasion (not impossible back then.)

Another point to consider, people claim that people only had muskets back then, true, but back then people communicated by mail and about the only mass media was newspaper. Nowadays, with television, internet, and cell phones, we still honor the first amendment no matter the form. Saying that the founders did not envision magazine fed automatic weapons and thus invalidates the second amendment is the same as saying the founders did not envision the internet and thus statements made through the internet are not protected by the first amendment.

Regardless, this thread is way derailed now. I just agree that I do not like mentally unstable people easily obtaining firearms. Now how to narrowly tailor such a rule will be the challenge faced as Second Amendment jurisprudence develops.

__________________

roachboy

from a logical viewpoint--putting aside what i regard as static from the strict construction folks----it seems to me that attempting to "keep guns from criminals" is less effective than across the board gun controls simply because criminal is an ex post facto category---there is no criminal until a crime has been committed, a process, a conviction etc.---and no amount of criminological/cj profiling or modeling is going to isolate any group or class of people who **will be** or even **might** be criminal because of the above. and it's not illegal to intend to commit a crime if you don't commit it. so you can't determine, you cant know---you can't impute essence to a class or group of people (short of being an outright fascist)...so you're always chasing, always behind.

across the board controls seem more logical.
demonstrations for the efficacy of such controls are simple enough if you look at international crime rates/types/levels of violence and so forth.
and there is an extensive industry of lobbyists and others who are interested in creating as much noise as possible around causal statements because they stand to loose politically (and by extension monetarily) if they loose the fight over gun control.

but i think the argument could be made that it is socially and ethically desirable that feer guns be available to fewer people.

and this is not to even begin to touch the appalling role of the united states in international small arms trafficking and the consequences of that---and entirely different discussion---except insofar as it indicates the extent to which the small arms producers are altogether too free of restrictions.


insofar as tucson is concerned, gun control questions are independent of mental health treatment/options and screening for them...both should be funded. maybe if conservatives could be less fixated on streaming obscene levels of resources into making weapon systems that kill people in great number....but i digress.

i'm not sure that i articulated the main argument with adequate clarity...gearing controls around preventing criminals from getting them is always chasing...it seems to me the wrong kind of argument, something set up to fail.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dksuddeth

curiosity, if guns could be made non-existent, what would you consider the best defense to a free state.

not that it happens often, but in the case of a home invasion by multiple armed invaders, that extended clip might make the difference between life and death in avoiding to have to reload after 10 rounds. The need for an automatic weapon is self evident, if one considers that the 2nd Amendment was intended to ensure that the people could stand up to a regular army.

hunting or sporting purposes has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

__________________
"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."

StanT

I agree; but that means that "well regulated" applies to everyone.

Willravel

Against other people without guns? Numbers, I suppose. Conquering America would be impractical without guns, so I wouldn't really worry about it.

I want you to imagine a world where the government had no guns, dk. Think about that.
Can you name a real life instance of an extended clip meaning the difference between life and death against a criminal?
Yeah, but it's a practical use for a gun and it's important for this militia to stay well regulated and all that.

pan6467

Why not just have another oxymoron for the government "The War on Guns" lol it'll be as successful as the "War on Drugs". We'll see the deficit quadruple and more people owning because the black market will be busier than ever.

My point is, you will NEVER be able to keep guns out of people's hands, and yes, some of those people WILL be head cases. Those people will always get their gun, the innocent law abiding Joe just wanting to defend himself and his family and property, will then be unable to get a gun for the right reasons. I truly can't see middle ground here.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

rahl

to me, the focus on the extended magazine or legislation to limit magazine capacity is nothing more than a feel good measure. A skilled shooter can shoot 30 rounds using 2, 15 round magazines with less than a seconds difference than a single 30 round magazine. So, limiting magazine capacity is pointless.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

StanT

A smart, skilled shooter would have used a 50 cal sniper rifle and probably got away.

I have seen no evidence of skill here. Just a deranged guy with some firepower.

