Yup. That’s why I asked you to name specific legislation.
As far as “cosmetic” restrictions, I’m not in favor of “feel good” legislation which restricts without actually addressing a problem. I’m not familiar with the California laws however; what specifically is banned? I do agree that putting a pistol grip on a rifle (I presume you mean in addition to the stock?) does not magically transform it into an assault weapon. As far as the 18" barrel goes, I’m not sure how that can be considered horribly restrictive, but, again I think it’s far too conservative in terms of safety and absolutely ineffective in terms of restraining criminal activity. (Translation: unnecessary law.)
Like immediately upon ratification of the Constitution. (Many municipalities had weapons restrictions at the time, at least in terms of where and how they could be used.) We balance the rights of each individual against the security of the general public. The important questions regarding our rights to free speech, free assembly and to bear arms are “what is permissible in society?” and “how do we discourage that which is not permissible?”
In general, I believe legislation which affects any of the Bill of Rights amendments should have to address a clear danger to the security of the state or its citizens, and should be as limited in scope as it can be made to be without losing effectiveness.
I think most people here would agree that some weapons should not be allowed in the public domain ("…fighter planes, battleships, atomic weapons…") We can only settle where the line should be drawn through the democratic process of constant examination of specific laws.
There must be compromise. If we stubbornly cry “NO INFRINGEMENT” we’re risking Draconian measures through our unwillingness to budge.
There has been plenty of compromise on the part of gun owners. So much so that the “slippery slope” is a real fear. Go here or here to find out how much.
What kind of compromise should we make? What more should we give up in the name of “compromise”? Compromise is give and take, but the anti-gun faction keeps taking rights from gun owners. Where is the reciprocation?
Um, could you be a bit more specific about the compromise? LOL, it’s kind of hard to find any in that “Keep and Bear Arms” site.
What kind of reciprocation are you looking for? “Hey gun control guys, we ‘gave up’ the right to peaceful ownership of AK47’s, uh, how’s about you give up your rights to peaceful assembly?”
Demise, “compromise” in the context of civil rights means being willing to entertain certain restrictions on those rights in the interest of the public good. I’m not claiming there hasn’t ever been compromise. I’m saying I don’t see the willingness for compromise expressed very often by the NRA or by gun proponents in these debates. In fact, if the NRA changed only its rhetoric without altering any of its positions, maybe their attempts to educate the public would be more successful.
After all, when most people contemplate violent criminals with brutally efficient firearms, they are legitimately fearful, and would benefit more from calm, reasoned explanation of facts than from strident defense of the 2nd Amendment, or from emotion-laden bumper stickers and hyperbolic websites.
IMHO…no gun owner would ever try to wage a war against an out of control government by attacking tanks and gunships. It has been said over and over again that supply lines would be vulnerable targets. So would politicians and sympathizers. I find it hard to believe that a gunowner couldn’t think of 50 better targets than armored vehicles and gunships.
Funny, I believe this idea is grounded in pure realism. History has shown us ANY country can commit genocide. Yes, even the great US of A has at least 2 examples I can think of off the top of my head. (American Indians and Filipinos)
We do not live in a kind gentle world. The harsh reality is that when things go bad, people have to rely on themselves. Think of all the people slaughtered in the past 100 years by their own governments. Can you truly believe that it is pessimistic to learn from history?
Q: If nukes are all so effective, then why do all armies (even the ones with nukes) also issue rifles to their troops?
A: Taking the ground is not enough. You have to HOLD it and CONTROL it as well.
This assumes that the only time you will get attacked is by surprise. How many times does a person see trouble coming and has no where to go? Maybe you are in a parking garage and are already alert. Who knows what the circumstances could be? I never hear anyone use this attack on women carrying mace.
Even if we allow that you have a huge chance of getting hurt by resisting, isn’t that MY choice to make?
Now THAT, is what I would call fatalistic/pessimistic.
Let me preceed this by saying I do not think America is ANYWHERE near being past the point of no return.
How about the first? The fifth? What part of the Bill of Rights is essential to you and what parts are disposable? Is there any line in the sand you would support armed resistance against the government?
