The next Civil War

FYI - I don’t own a gun. And I’m not a member of the NRA. Sorry.

But I’m not as out-of-touch with lawful gun owners and users as you seem to be. I have both hunted and target-shot for recreation in the past, and many family members and friends (not to mention a significant percentage of the people where I live) enjoy those activities regularly.

Enforce existing gun laws ** that I can prove aren’t being enforced now**. Attack the problem that both sides admit exists at the cause of the problems – criminal or negligent use of firearms.

It’s a given that we won’t be able to get guns away from criminals in this country. No one is even dumb enough to try on a large scale. So what, exactly, does taking guns from law-abiding citizens who aren’t harming anyone do?

You’re right. Those positions are so extreme, I must be getting ready to start a Waco-style compound somewhere.

At last, we agree.

John Corrado wrote:

Rougher and nastier? Probably not. Issues become politicized because of either high importance or the high emotions they can engender. Political talk has always been full of vehemence and invective.

It does seem that we are becoming more polarized on certain issues, however; even issues that present many opportunities for compromise seem to devolve into two camps with equally hard-line stances. Dialogue seems to turn to rhetoric (as it has in this very thread) as a matter of preference rather than posture.

I don’t think that’s because we’ve become collectively simple-minded as a nation. Nor do I believe our intentions for solution are any less forcefully meant as a nation than they’ve ever been. -We do seem to have somehow developed an absurd expectation for quick, easily implemented solutions that do not abridge any civil rights, yet either restrict the choices or the behavior of particular citizens. (One of the reasons for the rising popularity of Libertarianism.)

In the case of gun control issues <WARNING!!! GUN CONTROL TALK AHEAD!> the debate could very easily be about what are reasonable limits within a free society, but instead has become a contest between diametrically opposed philosophical coalitions.

I guess I should explain that I’m of the firm opinion that the lawful right to reasonably arm oneself for defense of one’s life, liberty, etc. is fundamental and of absolute necessity in order for a democratic society to remain free.

It’s those definitions of lawful right and reasonable arms that seem to need an effort at consensus (or at least compromise). Once those terms are specifically defined and any restrictions thoroughly detailed, it becomes a matter of deciding whether additional laws are needed, or if enforcement of the existing laws would be sufficient.

However, I’m not very optimistic that any such discourse is going to happen any time soon, even among such practiced debaters as we have on this board. Already, we have two of the more level-headed and rational posters hurling phrases like “intellectual arrogance” and “extremist solutions” at each other.

Don’t know what the solution is. Good luck to us all.

You know SingleDad, usually you are one of the more levelheaded rational posters. Here you seem to have lost it. You seem to be unable to distinguish between heated debate and personal attacks against you and your family. Looking back on this thread I see that the most inflammatory comments come from you. No one has suggested, in this thread, that you don’t want to protect your children or that the anti-gun forces control the government. It’s more a debate of the means towards the end. The end being a safe world. I’ll admit, my solution is different from anyone else posting. However everyone here want’s to get to some type of common goal.
The question I raise and the questions that right-wingers raise. Oh what an uneasy truce we have. Is this.

What causes violence?

I think everyone except for a few very extreme liberals will agree that it is not guns. Fine.
You say that they may not cause violence but they certainly facilitate it. The right wingers would disagree.

Here is how I would suggest you looking at it. Guns are an outward symptom of something wrong in society. The same as crime or drug use.
You can go around locking up all the criminals for life; you can go around putting away drug users for life. This will lower crime; people will be too terrified to do anything. Is this the right solution? NO.

At the same time you can address the outward symptoms of a violent society by taking away the guns. Will this do anything to address the underlying problem? NO.
People will still have access to gas, and bombs, and poisons and anything else they want to use to kill people.

At the same time you are restricting a fundamental freedom that was guaranteed in the constitution. Just like it makes no sense for people to argue for longer prison sentences and ignore the causes of crime. It makes no sense for people to argue for gun control and ignore the causes of violence.

If you’ve read my posts carefully, you’ll see that I’ve never advocated an extremist political position. Rather, I’ve consistently railed against extremism and self-righteousness.

Folks here attack Creationists for self-righteously elevating their personal belief that the Universe was created 6,000 years ago to the equivalent of conclusively demonstrated scientific theory. Inevitably, the Creationists respond with the charges that the scientific viewpoint is inherently anti-religious. Such a respose being obvious bullshit, they rarely last more than a few weeks. When I confronted jenkinsfan and CalifBoomer on such obvious self-righteousness, I got a standing ovation.

