I think most of the anti-gun folks are decent people who feel that their ultimate goal is to seek a solution to a problem.
I think most everyone can agree that murder is bad, accidents are bad, crime is bad, and totalitarian governments no longer acting as a servant of the people are bad.
The quarrel comes from:
Disagreement on the source of the problems.
Disagreement on the solutions, even when the source is agreed upon (for you often cannot really pursue a fair and effective solution if you are not attacking or addressing the actual source of the problem)
A lack of trust that the solutions are intended to be a solution, and not a means towards another parallel, or perpendicular, end
And this last one is the real rub. I wonder each day if there is any point in debating when, much of the time, neither side trusts each other, or the intentions of the other.
Just as an aside, I’d like to register a protest over anyone perpetuating the idea that Gore “lost the presidency” over anything having to do with the people who voted, because they voted for Al Gore, both in the nation and in Florida.
I just hate to see history re-written while I can still smell it.
Well, except for the people in West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee (say, isn’t that Gore’s state?), Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Colorado, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Montana, Idaho, Utah, Nevada, New Hampshire, Delaware and Arizona. A few of which, I’d wager, are largely pro-gun states. At least, a lot of them are the states where the liberals usually accuse the “right-wing gun nuts” of living.
Wow, 28 of 50 states. That’s like, more than half. Huh.
I wish we had a judge for this debate. You have not met your burden of rejoinder. You are a conclusary debater who brings no evidence to the table.
Now you are aware that terrorists could enter the country via container ships. This is a far cry from your initial position asserting in a very uppity way that I could not produce one cite to support my position. Still waiting for one response on my evidence proving that your assertions about port security are incorrect.
Cite? Not holding my breath. I give up on debating you in a rational way. Nyah. Nyah. You are wrong. This is tantamount to your arguments against my evidence.
I’d really like to see where you can buy a full-auto gun for $500 from someone who’s going to run a NICS check. Do you have a cite for fully automatic weapons for sale for $500 from a legal channel? Legal fully automatic weapons typically start at $5000 in the US, primarily because of the '86 ban on registering new machine guns. Certainly, fully automatic weapons can be had from illegal sources for much less, but they don’t generally do the NICS checks you want to use as a source of information, and generally a phrase like ‘Gun World’ would be used to refer to a gun store. And certainly you’re not claiming that a semi-automatic weapon has the ‘same firepower’ as a fully automatic weapon, right?
So, are you saying that Ashcroft should break the law to appease the anti-gun crowd?
Leaving aside what exactly ‘politically motivated’ means in this context, what relevance does it have? If our prosecutors are so swamped that they can’t afford to prosecute offenses that both sides of the debate agree should be crimes (such as a felon possessing a gun), then what good does passing additional gun-control laws do towards stopping crime? It doesn’t matter what causes the lack of prosecutions, what matters is that a felon can be caught with a gun and won’t serve the 5-year sentence, allowing him to go out and shoot up a schoolyard two years later, while those of us who aren’t criminals have to navigate through some truly byzantine laws to avoid becoming criminals.
If you believe that it is impossible to actually prosecute criminals for violations of currently existing gun laws, then it’s pretty clear that any additional laws would simply restrict the already law abiding rather than the criminal element. The GC crowd tends to get rather irate when someone says that gun control laws target the law-abiding, yet it appears to be your position.
That’s not true - fully automatic weapons registered before 1986 are legal in the US according to federal law, though many states have an absolute or de facto absoulte ban on owning fully automatic weapons at all. They do require a special ‘taxation’ process when transferred ($200 tax, registration, sign off from chief LEO, fingerprints to BATF, etc), and aren’t exactly cheap owning to the '86 law, but are not completely illegal nationwide.
One thing that would help immensely with the trust issue would be if the gun-control crowd would honestly state their legislative goals, and the limits on what gun control they want. It’s rather hard for the PG side to trust the GC side when GCers, especially the leadership, are unwilling to state what their eventual goal is, and what’s at the limit of ‘reasonable’ or ‘common sense’ gun control. Even something as basic as ‘gun control in the UK is more restrictive than what I’d call reasonable gun control’, or a willingness to say ‘oh, I just said the age limit for handguns should be 18 and not 21, yes I agree that that law should be loosened up’ would do a lot, but from everything I read the gun control crowd has never met a GC law they would be willing to repeal (or even to say ‘yeah, that ought to go’).
A key difference between GC and PG people on bad arguments is that when they’re used is that a lot of GC people seem to believe something along the lines of ‘people should be able to own guns, but we need these restrictions because these things are really dangerious’; that is, the specific bogus claims about ‘assault weapons’, ‘cop-killer bullets’, or some other scare-word is their primary reason for supporting a particular restriction. PG types using a bad argument, on the other hand, tend to say something like ‘people should be able to own guns, here’s a reason for it’’; that is, the bogus argument is not the basis for an exception to their position. My original statement could not cover both crowds, as PG types tend not to say ‘People shouldn’t be able to own guns, with these exceptions which I’ve based on bad arguments’.
I don’t know which gun control threads you’re entering, but Kenneshaw, GA hasn’t come up at all in this one or AFAIR the last 4 or 5 GC threads to pop up on GD. (I agree Kenneshaw isn’t much good for a serious argument, since the only cites I’ve seen compare it’s ~80% drop in violent crime with Atlanta’s ~20% in the same period without comparing it to other Atlanta suburbs or doing any of the other work to eliminate simple coincidence).
Which debunked stats about crime in Britain? I’m not aware that anyone has ‘debunked’ the UK having a higher violent crime rate than the US.