It is my understanding that as Americans, we are not only allowed to take up arms against the government at certain points, we have a RESPONSIBILITY to overthrow it when it reaches a certain point of oppresiveness. (reference DOI)
If they were to throw out the Second, how would we protect the rest of the Bill of Rights?
Put it this way…At what point did Germans have the resposibility to rebel against Hitler?
I disagree.
I remember reading a thread around here awhile back that put forth the idea that non-violent protest could only be succesful in certain circumstances. One of the requirements was that the oppressor have a sense of (fairness?) right and wrong. There was even an interesting suggestion that Ghandi was more a brilliant tactician, and had he faced someone besides the British (Hitler?) he would not have picked non-violent resistance as his method.
At any rate, I suggest that non-violent protest is worthless against a Hitler, Stalin or Mao. In other places and times it may be a possibility, but would be much less effective than armed resistance.
I think it was Mao who said something like…
Political power flows fom the barrel of a gun.
Several problems here…
A small man, a single man, a woman, the elderly and the handicapped need firearms to overcome their disadvantage against a larger (or group) of attackers. This is regardless of whether or not the attacker is armed.
There is not a GUN CRIME problem, there is a VIOLENT crime problem.
Laws will not disarm the criminals.
Please remember that you are looking to buy a fully AUTOMATIC weapon. Second… I have NO idea what state you are in, but sales at gun shows are regulated. All states. All gun shows. If you are buying from a FFL dealer, then it is the federal gov’t that is regulating the sale, not the state. Your record WILL be checked and you WILL fill out paper work recording your name and address.
I hate people who ADMIT they know NOTHING about the process and then proceed to distort it. Go buy a friggin gun and then come tell us what it takes.
I think someone already asked, but I will ask it again since I did not see it answered:
What defines a Kook?
And what do you see as the specific problem with children?
Funny…I always thought it was supply lines, tactics and a friendly naval blockade.
It has been said before, and I will say it again. We have ALREADY compromised. You guys are getting to the issue 30 years after the compromises started. Since you admit that you have no first hand personal knowledge, are you admitting that you ARE a mindless tool of propaganda? I am not saying you are a mindless tool of propaganda, just that you have not been awakened enough to question certain things that have been spoon fed to you. You are the one who admits you have ZERO knowledge of guns except through the same propaganda I referenced, so I am not quite sure what your point is.
I am also not trying to convince you to vote for ANYTHING. I’m just hanging out on the Straight Dope sharpening my gun debating skills for the real world.
Is this all guns or are gov’t owned guns exempt from being dangerous toys?
Once again, are we talking all guns? Or are we going to let the governments keep theirs? Are you speaking wishfully, as in POOF all the guns in the word disapear (back to bows, arrows and swords) or are you talking about a real world ban on private ownership.
A ban on guns is not what is being talked about. It is a ban on PRIVATE ownership of guns.
I am a citizen of a Republic. I believe that there are certain INALIENABLE rights which can not be bargained away. As far as I can tell, I am NOT alone in this. The will of the majority has no effect on whether or not I have certain rights. Rights exist, they are not granted.
???
You are the first person I have ever seen that puts themselves up for sale around here. Be nice to me, compromise your positions and I may VOTE the way you want me to.
???
I guess I better shut the hell up because I had never approached this thread with the intention of winning a vote. As far as I can tell I have treated you with respect. I completely disagree with you and I think your positions are rooted in ignorance, but then I think many people around (on all threads) feel that way about the people the are debating.
Since what pisses you off is not something that exists, I am sure you will do a little personal experience research and come to your senses.
Last I checked we were still a Republic.
At least you are consistent with that vote thing. I would think that you would judge the issue based on it’s own merits and not by how someone treats you. Make up your own mind.
Look a little deeper at that number.
Take out justifiable homicides (self-defense and police shootings) and suicides and then you have a much lower number. This number goes even lower if you take out all the people died in connection with gangs or drugs.
