Will gun owners make the "Obama gun grab" a self-fulfilling prophecy

[E-Sabbath]

@MichaelQReilly

To be honest, I don’t know enough about the current laws to comment on a level I’d feel comfortable with. Is there a good place on the web that summarizes the various federal and state laws?

Not really. It’s a horrid freaking hodgepodge, and the only places that have it codified are places you can’t trust. Like the NRA. They slant things in sick and disturbing ways. I posted what the American Rifleman said about Obama once. Horrid stuff.

[sqweels]

@xtisme

To put it into context, it’s sort of like the folks who have tried to get abortion outlawed and have been wearing away at the issue for decades…except that the anti-gun group is a lot bigger and better organized (and funded).

Cite? I have a very hard time believing that.

And it’s pretty obvious that virtually anyone advocating for increased regulation on abortion really wants to ban it altogether. But there is plenty of middle ground on the gun issue, so no, it cannot be said that anyone who is for increased firearms regulation is secretly trying to get them banned altogether.

[E-Sabbath]

Can someone find that town… wait.

Battle of Athens (1946)

Here’s something of interest, Michael. Honest to god defense of civil liberties against corrupt government.
It’s worth thinking about. Local government is often a lot more oppressive than state or federal. (The 90 year old woman example happened to a neighbor of someone on this board, by the way.)

[XT]

@sqweels

And it’s pretty obvious that virtually anyone advocating for increased regulation on abortion really wants to ban it altogether. But there is plenty of middle ground on the gun issue, so no, it cannot be said that anyone who is for increased firearms regulation is secretly trying to get them banned altogether.

You want me to prove a negative? How about this…when you give me a cite that everyone who wants increased regulation on abortion secretly wants to ban it I’ll dig up a cite showing the same thing about gun control groups. Deal?

-XT

[sqweels]

@foolsguinea

I would prefer to have mandatory gun licensing & registration without banning private gun ownership.

You’re lying! You’re just trying to lull the Red-blooded Americans into a false sense of security and then…grabbo!

Well, we’re on to you!

[SuntanTigerTamer]

@E-Sabbath

Well, you’re the one saying killing human beings is never acceptable. I think it’s perfectly acceptable under a number of circumstances. For example, being in the army. Or, if you are willing to face the legal result of what happens to you for killing said human being, because you are of the strong opinion that said person should be dead. Like, say, if said person you are going to kill is Hitler, ca 1940.
Or if the person is actively trying to kill you. If I’m convinced beyond any reasonable doubt someone is trying to kill me, I’m pretty sure I don’t have a problem with trying to kill them first.

And if that person has an axe, I don’t mind having a shotgun that’s really good at killing people. I have no interest in playing fair in such fashion. If I am of the opinion that someone should be dead right now, I intend to do it in the fastest, most effective, and least likely to fail way I can think of.

Don’t much like the idea of following the path of my great-great-great-great-uncle who got caught by indians, enslaved, and died escaping. Rather not be caught by indians in the first place.

Well, this is why we have police. And military. This is why we do not condone vigilante justice. Because this scenario comes down to who YOU feel should die. I don’t think this is a rubric that we should be condoning. And I am very clearly not talking about taking guns out of the hands of active military, or police.

And the idea that it is ok to kill someone because you are personally willing to deal with the consequences is terrifying, to say the least. The ideal gun owner, to me, should pray that he never ever has to use them to take anothers life, no matter the circumstances, not sit around psyching himself up and hoping that someone tries him…

[XT]

@SuntanTigerTamer

If we can agree that the country is much different than it was then, that we are much more prone to violence against our fellow countrymen, then why is it inconceivable that we should look at making firearms harder to get? Admitting that this is something we should consider does not make you anti-gun, it makes you rational and open to change depending on your outside environment, instead of blindly following a pre-established ideology regardless of it’s impact on the abilities of others to do evil.

Fine. Then the right thing to do is to Amend or repeal the Amendment…not to try some backdoor way to interpret the right and the spirit of the Amendment away. If you and those like you want to make the case that the Amendment is not relevent today, or that due to today’s violence that the 2nd should be struck down for the good of society, etc etc, then feel free.

