The Big Gun Control Thread

Nekroman wrote:
lostlobster wrote:
The Conformist wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:
Nekroman wrote:
lostlobster wrote:
The Conformist wrote:
ruhk wrote:
lostlobster wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:
lostlobster wrote:

And as for the government having an unfair advantage in case of an armed uprising... I'm pretty sure that all their drones, jets, tanks, RPGs, etc. constitute a pretty good advantage that a few semi-automatics just aren't going to counteract.

I emphatically disagree. It is a well-established fact that the only thing that keeps the government in check is that a man in Kentucky who goes by the moniker "Skeeter" has a collection of .22 rifles. Without this patriot, democracy as we know it would come tumbling down into tyranny.

Well "Skeeter" is a special case. Makes a mean BBQ as well, from what I hear.

Actually, his name is Earl.

But yes, the argument that people need guns to protect themselves from the government is patently ridiculous. I'm sure the guy sitting in an office 3000 miles away controlling a drone is terribly frightened by Earl's semi-auto surrogate penis.

I don't think that is ridiculous at all. Granted as stated before we will probably never reach a point where that's going to happen, but I can see that as a great reason to own one. It's a small part of a pie that keeps this country a free one, to not be afraid of your government controlling what you do. Of course in history most government control came slow and took years of sweet talking so that people didn't even know what was happening before it was too late. As per the video I posted earlier.

Please explain how owning a gun helps keep this country free.

Having your government take away something that you have makes me feel less free.

Having so many gun owners with assault style rifles makes me feel less free.

The situation just isn't black and white. You can't simply remove guns from the equation completely without criminals taking advantage of the situation, especially in our country. Do we need to crack down on these shootings, absolutely. I say we focus more on the mental stability side of things rather than what their weapon of choice is.

Why do people persist on promoting this idea that the government is coming to take away all your guns? It seems like we're not even having the same conversation.

But, seriously, I still don't understand how an individual owning a gun makes our country more free. And I think it's very telling that the answers to this so far are about how people, as individuals, FEEL about their guns. The conversation has to be about what's best for all of us in the country, not an individual's feelings.

Let's say there's a stretch of road and the legal speed limit is 50 miles an hour. And, over time there have been several accidents. Lives have been lost. Cars wrecked. It's obviously a dangerous stretch of road at that speed. So it's decided that the speed limit should be lowered to 35. Does that make drivers on that road less "free"? I suppose you could look at it that way. You might miss those late night drives home, tearing around that corner as the mist on the road swirls around you. Or you could look at it that it was decided it would be good for everyone if that speed limit changed.

The idea is to change the laws to make more people safe. The argument needs to be about how to best do that. Sure, mental health awareness needs to be part of it. But more can be done.

Actually if we went by your logic on the subject we would not have cars anymore right?

Yeah, you're going to have to explain about how a conversation about speed limits means that we should abandon all cars.

Guns, like cars, are here to stay. Laws about the kinds and uses of the guns sold, and the useage of cars might change. There's nothing wrong with that. It's one of the things government is for.

Nekroman wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

I just think it is a pretty shallow definition of freedom and patriotism if having a gun is the only thing that defines them.

It's not just that, if we give up any of the rights we have in our Constitution then who is to say we would not end up giving up more rights?

I just don't buy the argument that the current level of gun ownership/type of gun ownership is what the founders had in mind, and what the Constitution intends.

To be clear, I have come around on ownership to be much more like Edwin. I am uncomfortable with them, but I think that as long as they are clearly regulated and we have background checks with a registry, I don't oppose them. That is me compromising what I once believed.

Nekroman wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

I just think it is a pretty shallow definition of freedom and patriotism if having a gun is the only thing that defines them.

It's not just that, if we give up any of the rights we have in our Constitution then who is to say we would not end up giving up more rights?

Because logic.

lostlobster wrote:
The Conformist wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:
Nekroman wrote:
lostlobster wrote:
The Conformist wrote:
ruhk wrote:
lostlobster wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:
lostlobster wrote:

And as for the government having an unfair advantage in case of an armed uprising... I'm pretty sure that all their drones, jets, tanks, RPGs, etc. constitute a pretty good advantage that a few semi-automatics just aren't going to counteract.