(since we are talking about laws, more laws will not reduce those deaths)
Now take what ever is left. (I think it is around 5,000) Now look at 200 million (estimated) guns in America. Look at the 80 million gun owners and the 180 million people here. The number you are concerning yourself with is a .00001 of a percent. Yes, even one accidental death is a tragedy, but we live in a world full of tragedy. It is not possible to attempt to eliminate all risk in this world.
How about Lott?
In Califirnia they have redefined the definition of assualt rifle umpteen different times. Each time they make instant criminals out of the owners of those guns. There are guns that people have owned for 20 years that are suddenly “Re-Classified” as assualt rifles.
Here in NJ, it takes 6-9 months to get a permit to buy any firearm. We are fingerprinted (like criminals) and have our figerprints kept on record. We must ask permision from the state every time we want to buy a handgun. Our handgun permits expire in 90 days if they are not used. Of course we have to pay the state for all this as well. There are about 10,000 other inane little firearm laws here that could turn you into an instant felon (revoking any further right to own firearms) by making a mistake in the way you transport or store them.
Take those same requirements and apply them to going to church or protesting the government and you might see it in a different light.
This is pretty much the way it is in almost all of America, so what is there for you to complain about here? Everything I have seen you compain about is either prohibited or regulated already. Then you clamor for respect and compromise. You should have NO PROBLEM with gun laws in America. I have not seen you ask for anything that is not already on the books.
Check out Cecil, I think he covers this. Well Regulated means well trained.
The math is way over my head, but the narrative of the methodology seems reasonable enough to me. I’ll let the mathematicians and statisticians argue about Kleck’s work; I’ll follow it until it stops making sense.
Joe Malik:
Non-violent resistance is only effective against a regime unwilling to use violence to implement its will. Ghandi would only be a very minor footnote in an abscure newspaper archive if the British Gov’t. were really serious about enforcing its will, say in a manner consistent with Stalin, Hitler or Amin.
An armed population might also be effective in preventing tyranny. What would-be President-for-life wants to take on 44 million (and those are '97 numbers) gun owners?
Commenting on my “Flat Earth” observation
Well, it wasn’t a matter of scientific fact (though it was a case of an objective, as-yet unapprehended reality) until people set aside their perceptions that the earth was flat and did some scientific research.
The opinion(s) and perception(s) changed enough to accept scientific research showing that the Earth was not flat (and that still wasn’t enough to convert some to the Round-Earth Society, because they looked around and saw a “flat earth”).
We don’t reason from perceived preferences, we reason from fact.
To quote Uncle Beer, who summed it up quite nicely:
Some more from Joe M.:
Talking about specious loads of crap…
You’re equating political abstracts to empirical evidence that firearm violence is not as widespread as some people perceive it to be?
The laws are a matter of public record; look them up for yourself.
You ask “why are they not enforced?”. Funny, that’s the same question the NRA’s been asking the Clinton-Gore Administration.
Why are they ineffective? Any law that is not enforced is ineffective. Only once a law is enforced can its efficacy be determined. Then the question of the effectiveness of the law can be raised, and further legislation be contemplated.
We in the NRA are drawing the line, saying “NO new [restrictive] laws until the ones we have are enforced!”.
OH MY GOD! I can’t belive someone was stupid enough to even post this!
If my house has never been hit by a tornado, why do I have insurance to protect against loss from tornadoes?
Why have airbags in my car if I’ve never had an accident?
Because, just like in the case of tyranny and oppression in Government, an ounce of prevention…
The old saying “An armed society is a polite society” is grounded in a little bit more than archaic conventional wisdom. With economic disparity (and in a capitalist economy, there will always be some) there will always be those who feel that it is easier to steal than to work, and the threat of force is a great way of getting Joe Citizen to fork over the dough.
With an armed society, the risk/reward ratio goes against those who feel the need/have the desire to take from others.
There are two quotes from the FF (I’m not citing them as “Expert Authority”, just to reinforce my point more eloquently than I ever could; don’t fault me for not being a genius, or having a poetic style of writing. I do the best with what I was born with).
Thomas Paine,
Thoughts on Defensive War, 1775.
Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 (1894).
Thomas Jefferson’s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776,
quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in “On Crimes and Punishment”,1764.