I have no idea if 30 round clips have any bearing. What I do see is a complete unwillingness to discuss what is reasonable. The pro-gun stand seems to be "any weapon, anybody, anywhere", I really don't buy the non-existence of a middle ground.

roachboy

so long as the debate is framed as if "the law abiding citizen" is entitled to any weapon and ammunition in any amount with any means of delivery at all then there is no middle ground. i think that's the point of the politics of framing around this debate. the gun lobby has no institutional interest in there being a middle ground because they see that as possible defeat for them, with attending losses of revenue. the approach would have to be that fewer weapons available that are more difficult to get is a socially desirable goal in itself and those tighter across-the-board controls be implemented.

but i agree that there seems to be no middle ground at the moment.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dksuddeth

I do. alot. police kill about 30-35 people a month. imagine 300-350 more people being alive if police were disarmed.

the point is not to prove it's happened, just that the possibility is there.

lots of tools have practical uses. Why aren't you well regulated?

---------- Post added at 06:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:48 AM ----------

why should there be a middle ground? when you have to bargain with that which you already have, you're going to lose in the end.

and kudos to you for keeping up with goebbels and the gun lobby revenue myth.

__________________
"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."

Derwood

Can't we agree, though, that no amount of armament by the citizens has any chance AT ALL to stand up to the government/army at this point? Sure, you could stand in front of your house and fire into the soldiers standing outside our door, but about 5 seconds later, your house would be a pile of dust.

The idea that a) the US Government would ever declare war on its own citizens and b) that the citizens could reasonably fight back are both fiction of the highest order

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

KirStang

YouTube Beating: Richmond, VA Beating Posted to YouTube - wtvr

---------- Post added at 09:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:38 AM ----------

It's called an insurgency.

See i.e. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Mexico, Colombia.

__________________

Cimarron29414

I appreciate your honesty, and while you took offense at my "assumption" it seems like it was more accurate than not. willravel, the creator of the thread, has also conceded he is entirely anti-gun. This furthers my point as to why it's a challenge to engage in an honest compromising debate.

And to roachboys point, the trouble with "middle ground" as we've seen with those who are anti-gun is that this extended magazine fight is simply a battle in a larger war (pardon the violent rhetoric). To continue the metaphor, very rarely is it an effective strategy to lose a battle in order to win a war. Rather, it's more effective to attempt to win every battle. Since we are "at war" with those who really want to magically wipe guns off the face of the earth, it makes it more difficult to even engage in compromise because one knows their intent and desired end game. It isn't as if it will end with the destruction of 33rd magazines. Then it will be 19 rd magazines, then 17, then 15, then 13, 12, 10...some anti-gunner somewhere will always see a problem with the number of rounds a person can carry in a loaded firearm - because the realization is that, to them, even one round is too many. So, why concede even one denomination to those who seek to eliminate all of them?

There was one and only one failure in the system which caused the Tuscon incident - his parents. They absolutely knew their son had mental health issues and they did not address those issues. They stuck their head in the sand and allowed their son to kill those people. I'm sure they feel tremendous guilt over that fact, in retrospect. The only lesson to be learned here is that you have a responsibility to society to steward your loved ones who are mentally ill, even if it is uncomfortable or embarrassing.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

Baraka_Guru

With all due respect, Loughner's mental health issues were mainly (if not entirely) late onset in his late teen years. This would mean that his parents aren't the only ones who could have (or maybe should have) addressed the issue. He probably spent more of his waking time around teachers and friends. And what about health professionals? What about Loughner himself?

It's easy to pin blame. The difficult thing is to learn from the incident instead and to think how many can play some part in preventing such things.


* * * * *

So, to recap:

Where do criminals get guns?

Wherever they can.

How can we stop them?

We can't.

Does this just about sum it up?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Cimarron29414

bg-

My understanding is that his parents received a letter from his college stating that he could not return until he had a mental health evaluation. They did not do that. All of these "other people" that you feel also dropped the ball did not have the legal authority to push for mental health treatment. I don't know the laws in Arizona, but involuntary committal authority, if available, isn't given to a person's teacher. However, if available, it would be given to his parents who were also the owners of the house he lived and slept in. Again, I place their negligence equal to the Columbine killers' parents.