The problem comes when the anti-gun types use sneaking, cowardly attacks of ‘interpretation’ to try and get this agenda through around or underneath the process…THAT’S when folks get a bit tense about this subject. It’s a right granted by an Amendment to the Constitution. If that right is no longer in keeping with society today we have a process for dealing with this kind of thing, and there are precedence for striking down Amendments, or even making fundamental changes to the Constitution…so, my question to you is, if this is so obvious why haven’t the anti-gun types used this to push through this agenda?

-XT

[SuntanTigerTamer]

@xtisme

Fine. Then the right thing to do is to Amend or repeal the Amendment…not to try some backdoor way to interpret the right and the spirit of the Amendment away. If you and those like you want to make the case that the Amendment is not relevent today, or that due to today’s violence that the 2nd should be struck down for the good of society, etc etc, then feel free.

The problem comes when the anti-gun types use sneaking, cowardly attacks of ‘interpretation’ to try and get this agenda through around or underneath the process…THAT’S when folks get a bit tense about this subject. It’s a right granted by an Amendment to the Constitution. If that right is no longer in keeping with society today we have a process for dealing with this kind of thing, and there are precedence for striking down Amendments, or even making fundamental changes to the Constitution…so, my question to you is, if this is so obvious why haven’t the anti-gun types used this to push through this agenda?

-XT

Well, I am hoping that they do, because you are right. Until that time, however, I think we should support more strict gun control laws, if only in the HOPE that even one less person/family/lunchroom gets shot up. This is clearly in everyone’s best interest, and, at worse, you might have to wait a bit longer or pass a tougher background check. If you are unwilling to do either of these, I can’t sympathize.

[sqweels]

@xtisme

You want me to prove a negative? How about this…when you give me a cite that everyone who wants increased regulation on abortion secretly wants to ban it I’ll dig up a cite showing the same thing about gun control groups. Deal?

Secretly schmecretly–they don’t deny it. I said it’s pretty obvious to me. Is it not pretty obvious to you? I don’t recall ever hearing anyone calling for more regulations on abortion reiterate that they still support the overall right to get one. Just dig up one example.

Meanwhile, in my previous post I quoted someone with that sort of position on guns.
And I’m still waiting for the cite showing that the movement to ban guns is better organized and funded, so don’t go asking me for cites.

[XT]

@SuntanTigerTamer

Well, I am hoping that they do, because you are right. Until that time, however, I think we should support more strict gun control laws, if only in the HOPE that even one less person/family/lunchroom gets shot up. This is clearly in everyone’s best interest, and, at worse, you might have to wait a bit longer or pass a tougher background check. If you are unwilling to do either of these, I can’t sympathize.

I have no fundamental problem with gun control, registration or licensing. I’m not sanguine that it will save a lot of folks lives, but I think it would be in societies best interests to have folks with guns actually trained on their use, and to have weapons inspected and certified as viable, as well as records kept as far as who has what (i.e. licensed and registered, just like motor vehicles).

What I DO have a problem with is that this is pretty clearly an agenda to try and get ALL weapons banned. While sqweels may think there is a middle ground (which there is…the one I happen to inhabit on this issue IMHO), I think that by and large the folks pushing hardest for regulation are the one’s who secretly (or not so secretly) want to ban all or most guns. And they want to do so not by using the process but by distorting it through interpretation. And the reason they want to do so is because frankly American’s want their right to keep and bear arms…despite the supposed cost in lives.

But let’s talk about that cost, shall we? What kills more people each year? Alcohol or guns? Cars or guns? Heart disease or guns? Home accidents (non-firearms related) or guns? Swallowing tooth picks or guns…

Ok, just kidding on that last one (though a surprisingly large number of folks are killed this way per year, curiously enough). The point is that all life is risk…and a lot of things we do every day without thought are dangerous and MUCH more likely to kill us than something like a gun. If you aren’t in a high risk group (like a gang member, in a drug cartel, etc etc) then your risk of actually being killed by a gun, even if you own one, is pretty low…VERY low. So…in effect you are fretting about something that, assuming you AREN’T in one of those high risk groups, is about as probable as you being on a flight that’s hijacked and flown into a large building…or swallowing a tooth pick and choking to death. Or dieing from heart disease because you ate one cheese burger too many…

-XT

[sqweels]

@xtisme

Fine. Then the right thing to do is to Amend or repeal the Amendment…not to try some backdoor way to interpret the right and the spirit of the Amendment away. If you and those like you want to make the case that the Amendment is not relevent today, or that due to today’s violence that the 2nd should be struck down for the good of society, etc etc, then feel free.