I emphatically disagree. It is a well-established fact that the only thing that keeps the government in check is that a man in Kentucky who goes by the moniker "Skeeter" has a collection of .22 rifles. Without this patriot, democracy as we know it would come tumbling down into tyranny.

Well "Skeeter" is a special case. Makes a mean BBQ as well, from what I hear.

Actually, his name is Earl.

But yes, the argument that people need guns to protect themselves from the government is patently ridiculous. I'm sure the guy sitting in an office 3000 miles away controlling a drone is terribly frightened by Earl's semi-auto surrogate penis.

I don't think that is ridiculous at all. Granted as stated before we will probably never reach a point where that's going to happen, but I can see that as a great reason to own one. It's a small part of a pie that keeps this country a free one, to not be afraid of your government controlling what you do. Of course in history most government control came slow and took years of sweet talking so that people didn't even know what was happening before it was too late. As per the video I posted earlier.

Please explain how owning a gun helps keep this country free.

Having your government take away something that you have makes me feel less free.

Having so many gun owners with assault style rifles makes me feel less free.

The situation just isn't black and white. You can't simply remove guns from the equation completely without criminals taking advantage of the situation, especially in our country. Do we need to crack down on these shootings, absolutely. I say we focus more on the mental stability side of things rather than what their weapon of choice is.

Why do people persist on promoting this idea that the government is coming to take away all your guns? It seems like we're not even having the same conversation.

But, seriously, I still don't understand how an individual owning a gun makes our country more free. And I think it's very telling that the answers to this so far are about how people, as individuals, FEEL about their guns. The conversation has to be about what's best for all of us in the country, not an individual's feelings.

Let's say there's a stretch of road and the legal speed limit is 50 miles an hour. And, over time there have been several accidents. Lives have been lost. Cars wrecked. It's obviously a dangerous stretch of road at that speed. So it's decided that the speed limit should be lowered to 35. Does that make drivers on that road less "free"? I suppose you could look at it that way. You might miss those late night drives home, tearing around that corner as the mist on the road swirls around you. Or you could look at it that it was decided it would be good for everyone if that speed limit changed.

The idea is to change the laws to make more people safe. The argument needs to be about how to best do that. Sure, mental health awareness needs to be part of it. But more can be done.

It's just a small part of our many many freedoms here in this country. It is not the end all be all when it comes to freedom, but who's to say it wouldn't be the small start of a country that starts losing the right to actually own something that we can use for hobbies, or recreational purposes? Hunting, skeet shooting and the like? Right now the government is looking into whether or not violent games cause children to grow up all crazy and mean. How would you feel if they just completely abolished ANY violence in games? Or if they told you what is proper for you or your child to play? And in the car/road comparison the thing in question would be the vehicle not the road. So naturally vehicles would be regulated and or abolished.

Funkenpants wrote:
ranalin wrote:

2. It's interesting that all the people shouting 'freedom' over the gun laws were quiet over the new 'anti-terrorist' laws that actually do put us closer to a police state.

I think that's just because they assume that anti-terror laws will be used against other people.

The venn diagram of the freedom fighters who want control over female bodies, and over whom men and women can love/marry gets interesting.

lostlobster wrote:

Why do people persist on promoting this idea that the government is coming to take away all your guns? It seems like we're not even having the same conversation.

Because the NRA persists in pushing it, because it sells more guns. They keep pushing their memes and outright lies to the unstable, because they buy. Dealing with the mental stability side should start there.

Yeah TF2 would only be fun for so long without weapons. I could only chase you guys around spanking you with my hat for so long.

ranalin wrote:

2. It's interesting that all the people shouting 'freedom' over the gun laws were quiet over the new 'anti-terrorist' laws that actually do put us closer to a police state.

I think that's just because they assume that anti-terror laws will be used against other people.

lostlobster wrote:

Guns, like cars, are here to stay. Laws about the kinds and uses of the guns sold, and the useage of cars might change.