Beagle, the assertion I asked you to prove was that terrorists have entered the country via container ships, not that they could do so. Have != Could. That’s the whole point of my initial cite demand, and my subsequent crtiques of your proffered cites. And having said that, I’m going to unilaterally end that particular hijack.
And gee, there’s no reason “terrorists from Pakistan” couldn’t go through the standard (not Class III) background check. As long as they’re in the country legally and have no felony/history of mental illness/drug abuse, they’ll pass that background check with flying colors. For further details, see this page, where I surprised Anthracite with that particular bit of law. Hooray, terrorists with legally purchased firearms and concealed carry permits!
An “extremist” is a terrorist who has not committed the act yet. Did I really have to point this out? Then, I provide two other examples of Al Qaeda using container ships to get around. Then, I cite multiple sources saying the security risk of loss is less than 2%. Then, I cite CNN saying the risk is so great that the feds. will not even talk about the new security measures they may implement some day.
Yet, you still assert that you have some point. Chutzpah.
So… if they’ve broken no laws or committed no crime, why should they not be allowed to own a gun? What happened to “Innocent until proven guilty,” and all that silly talk?
Oh, I wouldn’t automatically rule it out. But the standard background check is pretty basic stuff, and I’d certainly favor a much more strenuous background check for people who aren’t citizens or permanent residents. Who the heck is this guy, what’s his background, who are his associates, etc. Like I said in the linked thread, most of the 9/11 hijackers apparently could have passed the standard check with ease, but I wouldn’t be so sure about a more thorough investigation. Simply put, I dont want random people from hostile counties coming here and arming themselves without a pretty good idea of who they are.
(Please, spare me the “they used knives!” response, everyone. Example used for illustrative purposes only.)
Yeah, they’re just intended terrorists. So you’re happy with them arming themselves in the meantime? What’s the market rate of an ounce of prevention these days, anyway?
Perhaps. I’ve done a bit more reasearch here, and there are background checks, and there are background checks. Concealed carry background checks - in some jurisdictions - (as you correctly pointed out) allow non-citizens to possess the permit. However, Class III is a different process and different set of standards, all conducted largely at the Federal level, but also at the State level and under the direction of the CLEO of the district you are in.
I’m not saying that it would not be the same conditions of acceptability, as I cannot find proof on one side or the other yet, but it is different, and conducted for a different purpose. Until someone can show one way or another, I do not think we can draw a factual conclusion on that point. I believe, but do not know, that the Class III check is a more thorough check, for citizens and non-citizens.
I am a little concerned about the term “intended terrorists” though. If there is evidence enough that they are individuals attempting to or working in a conspiracy to commit a terrorist act, then I imagine that is against the law, and they would be charged with a crime. I cannot imagine that we want to start separating out people based on their political or religious views, labeling them as extremists, when they have not been charged with a crime.
That’s really bothersome - or frightening - to me from a civil liberties standpoint. But maybe I’m wrong here.
Master of the Obvious. I see that you posted last, minty. I am not even going to look. Ultimately, this debate does not matter. Al Qaeda does not need or use guns to commit acts of terrorism. They mostly use explosives - except the time knives were sufficient to turn airplanes into kamikazes.
Possession and use of explosives is already punishible by approximately a half dozen federal statutes. Nobody but miners and building demolition experts really needs explosives. Absolutely nobody has a constitutional right to explosives. Yet, Al Qaeda has no trouble procuring explosives.
I concede, guns are available anywhere in the world. In the U.S. it is much harder to procure automatic weapons than it is in the “Stans,” in addition to the huge premium one must pay to acquire them here. You can purchase a whole crate of AK-47s in Pakistan for the price of one here. Irrelevant.
We should be worried about the illegal procurement of airline uniforms. This concerns me more than any other news story I have heare in a long time. A machine gun is nothing compared to a hijacked 727 in terms of firepower. Personally, I wish Al Qaeda planned attacks with firearms. Much better than crop dusting with anthrax if you ask me. I can deal with one loony with an AK.
If you’re just going to chatter to yourself, why bother to post at all? Very grown-up of you, Beagle.
Anthracite, U.S. citizenship is a requirement for a Class III license, the machine gun license. The general background check is a result of the Brady Act, though local requirements may be stricter than that. In general, however, all it takes is passing the simple felony/mental illness/drug abuse check, with perhaps also a quick look into the restraining order database. No state requires citizenship, although there may be state residency requirements here and there.
Which is fair… but I notice that you put the qualifier of “people who aren’t citizens”. What about people who are? All a determined terrorist group would need to do would be to wait for seven years before they attack.
I know you said that you don’t want the “they used knives” argument, but c’mon… even if the 9/11 hijackers had guns, that wouldn’t have magically made their attacks deadlier. To be completely honest, this “Think about the terrorists!” line of thought smacks similarly of the “Think of the children!” mindset immediately following the Columbine attack.
Remember what I said to you about misrepresenting the opposition, Minty? I said nothing of the sort. I said you can’t label a person as a terrorist until they commit a terrorist act, just like you can’t label someone as a criminal until they commit a crime or you can’t label someone as a lawyer until they sell their soul to Satan (sorry, a little joke, couldn’t resist).
I’m as unhappy about the prospect of terrorists easily getting their guns as you are. I just see it as unjust for the other 99.99% of the people who have zero terrorist intentions have to be punished because of a tiny minority of people who have evil and criminal intentions.
Wanna trade metaphors? All righty… What’s the mantra of people who oppose the death penalty…? “Better for ten guilty men to go free,” or something along those lines.
This is what I have come to expect. All hot air, no substance. I think my last post speaks for itself. Everything you have said relating to terrorism was either outright proven false or irrelevant.
No, the debate is not over. It is for me. I cannot debate an unresponsive one trick “cite please” pony.