The problem comes when the anti-gun types use sneaking, cowardly attacks of ‘interpretation’ to try and get this agenda through around or underneath the process…THAT’S when folks get a bit tense about this subject. It’s a right granted by an Amendment to the Constitution. If that right is no longer in keeping with society today we have a process for dealing with this kind of thing, and there are precedence for striking down Amendments, or even making fundamental changes to the Constitution…so, my question to you is, if this is so obvious why haven’t the anti-gun types used this to push through this agenda?

But if they’re not trying to repeal the 2nd then they’re clearly not trying very hard and don’t have a lot of power behind them. And as for the “spirit” of the 2nd Amendment, doesn’t the phrase, “well regulated” inform that spirit? Completely anonymous gun ownership ain’t well regulated.

[SuntanTigerTamer]

@xtisme

What I DO have a problem with is that this is pretty clearly an agenda to try and get ALL weapons banned. While sqweels may think there is a middle ground (which there is…the one I happen to inhabit on this issue IMHO), I think that by and large the folks pushing hardest for regulation are the one’s who secretly (or not so secretly) want to ban all or most guns. And they want to do so not by using the process but by distorting it through interpretation. And the reason they want to do so is because frankly American’s want their right to keep and bear arms…despite the supposed cost in lives.

But let’s talk about that cost, shall we? What kills more people each year? Alcohol or guns? Cars or guns? Heart disease or guns? Home accidents (non-firearms related) or guns? Swallowing tooth picks or guns…

Who has suggested that all guns be immediately banned here? I certainly havn’t and I have made a point of repeatedly distancing myself from that idea. But this is not a P/NP problem. It isn’t smelt them all down and make safer, metal toothpicks with them or hand them out along with condoms in 3rd grade.

The only logical conclusion that I can see is to do everything, and I do mean everything including amending the Constitution, to keep lethal weapons out of the hands of unstable, irresponsible people. Just like we do with cars and alcohol. Arguing that irresponsible people will still use all three of these things misses the point. At least I can tell my kid I tried.

[MichaelQReilly]

@E-Sabbath

Not really. It’s a horrid freaking hodgepodge, and the only places that have it codified are places you can’t trust. Like the NRA. They slant things in sick and disturbing ways. I posted what the American Rifleman said about Obama once. Horrid stuff.

Haha. That’s what I figured. I took the afternoon off from work to watch opening day, so the last thing I want to do right now is slog through a bunch of code to try and make sense of it all.

Talking completely out of my ass, what I would do is change the federal code:

1. Classify the nasty stuff like machine guns, submachine guns, automatic assault rifles, grenades, rocket launchers, etc. as “military hardware.” Make it today’s version of the 18th century’s cannons, which I don’t think that anyone has argued the FF’s though was protected by the 2nd Amendment (although given private ships being armed with cannon, maybe I’m wrong).

2. Mandatory registration and licensing of everything else. We can make the states responsible for administering this in a nod to federalism if need be.

3. Do what NYC has done and make having an unlicensed firearm a felony where possession is presumptive of intent to use (which I’m familiar with thanks to Plaxico Burress).

NY Penal Code § 265.15 - The possession by any person of the substance as specified in section 265.04 is presumptive evidence of possessing such substance with intent to use the same unlawfully against the person or property of another if such person is not licensed or otherwise authorized to possess such substance. The possession by any person of any dagger, dirk, stiletto, dangerous knife or any other weapon, instrument, appliance or substance designed, made or adapted for use primarily as a
weapon, is presumptive evidence of intent to use the same unlawfully against another.