Right. Whatever people on the left may want to do about a total ban on guns, it's not going to happen. We can talk about theories of what could happen if guns were banned - less violence (left) or tyranny (right) perhaps - but it's got nothing to do with political reality.

boogle wrote:
Nekroman wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

I just think it is a pretty shallow definition of freedom and patriotism if having a gun is the only thing that defines them.

It's not just that, if we give up any of the rights we have in our Constitution then who is to say we would not end up giving up more rights?

Because logic.

btw is that your picture boogle?

The Conformist wrote:
lostlobster wrote:
The Conformist wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:
Nekroman wrote:
lostlobster wrote:
The Conformist wrote:
ruhk wrote:
lostlobster wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:
lostlobster wrote:

And as for the government having an unfair advantage in case of an armed uprising... I'm pretty sure that all their drones, jets, tanks, RPGs, etc. constitute a pretty good advantage that a few semi-automatics just aren't going to counteract.

I emphatically disagree. It is a well-established fact that the only thing that keeps the government in check is that a man in Kentucky who goes by the moniker "Skeeter" has a collection of .22 rifles. Without this patriot, democracy as we know it would come tumbling down into tyranny.

Well "Skeeter" is a special case. Makes a mean BBQ as well, from what I hear.

Actually, his name is Earl.

But yes, the argument that people need guns to protect themselves from the government is patently ridiculous. I'm sure the guy sitting in an office 3000 miles away controlling a drone is terribly frightened by Earl's semi-auto surrogate penis.

I don't think that is ridiculous at all. Granted as stated before we will probably never reach a point where that's going to happen, but I can see that as a great reason to own one. It's a small part of a pie that keeps this country a free one, to not be afraid of your government controlling what you do. Of course in history most government control came slow and took years of sweet talking so that people didn't even know what was happening before it was too late. As per the video I posted earlier.

Please explain how owning a gun helps keep this country free.

Having your government take away something that you have makes me feel less free.

Having so many gun owners with assault style rifles makes me feel less free.

The situation just isn't black and white. You can't simply remove guns from the equation completely without criminals taking advantage of the situation, especially in our country. Do we need to crack down on these shootings, absolutely. I say we focus more on the mental stability side of things rather than what their weapon of choice is.

Why do people persist on promoting this idea that the government is coming to take away all your guns? It seems like we're not even having the same conversation.

But, seriously, I still don't understand how an individual owning a gun makes our country more free. And I think it's very telling that the answers to this so far are about how people, as individuals, FEEL about their guns. The conversation has to be about what's best for all of us in the country, not an individual's feelings.

Let's say there's a stretch of road and the legal speed limit is 50 miles an hour. And, over time there have been several accidents. Lives have been lost. Cars wrecked. It's obviously a dangerous stretch of road at that speed. So it's decided that the speed limit should be lowered to 35. Does that make drivers on that road less "free"? I suppose you could look at it that way. You might miss those late night drives home, tearing around that corner as the mist on the road swirls around you. Or you could look at it that it was decided it would be good for everyone if that speed limit changed.

The idea is to change the laws to make more people safe. The argument needs to be about how to best do that. Sure, mental health awareness needs to be part of it. But more can be done.

It's just a small part of our many many freedoms here in this country. It is not the end all be all when it comes to freedom, but who's to say it wouldn't be the small start of a country that starts losing the right to actually own something that we can use for hobbies, or recreational purposes? Hunting, skeet shooting and the like? Right now the government is looking into whether or not violent games cause children to grow up all crazy and mean. How would you feel if they just completely abolished ANY violence in games? Or if they told you what is proper for you or your child to play? And in the car/road comparison the thing in question would be the vehicle not the road. So naturally vehicles would be regulated and or abolished.

You're arguing nonsense. The ultimate extrapolation of your argument is that the government should never make any laws or change any previous laws because FREEDOMS!!!!!!!

Also, how does a majority of people in the country asking for a change in gun laws and getting that change equal the government taking away our rights?

As for the rest of your argument, see boogle's slippery slope comment.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
lostlobster wrote:

Why do people persist on promoting this idea that the government is coming to take away all your guns? It seems like we're not even having the same conversation.