...and it seems all too easy for many here to "pin blame" on a firearm or its magazine.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

roachboy

the objective should be to reduce gun violence.
none of the absolutist arguments regard "natural law" or fantasies about "what the framers thought" mean anything in the face of that.
that's why the gun lobby cannot afford to allow a debate on rational grounds about the topic---if they loose the framing they loose completely. because they can't defend levels of gun violence.

arguments for reducing gun violence are not about "magically wiping guns off the face of the earth" or any other loopy canard brought to you in the interest of obscuring the issue and hamstringing debate courtesy of the nra and their subsidiaries organizations working in the cesspool of militia-based neo-fascism.

the argument for reducing gun violence is that the levels tolerated in the united states are not acceptable. even a rudimentary comparison between american numbers and that of almost any other country show a clear correlation between making guns less easily available and reductions in gun-related violence.

guns don't make you free. you aren't free now but many of you have guns. look around. you live in a financial oligarchy and you have a gun. you live under a single party state with two right wings and you have a gun. you live in a fading empire, you can do nothing about anything to do with either the empire or the ways in which it is fading and you have a gun. wake up.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

rahl

my point was that magazine capacity is irrelevant. and, type of gun is also irrelevant. he could have done the same thing with a .22 pistol. so, banning automatic weapons and high capacity magazines would have had no effect at all on the outcome of the arizona shooting.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

Cimarron29414

Wait a minute, rb, I simply restated Will's remark, "If I could go back in time and un-invent guns, I would." Don't put that on me as some "loopy canard." That's on your side, brother.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

Baraka_Guru

My point is that simply blaming his parents tends to absolve virtually everyone else in a situation that could have very well been influenced by someone other than his parents. I don't know much about his home situation. For all I know he could have been completely estranged from them. (And, for the record, I don't blame the firearm, nor its magazine.)

I also don't know the laws and whether his parents had legal recourse. Was he not an adult at the time? I also don't know anything about the level of understanding his parents had about mental health issues and the options that were available to them.

It's also evident that Loughner himself, as an adult, didn't seek help on his own.

Anyway, Loughner wasn't exactly a criminal until he started pulling the trigger. In how many situations is this the case? It's not that criminals get guns; it's that they already have them.

What about economies of scale? Are guns really cheap in the U.S.?

I suppose my general position on this is that there isn't a huge impact on what gun control means in terms of criminal elements. There are gun laws here in Canada that I'm sure make many Americans squirm. However, the criminal elements here have guns they shouldn't have. They probably get many of them from the States.

I view this issue as addressing symptoms, rather than problems.

The problem with crime isn't all the guns. That's an outcome. The biggest problems leading to crime are poverty, social disadvantage, educational deficiency, and mental health issues (including addiction). As you can guess, many of these are interconnected.

Rather than institute a federal-level gun-control policy in the U.S., they should establish or improve national standards regarding public health care, social assistance, quality education, and accessible mental health services. For those that are in place already, they clearly need to be revised or reformed.

Considering it's the wealthiest nation in the world, the U.S. has serious deficiencies regarding these issues.

To fight poverty alone is to fight crime.

---------- Post added at 10:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:43 AM ----------

This is opening another can of worms, but, yeah.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dksuddeth

no, we can't agree. unless you think it likely that the government would drop a MOAB on a neighborhood uprising, but if that were the case, shouldn't we then be allowed bombers and MOABs?

__________________
"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."

StanT

Do you really want to make a case that the outcome would have been exactly the same if he obtained an Uzi?

We've always had weapons control and always will. Bill Gates can't buy his own ICBM, Warren Buffett can't buy Stinger missiles, and most of use can't own an automatic weapon. You can argue forever where the appropriate line is; but it seems to be an issue that the gun lobby totally rejects.