4. Have a graduated scale where low level felonies cost a person their ability to obtain a license for a certain time going up to lifetime bans for serious felonies or mental illness.
   My idea has the advantage of working with the 2nd amendment, not changing it, because we all know that is effectively impossible. Of course congress has less than zero chance of ever passing any common sense laws, so I don’t expect to ever see anything like this.

[sqweels]

@xtisme

I think it would be in societies best interests to have folks with guns actually trained on their use, and to have weapons inspected and certified as viable, as well as records kept as far as who has what (i.e. licensed and registered, just like motor vehicles).

FYI, I draw the line between registration and licensing. I oppose licensing because that implies gun ownership is not a right but rather a priviledge bestowed by the government on a temporary and contingent basis.

[XT]

@sqweels

And I’m still waiting for the cite showing that the movement to ban guns is better organized and funded, so don’t go asking me for cites.

Too much work to be honest. Besides, I can’t think of any pro-banning abortion groups. I will say that the Brady Campaign DOES spring instantly to mind, and that they are indeed well funded and organized…and well keyed into the political system.

So…instead of trying to dig up who is better funded and organized I’ll simply pass and you can believe what you like on the question. It’s really not central to the discussion anyway and there are more interesting aspects to talk about. Besides, I’m pretty lazy…

But if they’re not trying to repeal the 2nd then they’re clearly not trying very hard and don’t have a lot of power behind them. And as for the “spirit” of the 2nd Amendment, doesn’t the phrase, “well regulated” inform that spirit? Completely anonymous gun ownership ain’t well regulated.

They aren’t trying to repeal the 2nd because they know they would get no traction by doing so. Instead they have in the pasted used their efforts to get AROUND the Amendment through interpretation. And it’s pretty clear that they have managed to do this quite a bit…which goes a long way toward showing how well organized and funded (and pervasive) they are. As opposed to the anti-abortion crowd who have really not managed to do much of anything, despite having supposed Republican’s sympathetic to their cause in control of the government from 2000 to 2006. Sort of says something, doesn’t it?

As for your interpretation of the 2nd, it doesn’t match with the historical context. It’s pretty clear that the authors of the 2nd DID mean for the average citizen to have the right to keep and bear arms…we can see this by merely looking at their attitude to personal gun ownership during their time and the emphasis they put on personal gun ownership by citizens. As to the well regulated, it’s also pretty clear this had to do with the militia…and that ‘well regulated’ didn’t mean the same thing as ‘regulation’ means today. Instead they meant something along the lines of ‘in good order’ or ‘authorized by the state’…not ‘has lots of regulations pertaining to it’.

-XT

[XT]

@sqweels

FYI, I draw the line between registration and licensing. I oppose licensing because that implies gun ownership is not a right but rather a priviledge bestowed by the government on a temporary and contingent basis.

I think it’s open to serious debate…and I’m actually for both licensing and registration. I see it much the same as owing and operating a car or a plane…it’s a right to own the thing, but to use (or operate) it you need to have it properly licensed and registered.

I think that reasonable people can reasonably disagree on this point, but the crux is that I think the government should have this ability…the same as with a car or a plane. Where I draw the line personally is with banning, especially banning based on cosmetic facades. I think that the ban on full automatic or even selective fire is reasonable…but I think pretty much everything else should be allowed, while licensed and registered.

If the anti-gun crowd would take THIS stance I’d be on their side on this one…especially if they came right out and said that, unequivocally, THIS was where it would end, that they would not, under any circumstances attempt further bans having gotten licensing and registration on the books.

-XT

[E-Sabbath]

@SuntanTigerTamer

Well, this is why we have police. And military. This is why we do not condone vigilante justice. Because this scenario comes down to who YOU feel should die. I don’t think this is a rubric that we should be condoning. And I am very clearly not talking about taking guns out of the hands of active military, or police.

Why not disarm the police? They keep shooting innocent people. 40 times. It’s not like they have any duty to protect the public. They don’t.