It doesn’t, for now. Limitations on who can own guns (currently, IIRC: felons, habitual drug users, the mentally incompetent, anyone discharged dishonorably from the armed services, anyone who has renounced their citizenship, and anyone under a restraining order for domestic violence), some limitations on types (and please stop with the “Nuclear Warhead” examples; I’ve yet to see a nuclear warhead, or even a missile delivery system for one, but I’m willing to bet that they aren’t easily borne by a single individual, which is the typical, rough benchmark criteria) are all fine.
But the anti-gunners aren’t satisfied with that.
They keep on coming back to the well, again and again. With the avowed purpose of destroying the 2nd Amendment, one little-bitty law at a time. This isn’t NRA-“kook” rampant paranoia; this is their own words.
Reasonable people can reach reasonable compromises between common good and individual liberty; unreasonable people, who fear/hate guns and gun owners, will try to get their way, by hook or by crook. The tactics employed by HCI and the Clinton/Gore Administration are all the example(s) one needs to see this, if you have a stake in the argument.
Other than some admittedly ignorant thoughts and feelings on the “larger issue”, of course.
Obviously the level of zealotry in this issue has not abated. I am very happy earning the enmity and contempt of ExTank, Max Torque, Uncle Beer, etc. (as I’m sure they’re happy to earn mine). As the various issues and candidates come up for a vote, I’m going to vote for gun abolition just to piss you guys off. I’m tired of this bullshit.
When the gun owners admit that the concerns of millions of Americans are per se legitimate (note: a legitimate concern does not imply a particular solution), and offer reasoned debate instead of increasingly strident name calling, perhaps I shall rejoin the debate. Let me know when you are ready to persuade me to support your position rather than calling me an idiot and a mindless tool of propaganda.
And God help us all if you succeed in turning America into an armed camp. I know you do not agree, but I think this country would become a very bad place to live.
OK, I can think of situations where that is true, i.e. nukes, biological weapons, etc.
Do you, or do you not, think that it’s moral to deprive potential victims of the ability to defend themselves with a firearm if they are threatened with a firearm?
Yes, I do believe that there are circumstances where that would be moral. Example question - should someone with a criminal record be allowed a gun if he argues he will use it only for self defence?
Demise, you are a person of limited ability, so I’ll make this short and easy. I am pro-gun. I have, when living in countries of such laws, owned guns. You’ll notice the word “Debate” in the name of this forum. The purpose of a debate is to discuss both sides of a topic. Uncle Beer asked why no-one had counter argued against PLDennison’s argument of self defence. I proposed that perhaps guns were more of a hindrance than a help. Some people have put forward good arguments against that. Some people have sided with that argument.
Basically, a word to all the rabid ones. You guys are the most likely reason you will lose your guns. If you continue to throw insults every time the topic is raised, you will only make yourselves look unreasonable. If the topic is too emotive for you to discuss, then don’t try to debate it. If you want to throw insults, try the Pit.
Further clarification… in general, that is, taking the number of cases that would happen most often (felons are, after all, still a minority in our society), do you think it is moral to deprive the average person, who meets all current standards for gun ownership, from defending him/herself by means of firearm from the possible threat of harm from another with malicious intent also bearing a firearm?
Sheesh…
If you want to ignore the gist of what someone says and simply focus on the fact that they used wordings that can be construed as an “insult”, try another message board.
Nope, just answering a sweepingly general questions. Beer boy asked if “it’s moral to deprive potential victims of the ability to defend themselves by the same means with which they may be threatened?”. Well, unless you’re a firm believer in black/white answers, then you have to qualify an answer to that. Is that okay with you?
In answer to your specific question. No.
Gee Spoofe, thanks for the tip. I think I’ll just stick here for now, if that’s ok with you? Or if it isn’t. Quick question though - why do you have to remind people that someone once remarked you were funny?
Joe Malik: Even aside from my personal distaste for the “retreat and declare victory” tactic, I for one would like you to stay in the debate. I am trying to treat you respectfully and to engage your arguments, or at least my interpretations of your arguments (which are always subject to correction).