When I point out that Libertarians and gun advocates display exactly the same sort of behavior, elevating their personal political beliefs to the state of irrefutable objective truth, I receive an avalanche of imprecations against my character, intelligence and judgement, including “intellectually arrogant” and “idiot”.

Look carefully at my posts. All I have ever argued against are the ideas that the Libertarian non-coercion principle is intrinsic universal truth, and that unrestricted private gun ownership is the only way to preserve civilization. I have asserted, sometimes forcefully, sometimes sarcastically, that these absolutist and self-righteous positions must be abandoned before any meaningful debate can take place.

Look at an assertion in this very thread:

Is this poster arguing for a disorganized police force? None at all? Just round up some guys from the street, give 'em some guns and say "go catch yourself some criminals? (These are, of course, rhetorical questions; I don’t really think he means that). I’m uncertain as to his point. But it seems he’s objecting to an organized, professionally trained and civilian controlled police force; y’all think I’m losing it?

I know of at least one instance, never contradicted by a single gun owner, of a poster (obviously rhetorically) threatening treason and insurrection if his and other gun owners’ absolute rights were infringed upon.

Do I personally believe guns are categorically bad? Yes. Am I willing to go to the mat to have them all confiscated tomorrow? No. I want to see some measure of real protection against, for instance, any yahoo with a few hundred dollars in his pocket purchasing sophisticated weapons at a gun show without doing much more than flashing an ID. I think Christianity (with apologies) is pretty stupid too, but I have no desire to outlaw the practice or even to criticise its adherents.

To abandon the self-righteous assumption of the truth of these principles does not mean you must immediately replace them with the opposite. Milossarian says, “Gun control advocates seem to want more and stricter laws. Get rid of the guns.” Klaatu says, “Lets look at the extreme…, government mandated confiscation of firearms.”

But Klaatu also says, “Having said that, I have no problem with requiring a license to own a gun, background check, and certification/training. Especially training.” Here here! But the gun owners have to push for such reforms to have any chance of succeeding.

I understand that gun owners strongly oppose total immediate confiscation. Fine. I won’t argue that point. Consider it conceeded. Yes, some gun control advocates do want to see all guns banned and confiscated. Well, so what? There are more than a quarter billion people in this country, some of them are going to radically disagree with you. It’s a democracy, live with it.

Abandon the stupid arguments: Stop arguing that the police and/or the US government are your enemies. This is a democracy. The government does screw up, often egregiously, but anarchy is not a meaningful alternative. You have a vote, use it. You have Constitutional protections and a judicial system that bends over backwards, if you have the smallest amount of sense, to find you innocent. Remember, Randy Weaver was aquitted.

And let’s start talking about why many existing gun laws are not enforced. If they are useful laws, then let’s have them enforced. If they are stupid, unenforcable laws, or their enforcement is resisted by gun owners, stop using them as red herrings. Replace them with good, enforceable laws that protect our safety while allowing responsible gun owners to afford themselves the peace of mind they seek.

You do not have a God-given right to own a gun. You have the same thing that everyone else has: A particular self-interest, which you are free to argue. You are not living under the oppressive thumb of a Nazi regime, you are living in the wealthiest, freest nation in the world. And you do not live in isolation, you live in a technologically advance, highly specialized interdependent society where we all must depend on each others’ civilized conduct, whether free or coerced, to survive.

I doubt it will come to civil war as the Op states.

Even if it does, somehow I don’t think it would be a very long war.

The guys with guns are probably gonna beat the guys without guns pretty quick.

 On the other hand it didn't look like you were willing to do the same about your position. I don't see anything wrong with owning a semi-automatic rifle, I see nothing wrong with instant background checks, I am against waiting periods, I'm against registration, and I'm for permits if one chooses to carry in public. Does this make me an extremist?

Marc

**

 What's an extremist? Someone who has strong beliefs you don't happen to agree with?

**

And gun control advocates don't behave the same way? I once had a guy ask me during a dinner conversation what would stop me from shooting someone if they made me mad. I told him the same thing that prevented me from gouging out his eyes with my fork. Gun control advocates often times come from a position that those who disagree with them are cold hearted bastards who don't care about the children.

**
I gotta agree on one point. I don’t think unrestricted guns or the threat of force is what holds society together. Of course I think there are enough restrictions on gun ownership as it stands. I guess I don’t have to point out that I haven’t seen any gun control advocates abandon their self-rightous positions.

**

 Who's to say we're worried about tomorrow? By the sounds of it you might want to take them away next monthy or next year.