@SuntanTigerTamer

And the idea that it is ok to kill someone because you are personally willing to deal with the consequences is terrifying, to say the least. The ideal gun owner, to me, should pray that he never ever has to use them to take anothers life, no matter the circumstances, not sit around psyching himself up and hoping that someone tries him…

Oh, how cute. I’m not hoping someone tries me. I’m trying to define a broad principle. I don’t know if I could kill anyone. I honestly don’t know if I could shoot Hitler, if someone gave me a gun and a tied up Hitler. I have trouble trapping mice.
However, there are evil people out there. Adolph Hitler is a good example, because everyone can agree he was just plain evil, and that if he were to die at just about any point in his career, the world would have been a better place afterwards. The argument could be made about George W. Bush or Robert Mugabe or Joseph Stalin, as well, but let’s just stick with someone we can all agree on.

So. Three points. It is morally and ethically acceptable to kill someone in time of war, if you are a soldier, and they are an enemy soldier under arms, not surrendered.
It is morally and ethically acceptable to kill someone in time of peace, if they are actively attempting to kill you.
It is somewhat more of an edge case to kill someone if you are one hundred percent sure they are evil. Like Adolph Hitler. I’m pretty sure I’d take the option, and accept whatever torture and horrible death would result from it, because it is the best thing to do given the situation.

Now that we’ve established that there are cases in which it is valid to kill another human being…

How about Revolution? Is it ever morally and ethically acceptable to revolt? Well, the founders of our country thought so.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

    For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
    For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
    For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
    For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
    For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
    For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
    For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
    For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
    For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

In a case such as the above, under the American system, it must be acceptable to revolt. Because that is the force by which our country came into being.

Thus, preserving the ability of the people to revolt is a strong and fundamental factor of our nation.

[E-Sabbath]

Michael, I’ll be honest. I can tell you the name of the person responsible for most of the last six or so shooting sprees, starting with the one down by… Alabama, was it? The one that went across two states? Oh, and the one back in December in California. The Santa Spree?

Alan Greenspan.

It’s the economy. When people lose their jobs, sometimes they just… snap. Most of them were legal gun owners. Most of them were people who legally owned guns. And then…

they lost everything.

There is a really good way to prevent gun crime. To prevent gang violence. To make this a better place for everyone. And that’s to make everyone richer than before. It’s the only way that’ll work.

You can legislate away every gun, and people will go after people with knives or bombs. (Japan, IIRC, and an Amish school situation) Make their lives better. Find a way to strengthen the economy… or provide a better safety net. Show people there is a way out of the trap they think they’re in, the ghetto… trust me, people living there think there is no way out. Obama may have done more for the future of this country just by being elected than we’ll ever know… or in the strings of debt and apparent loss of house and home.

Fix the root cause. Not the symptoms. That’s how you solve problems.

[E-Sabbath]

@xtisme

I think it’s open to serious debate…and I’m actually for both licensing and registration. I see it much the same as owing and operating a car or a plane…it’s a right to own the thing, but to use (or operate) it you need to have it properly licensed and registered.

-XT

The problem here, besides registration ‘oh no now they have a list’… no, I’ll cover this. In Cali, they had a fun little mandatory registration thing. Register, then your gun will be legal. But then they played a little game, outlawed all the guns on the list except a few, and went and confiscated 'em all. I do not joke.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=0E24D26A-B43B-4BF6-B68D-7A948CA85F81
So… you can see how trustworthy that is. (Site is biased, but the facts on the article appear to be accurate.)
Besides registration, there’s another issue. “The power to tax is the power to destroy.” Even if licenses are ‘shall issue’, then the fees get… nasty. Oh, sure, only $10 for the gun… but $75 for the mandatory fingerprinting. (Yes, your fingerprints go into the criminal databases, as far as I can tell. Isn’t that nice?)
And so on, and so on. Fees on top of fees. What appears to be a $10 cost winds up being $150… and it has to get acted on… oh, within six months.
Unless it gets lost. They get lost a lot.

It’s not that these laws are so bad on the surface. The problem is… people have played a lot of games with these laws, so even reasonable ones can’t be trusted.

[JXJohns]

@E-Sabbath

… It’s not that these laws are so bad on the surface. The problem is… people have played a lot of games with these laws, so even reasonable ones can’t be trusted.

Plus, few if any of them are structured to actually prevent a crime. Not that that fact will stop anyone from suggesting even more.