Again, I am not a gun owner (can I start abbreviating that?); I do admit that “the concerns of millions of Americans” are legitimate per se, but only to the extent that they are based on accurate information. To the extent that those concerns are based on propaganda, inaccurate information, or outright misinformation, I dismiss those concerns out-of-hand as being directed towards fantasy problems, not real ones.
Do you admit that the concerns of millions of American gun owners are legitimate per se, to the extent that they are based on accurate information regarding HCI and other gun control groups?
I’m sticking with my original point, which addresses the original post, regarding the morality of denying the average law-abiding citizen the tools with which to defend him- or herself with equal and appropriate force. If a citizen is denied his or her Constitutional right to bear arms in defense, and is set upon by a criminal with a gun, he/she has no chance for defense. If he or she is permitted to bear arms in defense, he or she has at least a chance.
Freedom2, our Republic is a representative democracy. Find the phrase “inalienable rights” in the US Constitution and I’ll buy you a milkshake.
How about Lott? See this thread for my comments about Lott. In any case, did you read the other comments in my post? I’m not claiming there’s no correlation; I’m saying it can’t be shown definitively.
See my comments to Demise regarding “cosmetic” laws.
And your comment about “instant criminals” is a disingenuous phrase designed to provoke an emotional reaction; it is inaccurate and could be construed as a lie by gun control proponents. That illustrates my point (and Malik’s I think) that typical pro-gun rhetoric does more harm to the defense of the 2nd Amendment than good.
Look, there’s been an awful lot of hysterical propaganda spread by gun-control proponents and validated by media coverage. Do you really think it’s helpful to spread equally hysterical half-truths and slippery slope paranoia in your zeal to protect the right to bear arms?
There’s no danger in this country of having to register your fingerprints in order to attend the church of your choice, or to participate in an organized protest, unless that kind of idiocy gets propelled forward by public hysteria fueled by hardline rhetoric, which may not be too unlikely (witness the “War on Drugs”) if organizations as vehement as the NRA decide it’s dangerous to allow particular religious groups to congregate, or particular political groups to speak publically.
That’s kind of a disingenuous tack to take, xenophon. While the phrase obviously doesn’t appear in the Constitution, I think we all know that it appears in the Declaration. Obviously, the DoI does not carry the force of law, but no less a legal authority than the Supreme Court has referred to the DoI on past decisions as an indicator of the Framers’ intent when adopting the Bill of Rights. Given the rights that do appear as deserving of protecion in the Bill of Rights, I think we can all assume that there were among the inalienable rights referred to in the DoI. We’re all a little bit better than resorting to semantic tricks, aren’t we?
I stand by my original statement. You can not just wave your hand and dismiss the fact that California is retroactively changing the law. One of the effects of this is to have the state confiscate certain rifles that people had previously legally owned.
I will search around for some more specific examples from California, but I would like you to do the same on the other side before you call this inaccurate.
I’m afraid that I will have to buy my own milkshake, but I do see the Declaration of Independence as having relevance. BTW…try that line in one of the seperation of church and state threads and see how far it goes.
And as for Joe…
I did not realize this was the “Stroking Joe Malik” thread. I will also miss you. Please come back. Please. Pretty please…
If you want, you can skip all my other points and just address this ONE:
Since everyone of your concerns seem (to me) to have been long ago addressed by restricive laws that gun owners abide by, what new laws are you pushing?
Guys, y’all better cool it, as this thread is heading pitworthy fast and I find that rather disappointing; I thought there was some good debate going on. References to “I can’t belive someone was stupid enough to even post this!”, "specious loads of crap… " and “assholes” are not really conducive to civil debate, nor do they make your arguments more persuasive.
Point taken. I apologize for the “semantic trick.” My point, which I do believe is valid, is that the rights delineated in the Constitution are amendable through the democratic process. The document is designed to be changed, and amendments can be repealed. Obviously, there are limits beyond which the revision of rights would so damage our freedom as to destroy the country; this in no way implies that any specific rights are “untouchable.”
I don’t know, how about gun control via punishing criminal and dangerous use of firearms instead of banning them because they look scary? How is it “…in the interest of the public good” to force law abiding citizens to give up that which protects them?