Because the NRA persists in pushing it, because it sells more guns. They keep pushing their memes and outright lies to the unstable, because they buy. Dealing with the mental stability side should start there.

I guess I meant why do people HERE keep promoting that idea. I'd hope that the conversation here could move past that fallacy but I guess not.

lostlobster wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:
lostlobster wrote:

Why do people persist on promoting this idea that the government is coming to take away all your guns? It seems like we're not even having the same conversation.

Because the NRA persists in pushing it, because it sells more guns. They keep pushing their memes and outright lies to the unstable, because they buy. Dealing with the mental stability side should start there.

I guess I meant why do people HERE keep promoting that idea. I'd hope that the conversation here could move past that fallacy but I guess not.

Ah, heh, on that I won't comment except to say for a lot of reasons, some good, most bad, because I don't like psychoanalyzing people based on internet posts. But, I do think this debate is inextricably tied to a business that has managed to tie it's biggest sellers to a jaundiced view of what a "right" is, and has metastasized into law on nearly every level. Fear of government would be hilarious and cute, if it weren't fueling so many dead Americans.

lostlobster wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:
lostlobster wrote:

Why do people persist on promoting this idea that the government is coming to take away all your guns? It seems like we're not even having the same conversation.

Because the NRA persists in pushing it, because it sells more guns. They keep pushing their memes and outright lies to the unstable, because they buy. Dealing with the mental stability side should start there.

I guess I meant why do people HERE keep promoting that idea. I'd hope that the conversation here could move past that fallacy but I guess not.

A lot of times it's brought up because it's being used yet again by the NRA and a latecomer to the thread missed the last time it was brought up.
Just like how complete bans are repeatedly brought up despite general agreement that they're unrealistic politically, both sides have their fantasies they refuse to give up.

Nekroman wrote:

Yeah TF2 would only be fun for so long without weapons. I could only chase you guys around spanking you with my hat for so long.

But the NRA says that it is the News, Games, and TV that portrays violence that needs to stop.

Who do I believe? I am so confused.

Nekroman wrote:
boogle wrote:
Nekroman wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

I just think it is a pretty shallow definition of freedom and patriotism if having a gun is the only thing that defines them.

It's not just that, if we give up any of the rights we have in our Constitution then who is to say we would not end up giving up more rights?

Because logic.

btw is that your picture boogle?

Much like the continuum fallacy (its a real thing, look it up) the slippery slope fallacy fails in that it does not recognize a middle ground between two conclusion.
I wasn't aware that commonly accepted logical structures were off limits for debate.

boogle wrote:
Nekroman wrote:
boogle wrote:
Nekroman wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

I just think it is a pretty shallow definition of freedom and patriotism if having a gun is the only thing that defines them.

It's not just that, if we give up any of the rights we have in our Constitution then who is to say we would not end up giving up more rights?

Because logic.

btw is that your picture boogle?

Much like the continuum fallacy (its a real thing, look it up) the slippery slope fallacy fails in that it does not recognize a middle ground between two conclusion.
I wasn't aware that commonly accepted logical structures were off limits for debate.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/pnqdc4t.jpg)

Nekroman wrote:

Or you can say that since people use hypodermic needles for drug use that we can no longer make them for any sort of vaccinations or diabetics. This can get silly if we use other things besides just guns for our reasoning.

I always find it funny how people try to compare guns to miscellaneous other items with potentially destructive uses as an argument against control, but always "forget" one important thing about the items they are comparing guns to: they have valid, non-destructive uses. In fact, their primary uses tend to be beneficial, and they are only destructive when they are misused, whereas guns ONLY have destructive uses. They are weapon of war designed only to kill, injure and destroy.

ruhk wrote:
Nekroman wrote:

Or you can say that since people use hypodermic needles for drug use that we can no longer make them for any sort of vaccinations or diabetics. This can get silly if we use other things besides just guns for our reasoning.

I always find it funny how people try to compare guns to miscellaneous other items with potentially destructive uses as an argument against control, but always "forget" one important thing about the items they are comparing guns to: they have valid, non-destructive uses. In fact, their primary uses tend to be beneficial, and they are only destructive when they are misused, whereas guns ONLY have destructive uses. They are weapon of war designed only to kill, injure and destroy.