**
Some of us also strongly oppose registration, mandatory licensing, and waiting periods.

**

 Gun owners do vote. And when they're issues win they're accused of all sorts of nasty things by the gun control folks. They act as if there are millions of people opposed to various gun control legislation. And although Weaver was aquitted nobody was charged with the murder of his wife. Although I don't really see the Weaver situation as a gun control issue so much as a law enforcement problem. Yes, I can critize law enforcement groups without being an extremist.

**

I'm a human being. My one basic right is the right to life from which all other rights derive. As such I have a right to self defense, and that means have a right to have in my posession the most effective means of personal defense, a firearm.**
 I seem to recall quite a few groups within this nation that have been attacked. In the 1800's the Mormons were attacked repeatedly and the law did nothing about it. The town of Rosewood was made up of successful blacks in the early part of the 20th Century. That all ended when a bunch of white yahoos decided to burn it to the ground and kill a few blacks. A similiar event occured in a mainly black town in Oklahoma during this century. In many rural areas and cities homosexuals fear attack because some bigots just don't like them.

 I'm sure it was/is a great comfort to all of them knowing we live in the freest most technologically advanced society on Earth was a great comfort to them. But maybe that's just the extremist in me talking.

Marc

**[Gaudere 4:21 : Yea, for every [ quote ] there shalt be an [ /quote ], lest the dreaded side-scroll appear to foul the reading of the thread. For without the [ /quote ] in its proper place, there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth among the diligent Moderators as they laboriously correct the faulty UBB code.]

Eh, when exactly did you turn into a nut-bar?
I really hope that this is a sort of strange, high-brow sarcasm that is over my head.

Anyway, I for one will stand up in a crowded room of people debating the Gun issue, and say something like this:

"Hey, you anti-gun people. With the HUGE exception of gun shows, we don’t need more laws. The ones we have are great. They need to be enforced, that’s all. Instead of spending so much time trying to staunch the unending flow of drugs into this country, let’s enforce those laws. You would do better and meet with more success if you threw your combined political weight behind existing laws, instead of trying to re-write them.

And now for you, pro-gun people. Relax. I know there are a lot of people saying that you shouldn’t be able to own guns. I know there are a lot of people saying that you shouldn’t be able to carry a gun. Don’t worry. Current laws don’t say you can’t own or carry a gun. But they do need to be enforced so that it is harder for the person who wants to get a gun for the sole purpose of killing people to actually get one.

Now, both of you need to calm down, sit down, and agree that we need to get our shit together and find out where the hell we are before we can effectively arrive anywhere.
What I’m trying to say, folks, is that we need to first establish a common ground (read: existing gun control laws) and then go from there (read: close loopholes, repeal archaic laws, enforce useful laws)."

Of course, this is all easier said than done. What I’m getting at is that I am willing to compromise. I am willing to admit that current gun laws need to be enforced, and gun shows need to be regulated.

The first thing we need to do, however, is take care of this:

We can’t have uninformed, ignorant people attempting to control the sale and ownership of guns.
It’s as simple as that.

I think that an aptitude test should be a requirement to own a gun.

The reason the debate rages so madly is that a lot of people are simply spewing bullshit so that they can feel contemporary, or some shit like that.
The amount of conjecture, hear-say and outright fallacy is astounding. It’s getting to the point that we need to institute an aptitude test for voting as well.
But then that brings another problem to light: voter turn out. This is another thread alltogether.

Let me bottom line it for you:

Whether or not you own a gun is irrelevant. If you are concerned about gun laws and how they will affect you and yours, you need to educate yourself about the situation and how to modify it so you can best contribute to the legislation that will lead to a better America.
Like a good, tax-paying citizen should.

Bascially, it boils down to one, wondrous, glaring truth:
If you don’t know your rights, you don’t have those rights.

Know your rights.
Know the truth.
Vote.

But for the love of creatures great and small…
Don’t bitch about an issue if you are uninformed, are not willing to do something about it, or are too stupid to understand that you need to know about an issue before you can effectively try to change it.

Clarification that is necessary, I might add, because I seem to have made myself grossly misunderstood…

I quoted SingleDad
[list]
[li] The first time to rib him a little with a quote from Wayne’s World because he is my friend.[/li]and
[li] The second time because I was agreeing with him![/li]Everything after that was not directed at him, but was the collectivbe of my own thoughts on the subject.
I thought this clear, but in retrospect I see how it could be construed as me taking an unwarranted pot shot at someone who is very cool in a debate forum.

