Shall-Issue laws reduce crime (i.e. concealed carry laws)

So, ultimately, you're totally fine with the dissolution of the Union and the establishment of a loose alliance of, say, 6 nation states? Turn America into a form of the EU?

If that's what the people in those states want, we profess to hold the ideal that they're entirely within their rights to reorganize themselves that way.

What part of 'freedom' includes being held at gunpoint?

Malor wrote:
So, ultimately, you're totally fine with the dissolution of the Union and the establishment of a loose alliance of, say, 6 nation states? Turn America into a form of the EU?

If that's what the people in those states want, we profess to hold the ideal that they're entirely within their rights to reorganize themselves that way.

What part of 'freedom' includes being held at gunpoint?

Your view of the rights of the States to terminate their membership in the Union, while accurate to the Declaration of Independence, is woefully outdated and utterly contrary to the Constitution. It's to the point where I just have to assume you're arguing it for the lulz and not because you honestly hold this belief.

I've got to agree with Seth on this one, though it pains me as I tend to be a supporter of state's rights.

The philosophy of the Declaration would definitely seem to grant the individual states the right to reorganize themselves as you say. You can even make a solid argument that the states may have had that right in the early years of the Union. At this point though it's a practical impossibility as the nation has really become the dominant entity, rather than the states. Not to mention that we fought a war to decide this exact question, with the 'no-secession rights' side coming out pretty clearly victorious.

OG_slinger wrote:
Staats wrote:

You're talking about killing people that believe differently than you. "Everyone else is better if these people aren't around." Or something. In any case it involves killing over ideas that can peacefully co-exist. Screw that.

This idea shouldn't be a shocker to you. It's pretty much why all wars have been fought. Human history is full of one group of people getting exterminated by another group of people either because they believe something different or they are simply in the way. When the cards are on the table, we're still a very Highlander/Thunderdome species.

I'm familiar with the idea, but someone presenting the idea as a reasonable way to conduct our affairs is pretty shocking. I don't think this aspect of humanity is something to embrace.

Seth wrote:

Technically a Civil war could be seen as an act of self defense on the part of the Union. Rebel thieves are stealing land and (assumedly) flaunting the 16th amendment. Not to mention Texas v White, which I mentioned earlier.

Like I said, not interested in the legality. Legality can be changed. Characterizing peaceful secession as "stealing" is a stretch, since it's primarily private property.

The question is: does it make sense given a set of goals? Given OG's goals, then yes, war is the way to go. Given the goals that drive an average election, goals like a healthy consumer-oriented economy and preservation of life, any type of war in our backyard is a real problem.

Staats wrote:

The question is: does it make sense given a set of goals? Given OG's goals, then yes, war is the way to go. Given the goals that drive an average election, goals like a healthy consumer-oriented economy and preservation of life, any type of war in our backyard is a real problem.

It's definitely a real problem -- but would voters concede that it's less of a problem than having a potentially hostile foreign presence benefiting from hundreds of years of communal investment?

google fu shows that 22% of Americans currently think states have the right to secede, so if Texas did initiate this sort of malarky, my hunch is that a second American Civil War would be the inevitable conclusion.

Seth wrote:
gizmo wrote:

So, you are saying that any weapon that can harm a living being of any type should be made illegal?

his point was specific to guns -- and, even more specific, high powered hand held weaponry made in the time period subsequent to muzzel loaded powder muskets. I don't think Nathanial was intending any inferred extrapolation to other items like slingshots or water balloons in his post.

I asked the question because his logic could easily be carried to include archery equipment, knives and I am sure at least a few other items. Just a question to refine the point if possible.

You have the wrong focus. It's not about the people of Kansas. It's about the rest of America. And the country would be stronger not having a group so invested in the idea of Creationism that they felt they needed to secede. Separation of church and state trumps a bunch of local religious yahoos.

Have you ever been to Kansas? I know it's probably a shocker to you, but there are a lot of people here who have formed their own thoughts on a number of subjects. They have even learned to read and research and speak eloquently. And yes, your heavy-handed language is offending if I wasn't clear. I have been to few states that carry a spirit of patriotism comparable to what the people of Kansas have. True, they hold to their religious beliefs, but they have that right.

At the end of the day its a clash of ideas and one has to win out. For the good of the core beliefs of America, you'd have to burn out the pocket of people who insisted differently.

This is a really incongruous statement coming from you, the gun control advocate. "You may not have weapons, but if you disagree with us, we shall turn all of ours upon you." And you wonder why people are hesitant to disarm.

gizmo I think you're suffering from the fact that this thread has devolved into two unrelated threads.

Have you ever been to Kansas? I know it's probably a shocker to you, but there are a lot of people here who have formed their own thoughts on a number of subjects. They have even learned to read and research and speak eloquently. And yes, your heavy-handed language is offending if I wasn't clear. I have been to few states that carry a spirit of patriotism comparable to what the people of Kansas have. True, they hold to their religious beliefs, but they have that right.

This is largely off topic. In a hypothetical situation, Kansas might leave the Union after Texas left, possibly due to a disagreement on Creationism in schools. That Kansas, in real life, is patriotic has no real bearing on the hypothetical discussion of whether or not it would secede.

In effect, I think your feathers are getting ruffled for no known reason.

Tangential to this thread, a mom who made headlines last year when she carried her pistol to her child's soccer game was found shot to death this morning.