Without which we would not even be the United States of America.

Nekroman wrote:

Without which we would not even be the United States of America.

You can say the same for slavery.
And yet here we are today.

Nekroman wrote:
ruhk wrote:
Nekroman wrote:

Or you can say that since people use hypodermic needles for drug use that we can no longer make them for any sort of vaccinations or diabetics. This can get silly if we use other things besides just guns for our reasoning.

I always find it funny how people try to compare guns to miscellaneous other items with potentially destructive uses as an argument against control, but always "forget" one important thing about the items they are comparing guns to: they have valid, non-destructive uses. In fact, their primary uses tend to be beneficial, and they are only destructive when they are misused, whereas guns ONLY have destructive uses. They are weapon of war designed only to kill, injure and destroy.

Without which we would not even be the United States of America.

Which means it's a good thing that the organized colonial militias had single-shot, horribly inaccurate muzzleloaders and were supervised by relatively competent commanders. That doesn't mean I want my neighbor to have a closet full of military style semi autos because he's afraid the gub'mint is coming for him.

Nekroman wrote:

Without which we would not even be the United States of America.

We simply can't ignore the context of when the 2nd amendment was written despite the cries of the NRA. The authors had just come off a brutal war fought against a professional army. The US military in the 1700's was a collection of farmers. They banded together, formed militias, and fought back against an oppressive government, aka the King. Their concern over tyranny was based on a very different set of circumstances and a dramatically different viewpoint. I think it's unrealistic to lay that framework over the modern day gun control issue.

Yes we may have to give ask gun owners to give up some "freedoms". I don't think the majority of people calling for reform are looking for an outright ban just like most responsible gun owners understand the need for meaningful control. We give up freedoms every day for the preservation of society. That's why I can't have a nuclear reactor in my back yard or shoot fireworks at my neighbors house!

That's really what's at issue here when we talk about gun control. It's not the guns that are the problem, it's that we have precious little control over them.

Bear wrote:
Nekroman wrote:

Without which we would not even be the United States of America.

We simply can't ignore the context of when the 2nd amendment was written despite the cries of the NRA. The authors had just come off a brutal war fought against a professional army. The US military in the 1700's was a collection of farmers. They banded together, formed militias, and fought back against an oppressive government, aka the King. Their concern over tyranny was based on a very different set of circumstances and a dramatically different viewpoint. I think it's unrealistic to lay that framework over the modern day gun control issue.

Yes we may have to give ask gun owners to give up some "freedoms". I don't think the majority of people calling for reform are looking for an outright ban just like most responsible gun owners understand the need for meaningful control. We give up freedoms every day for the preservation of society. That's why I can't have a nuclear reactor in my back yard or shoot fireworks at my neighbors house!

That's really what's at issue here when we talk about gun control. It's not the guns that are the problem, it's that we have precious little control over them.

Probably the worst part is that the NRA considers even researching the problems they pose (which would let us decide how best to fix them) to be an unacceptable infringement.

It's not just that, if we give up any of the rights we have in our Constitution then who is to say we would not end up giving up more rights?

God-given rights in the Constitution that we've lost:

The right to own other people, or hold them in servitude for debt.
The right of a state or the Federal government to withhold voting rights from people based on skin color or previously being a slave.
The right to keep women from voting.
The right to drink alcohol.
The right to serve more than two terms as President.
The right of a state to place poll taxes on voters.
The right to deny the vote to people because of their age, as long as they are 18 or older.
The right to discriminate against someone based on their race or disability.

So we *have* given up many rights. You are correct. Who knows what will come of... well, not *giving up* a right, but having to accept a license for using that right... No, wait, that's been the law of the land for over a century... I forget. Which right are we "giving up" by requiring background checks and licensing and tracking ownership of weapons? Because it seems to me that we've gotten along quite well with *more* gun laws in the recent past. Or is that just something we agree not to mention?

Robear wrote:
It's not just that, if we give up any of the rights we have in our Constitution then who is to say we would not end up giving up more rights?