If anyone got the impression that this is what I meant to do, please be advised of the above.
Thank you for your consideration.

May I ask a silly question…Why would someone be against registration, certification, or waiting periods, etc.? They don’t really seem extreme to me. I’d really like to know what the problem would be with something like that. Is it indeed because of the “slippery slope” theory? I’m pro-choice but don’t think I object to what they call partial birth abortions. I realize many are against them for the same reason. But society restricts many things without outlawing it completely. Please explain this to me, I just don’t really understand. I’m also a little bothered by the objection to gun locks. Why don’t gun manufacturers just put them on all new guns anyway? Seems like a really nice feature to me. If you’re a parent who owns a few guns then in addition to a nice locked gun case you can be doubly sure that your little boy wouldn’t hurt himself if he got into your guns. Anyway, what would the harm be in asking manufacturers to make these kind of modifications? Don’t we expect the manufacturers of cars to include safety features into their products?

May I tell you a rather cute story where an unregistered gun turned out to be a good thing for me?..During my marriage I would once in awhile be rambling around in the top of a closet and find a handgun that I didn’t know we had. Once I took the kids and left my husband. I was a little afraid of him because he drank hard and hit me now and then. Really more afraid of my kids growing up around that than my own personal saftey. Anyway to continue…When I left I took with me the car titles, checks, credit cards, birth certificates, all the important papers and his gun. I didn’t trust him not to get drunk and come waving it around. I knew I could keep the darned thing because he never bought one from a dealer or a store. He always seemed to aquire them somewhere, so they weren’t registered. I guess he discovered a few hours later that I had left. He called me at my mother’s I was there, she was out of town for the week. Guess what was the first thing he said to me…“Where’s my gun?” The rest of the conversation went like this…“What gun? Do you own a gun? Damn! how about that! I didn’t know you had a gun?” “Now, I have a gun. I think it’s a 22. Not sure. Those are the kind with the little bitty bullets, right?” He said; “You bitch, why’d you take my gun?” I said; “Your gun, do you have a gun registered in your name? I didn’t know that? I don’t know about you but I have a gun, and it’s laying right here in my lap. Oh yeah, and by the way…I’ve got the car titles, checks and credit cards too in case you’re interested in something besides your gun.”

In that instance a non-registered gun worked out to be a good thing for me.

I am really interested. I don’t necessarily think handguns are all that wonderful. They are after all designed to kill people, but I will concede that some people just might need to get shot at sometimes.

Please explain I’d like to fully understand about registrations, waiting periods etc and so many people’s objections to them.

Needs2know

Responding to Singledad.

In some related thread I posted: that here’s a lot of cognative dissonance reduction in political discourse. People overstate their positions. That’s regretable, but that’s politics.

You seem to be becoming frustrated in your encounters with libertarians. Your posts are becoming a trifle sniffy and in my view less effective as a result.

Remember that lots of people read what you say but don’t post. My guess is that a lot of people agree with you, and that they can evaluate who comes out smelling of reasonableness in these threads.

Also, I don’t know that the libertarians are being as unreasonable as you paint them. Reading between the lines, many of your careful points are conceded. That they because of their values disagree with you should be no surprise. That occasionally they will let slip a “one dollar of progressive income tax inevitably leads to socialism” comment is understandable, if piffle.

The admirable thing about your posts until very recently is that you have persisted in running down these statements and returning to the real issues. Now, I think you should take your own advice in the OP. Cool down, the better to humble people like me who admire the careful way in which you stay on track.

Don’t stop talking sense.

picmr

Does anybody know why (s)he got banned? Hitting a sour note on the tin whistle? Wearing orange on St. Paddy’s Day? These banning thangs always seem kind of creepy to me, because I can never figure out the cause.

Celt/CalifBoomer was banned for having more than one screen name a few months(?) ago. He snuck back in as “Celt” recently, because the MB software switch inadvertently unbanned a lot of previously banned people. He was rebanned once the oversight was noticed.

Apparently, some of them do think abortions are great fun. Here’s a link that proves it:
http://www.theonion.com/onion3516/psyched_about_abortion.html

Apparently, some of them do think abortions are great fun. Here’s a link that proves it:
http://www.theonion.com/onion3516/psyched_about_abortion.html

Thanks for the info Gaudere

Argeable wrote:

Or to put it another way, 99.99997 percent of U.S. school children were not killed or injured by gun-wielding students in the year of the Columbine massacre.

Never underestimate the legislative power of an overprotective mother, though. (This was what HCI was playing upon when they organized the Million Mom March.)