A soccer mom who gained national attention when she openly carried a loaded gun to her 5-year-old daughter's game was shot dead Wednesday along with her husband in what appeared to be a murder-suicide, police said.

Meleanie Hain and Scott Hain were pronounced dead Wednesday night at their home in Lebanon, about 80 miles west of Philadelphia.

Shocker.

Seth wrote:

gizmo I think you're suffering from the fact that this thread has devolved into two unrelated threads.

Have you ever been to Kansas? I know it's probably a shocker to you, but there are a lot of people here who have formed their own thoughts on a number of subjects. They have even learned to read and research and speak eloquently. And yes, your heavy-handed language is offending if I wasn't clear. I have been to few states that carry a spirit of patriotism comparable to what the people of Kansas have. True, they hold to their religious beliefs, but they have that right.

This is largely off topic. In a hypothetical situation, Kansas might leave the Union after Texas left, possibly due to a disagreement on Creationism in schools. That Kansas, in real life, is patriotic has no real bearing on the hypothetical discussion of whether or not it would secede.

In effect, I think your feathers are getting ruffled for no known reason.

I think you may give him too much credit. I didn't see any reference kansas being a hypothetical example. Either way, I had my say.

I would say that the patriotism of a place would very much have an effect on the question of secession, but that is a whole 'nother derail for another day.

gizmo wrote:

I think you may give him too much credit. I didn't see any reference kansas being a hypothetical example. Either way, I had my say.

I would say that the patriotism of a place would very much have an effect on the question of secession, but that is a whole 'nother derail for another day.

gizmo, this has been a hypothetical discussion. I doubt anyone here seriously thinks that any State is pushing for secession for any reason. What I was attempting to say is that if we would let Texas leave the Union over something like a different interpretation of gun rights, then nothing would stop any other State for leaving for any other reason. I picked Kansas and Creationism because, well, that's a divisive issue for which it is sadly too well known. I could have easily disparaged any other State, like saying Alabama would leave because they wanted to marry their cousins.

Patriotism would still exist, it would simply move from country to State. Keep in mind that if a State is pushing to leave the Union over some issue, then its citizens likely believe more strongly in that one issue than the idea of the United States.

OG_slinger wrote:
gizmo wrote:

I think you may give him too much credit. I didn't see any reference kansas being a hypothetical example. Either way, I had my say.

I would say that the patriotism of a place would very much have an effect on the question of secession, but that is a whole 'nother derail for another day.

gizmo, this has been a hypothetical discussion. I doubt anyone here seriously thinks that any State is pushing for secession for any reason. What I was attempting to say is that if we would let Texas leave the Union over something like a different interpretation of gun rights, then nothing would stop any other State for leaving for any other reason. I picked Kansas and Creationism because, well, that's a divisive issue for which it is sadly too well known. I could have easily disparaged any other State, like saying Alabama would leave because they wanted to marry their cousins.

Patriotism would still exist, it would simply move from country to State. Keep in mind that if a State is pushing to leave the Union over some issue, then its citizens likely believe more strongly in that one issue than the idea of the United States.

And I would challenge that the national news coverage of the Creationism debate is not necessarily reflective of the overall beliefs of the population of Kansas. There are several Goodjers for example who are definitely not Creationists who live here. There is a strong religious contingent, but they are not the entirety, not even sure they are a majority.

But, I will stop derailing, other than to say.....I think the inbreeding stereotype is Arkansas

Thank you for the clarifying response

Kraint wrote:
Nathaniel wrote:

- Hunting: This is still killing and maiming. Of animals, but killing and maiming nonetheless.

Not if you're hunting the most dangerous game of all.

Bing! One quote guaranteed to make both sides smile.

Not if you're hunting the most dangerous game of all.

Manatee?

Nathaniel wrote:
Kraint wrote:
Nathaniel wrote:

- Hunting: This is still killing and maiming. Of animals, but killing and maiming nonetheless.

Not if you're hunting the most dangerous game of all.

Bing! One quote guaranteed to make both sides smile.

As a gun owner myself, the idea of hunting another person is pretty reprehensible. It does not make me smile.

A massively overpopulated animal (like deer...) that I can, in turn, use to put food on my table for a week or two though? That I can absolutely get behind.

Thin_J wrote:
Nathaniel wrote:
Kraint wrote:
Nathaniel wrote:

- Hunting: This is still killing and maiming. Of animals, but killing and maiming nonetheless.

Not if you're hunting the most dangerous game of all.

Bing! One quote guaranteed to make both sides smile.

As a gun owner myself, the idea of hunting another person is pretty reprehensible. It does not make me smile.

A massively overpopulated animal (like deer...) that I can, in turn, use to put food on my table for a week or two though? That I can absolutely get behind.

I think context is everything. I, for instance, don't think that countersniper operations in the context of war or law enforcement is reprehensible and the skills necessary to be successful in that are very similar to the ones you would need to stalk game. That said, I agree with what I think you're saying in that it is reprehensible and psychopathic to think of hunting humans recreationally. Ironically, there are a great many folks who join the military for precisely this reason.

Paleocon wrote:

That said, I agree with what I think you're saying in that it is reprehensible and psychopathic to think of hunting humans recreationally. Ironically, there are a great many folks who join the military for precisely this reason.

That was indeed the intention. The latter bit is terrible, but I don't think there's anything we can really do about it.