God-given rights in the Constitution that we've lost:

The right to own other people, or hold them in servitude for debt.
The right of a state or the Federal government to withhold voting rights from people based on skin color or previously being a slave.
The right to keep women from voting.
The right to drink alcohol.
The right to serve more than two terms as President.
The right of a state to place poll taxes on voters.
The right to deny the vote to people because of their age, as long as they are 18 or older.
The right to discriminate against someone based on their race or disability.

So we *have* given up many rights. You are correct. Who knows what will come of... well, not *giving up* a right, but having to accept a license for using that right... No, wait, that's been the law of the land for over a century... I forget. Which right are we "giving up" by requiring background checks and licensing and tracking ownership of weapons? Because it seems to me that we've gotten along quite well with *more* gun laws in the recent past. Or is that just something we agree not to mention?

Thank you for phrasing exactly what was on my mind.

We simply can't ignore the context of when the 2nd amendment was written despite the cries of the NRA. The authors had just come off a brutal war fought against a professional army. The US military in the 1700's was a collection of farmers. They banded together, formed militias, and fought back against an oppressive government, aka the King. Their concern over tyranny was based on a very different set of circumstances and a dramatically different viewpoint. I think it's unrealistic to lay that framework over the modern day gun control issue.

The first Militia Act in the colonies was in 1669; by 1774, they were an integral part of American society. If you wanted to be anything locally, you belonged. Even Washington, who bemoaned that it was hard to call out many militia members and that the poorer ones were likely to be poorly trained and equipped, felt that the militia was a satisfactory military body on it's own, with over a century of training methods and social acclimatization behind it. They were not farmers who banded together in 17 to quickly learn drill and march off; they were people who'd started training at age 1774 to defend their regions against the Indians, the French, and to keep the peace if needed. They were well-equipped and ready to fight in areas like Massachusetts and Carolina and parts of New Jersey and Pennsylvania and Maryland, and they succeeded in raising enough trained men to flummox the British, who after all had not committed many troops. (Crown policy had always depended on the Colonies defending themselves at their own cost, and this is what bit them in the ass, because there was a century of service in the minds of most militia members as they made the decision which side to support - there were Loyalist militias as well, remember, yet we don't have this mythology about *them* being farmers heroically training to defend the Crown at a minute's notice.)

I've discussed the context of the 2nd many times, but the idea that the militias were somehow untrained on the whole is wrong. There were problems with the militias, but they were the National Guard and police force of the time, and if we had to put an army together in a year or so from just those components, it would fight pretty damn well, because on the whole it's got experience and practical training. The same was true then. The British did absolutely crush unready militia units - poorly staffed, or poorly led, or ill-equipped - at battles like Bunker's Hill and Camden, overall the US militias actually beat the British professionals in the field, repeatedly. That's not something done by untrained farmers with fowling arms, but by trained military fighters with modern weapons and mostly good leadership.

The biggest issue with the militias was actually keeping them in service long enough to matter, but that's not germane to the Second. See "Patriot Battles - How the War of Independence was Fought", by Michael Stephensen, for more detail.

Anything for you Sally.

I'm just going to start responding to posts by saying, "Ask Robear, he can say it better than me."

God-given rights in the Constitution that we've lost:

The right to own other people, or hold them in servitude for debt.
The right of a state or the Federal government to withhold voting rights from people based on skin color or previously being a slave.
The right to keep women from voting.
The right to drink alcohol.
The right to serve more than two terms as President.
The right of a state to place poll taxes on voters.
The right to deny the vote to people because of their age, as long as they are 18 or older.
The right to discriminate against someone based on their race or disability.

Don't forget the right of a white man's vote to be worth 66.67% more than a black man's. That's actuallu calculatable right loss there.

Where in the Constitution does it keep a woman from voting? Or any of those things for that matter? Or maybe im lost hah. It's late.

The Conformist wrote:

Where in the Constitution does it keep a woman from voting? Or any of those things for that matter? Or maybe im lost hah. It's late.

The part where it didn't ensure that right until 1920 and the 19th Amendment.