Where is the appropriate delineation between military only weapons and those reasonable for a well regulated militia?

Cimarron29414

... edited because I don't want to continue this debate. Sorry.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

KirStang

Who's living in a fantasy world, huh?

US Murders Per Capita:0.042802 per 1,000 people
England Murders Per Capita: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people
New Zealand Murders Per Capita: 0.0111524 per 1,000 people
Switzerland Murders Per Capita: 0.00921351 per 1,000 people


Murders (per capita) statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

Notice that guns are *very* liberally owned in Switzerland.

Gun politics in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Relatively liberal in New Zealand

Gun politics in New Zealand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Strictly regulated in England

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics


It's blithely ignorant to state that "Guns cause violence." Which may or may not be empirically borne out absent a controlled study. I challenge you to point out such a study to me before making another conclusion along the lines of "Anyone can attribute our high crime rate in the US to gun ownership."

Consider things like cultural clashes, more immigrants, a capitalist system, a lack of social safety net, economy and other factors before jumping to guns, because making such a claim is just damn ignorant.

__________________

dksuddeth

sure it's defensible. This is the price of freedom. The framers knew this and preferred it to the tyranny they'd been experiencing.


i have a gun, nobody gets to tell me what i can and can't do. I'd say that's freedom.

__________________
"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."

roachboy

kirstang--i don't recall making the primitive causal argument that you impute to me, nor is that argument necessary for the comparative numbers to be problematic for your position.

if you want to play the data game, i can do that.

btw i am not in the least interested in sophomoric debate tactics ("i know you said nothing like this but it's easier for me to make my little point if i just act as though you did...and maybe if i use some adjective like "blithe" it'll be less apparent a cheap bait and switch because it implies attitude.") don't bother.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

KirStang

..

__________________

Baraka_Guru

I'd say that's anarchy.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dksuddeth

not at all. most people at least have morals, ethics, and know right from wrong. Anarchy would be when those that don't care about right and wrong are the only ones with guns.

__________________
"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."

Baraka_Guru

Anarchy doesn't imply a lack of morals and ethics; it's a lack of government or state authority.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dksuddeth

who's the sovereign power of the USA, the people or the government?

__________________
"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."

Willravel

I don't care for guns. I find that, in these pre-revolution times, they're much more trouble than they're worth. They make it too easy to kill, to easy to fundamentally change the balance of power between individuals. They are a tyranny of sorts. If you have a gun and I do not, you can have a great deal of power over me. Perhaps I've got a little libertarian in me because I don't like it when people can get power over me that they didn't earn. While I trust you personally with that power because I think I know you, I don't know everyone with a gun enough to trust them.

To answer your question more directly, I'm not well-regulated with a gun because a gun isn't the difference between liberty and tyranny. There are two things that one needs to be that line of defense: the ability to discern when the last line has been crossed and the willingness to fight. I suspect I have these, but we won't know until when and if that line is crossed. I look to places like Tunisia and Egypt to see what that line is and who has that willingness.

Baraka_Guru

Let's not stray too far from your statement. You said nobody can tell you what you can and can't do, which is false. It would be more accurate to say: "Outside of the law, nobody gets to tell me what I can and can't do. However, if I choose to defy the law, I must be face the consequences."

So I suppose you are free in that you can choose whether or not to obey the law. However, you aren't so free of the consequences.

Whether or not this requires a gun is another matter.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dksuddeth

while I applaud you for your pacifism, it's not your (or anyone elses) prerogative to demand that I remain defenseless as well.

this would be an opinion, not a fact.

---------- Post added at 12:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:05 PM ----------

Even within the so called law, I still have the choice to submit or remain free. Especially if the law is so blatantly violative of the constitution or my rights.

__________________
"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."

Baraka_Guru

Yes, I more or less suggested this. What you will never be free of, however, are the consequences.

Anyway, I don't suppose I'd expect you submit to such laws as prima nocta or anything. I just wanted to point out to you that your statement was conditional.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot