|
Post by Village Idiot on Jan 11, 2016 0:05:32 GMT -5
Kris, You obviously haven't seen VI post-operation. Todd, I think the Beyonce's Betty Page doo would be darling on you. I can understand why you like the Betty Boop thing you have going and would want to stick with it, but you can always go back. (Oooh, this is fun, isn't it?) I might have a little surprise for everyone myself. Check me out on Facebook tomorrow, Soundhole gang! Ooh! I know, but please don't tell! Surprises are just so much fun!
|
|
|
Post by xyrn on Jan 11, 2016 1:17:44 GMT -5
Not liking the second amendment does not make me an anti-constitutionalist. I think the constitution was a great compromise. We have the oldest surviving constitution in the world. It’s not perfect. Our forefathers knew they didn’t know everything and couldn’t possibly plan for every contingency. That’s why the constitution allows for amendments: as conditions dictate, the constitution can be changed. It’s designed to be changed. Not in a Rick Perry “Hey, let’s change seven amendments” kind of way, but with overwhelming agreement, the mechanism to add, delete or modify provisions is already in place. Treating blacks and women as sub-human was part of the constitution. Attitudes changed after long struggles over hundreds of years. We amended the constitution to reflect our changing values. I think gun ownership will eventually follow the same path. But just as treating blacks as 5/5ths of a person and allowing women to vote were achieved through constitutional processes, so will meaningful limitations on gun ownership. Obama will not show up at your door to take away your guns. A bunch of anti-gun yahoos in cowboy hats taking over a bird sanctuary in Manhattan will not cause all guns to disappear. Probably none of what the NRA tells you that you should should fear is something that you should fear. The country’s attitude about gun violence is changing. How much it changes and how long it takes remains to be seen. Blacks have been discriminated since our earliest history and they still don’t have total equality, although they’re certainly much closer than they were 70 years ago. By contrast, the LGBT community has seen relatively rapid results that can be measured in decades rather than centuries. If you respect our democracy and the freedoms granted in the constitution, not just one amendment, you no doubt see how ludicrous it is to claim that someone who doesn’t like part of the constitution is anti-constitutionalist. Jim, you are right, wanting change in the Constitution does not make you anti-Constitution or anti-American or anything like that. I agree, the mechanisms to change our Government are written into the founding documents. And slavery and women's rights were VERY important evolutions of the Federal code and America, but I cannot disagree more strongly about weakening the 2nd Amendment. Yes, my personal odds are quite low that I'll ever need to kill someone in self-defense, but it's not the odds to me, it's the stakes. I will likely never have a potentially fatal housefire but I have smoke detectors and extinguishers. But, EVEN THAT is not what the 2nd Amendment is about, "...being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People...", that is not about me being able to shoot the guy carjacking me, it is about the People defending themselves against enemies foreign AND domestic, which includes tyranny. That may sound very "gun-nutty" to you, but humans have been around for eons, so a hundred years is an eyeblink, and less than 100 years ago we had a developed/industrialized/electrified/intelligent nation and continent disarmed and ruled, for the benefit of the worst mass murder of all human kind. Is that likely to happen here? Is that Obama's grand plan? No, not likely, and no, not Obama's end-game. But to deny that it COULD happen in the US at some point is the height of irrational denial. I'm not trying to insult anyone, this is just logic. How are we, Americans in the 20-teens, any more advanced or enlightened in the way we act as a group than our great-grandparents? I knew my Grandpa, born in 1906, and he seemed like a pretty sharp guy (100+ patents, devices on the Apollo missions) and I bet his Dad was no slouch either, but people of their generation, though a few thousand miles to our East, were either duped or coerced into applauding Hitler and letting his policies get so far down the slope that there was no way out. That is what I do NOT want for America. And it starts and ends with the 2nd Amendment. Addendum: No, it starts with the 2nd Amendment, then it goes to the others.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jan 11, 2016 1:46:31 GMT -5
Not at all. Your post as a whole is the best argument you’ve made so far, IMO.
I still don’t agree with you. I don’t think the risks are worth the benefits. But you did a good job in this post stating your position, and I have to respect that. And I have to respect that you have a constitutionally protected right to your guns.
I may not want everybody owning guns, but what I want doesn’t really matter. Gun ownership is a reality, and it’s not about to change in the foreseeable future. What can change is a few compromises about guns getting into the wrong hands.
Most people agree that background checks should be enforced. Most people agree on assault weapons and high capacity magazines being banned. Most people agree that the mentally unstable should not be able to buy a gun, and most people agree that suspected terrorists should not be able to buy a gun.
We can’t end gun violence overnight. But we can reduce it by enforcing what most of us recognize as common sense, and saving some lives is better than saving no lives. I for one will be voting with my anti-trigger finger in the next election.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Jan 11, 2016 3:36:09 GMT -5
This pre-dates all the 2nd amendment brouhaha, but it's interesting that post-war the US pretty much imposed a no-gun law on Japan. (Also, no swords, and some other things.) I guess you could read that in two (and probably more) ways--either the US as an imperial power didn't want to be dealing with an armed populace, or, maybe they realized that no guns was an overall better situation...? Sorry, but I feel safer ( and freer) when there are not a hundred million plus guns around. I'm really glad that my family lives in what is pretty much a gun-free society. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" tho not in the constitution here, seem more achievable without worrying about everyone having guns. Don't worry, you don't need to suggest something like 'well, if that's your opinion, we don't need you here,' since tho I'll be visiting for a week in March, I have no desire to return to the US to live (retire). I know it's tough to swallow, but life is better here, and while gun culture is a background factor, it's mostly due to other things. (e.g., healthcare, food that I like, etc.) *** These days, I have difficulty believing that an armed citizenry (a lot of individuals, armed to the degree that they are now) would have much of a chance against an organized and far better equipped and trained military. And how about the illegal "invasion" from the south--the 2nd amendment believers appear to have been helpless in the face of that, and have not even tried to stop some millions of "illegals". And somehow they're going to stop a tyrannical gov't?!?! Did an armed citizenry stop the big banks from bringing down the economy? Did an armed citizenry stop the subprime crisis? Did gun-toting people make a bit of difference in Obama's re-election? Guns didn't make a bit of difference to those very real dangers. ((Did an armed citizenry stop the US from invading Iraq? Would have an armed citizenry have meant that the US could not have grabbed Hawaii?)) Give me a break. See the thread on coercion and mental illness. The possession of guns is a worthless (and dangerous) bone/pacifier that the gov't has thrown its citizens so that they can feel good about where they are in the scheme of things. Possessing guns is like a card trick--you think you know what's really going on, and that you're in control--when nothing could be further from the truth. Gun owners are being played by something like the institutional inertia (power/control) of big biz/gov't.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Jan 11, 2016 3:57:31 GMT -5
If you just want to go out and plink around, hit some targets, try for pheasant or something bigger--more power to you, and you should be completely free to do that. I tried for pheasant with a .410 thru middle school or so. I don't think that kind of use is the issue.
But when guns seem necessary for home defense, or self protection, or if you have that pipe dream that your guns could actually stop what the gov't wants to do to you (how it wants to manipulate and control you), I think you have a broken society. The short-term solution might be to use guns to protect yourself, but long term, some thinking/action is required to fix what is really wrong.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Jan 11, 2016 5:17:52 GMT -5
... Most people agree that background checks should be enforced. Most people agree on assault weapons and high capacity magazines being banned. Most people agree that the mentally unstable should not be able to buy a gun, and most people agree that suspected terrorists should not be able to buy a gun. ... And I hope that most people would agree that if your gun is used in any crime, you are also responsible and legally liable. Legitimately stolen, and officially reported, I can accept. But if your kid or something takes your gun and does something, you should be equally liable.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jan 11, 2016 6:25:28 GMT -5
If you just want to go out and plink around, hit some targets, try for pheasant or something bigger--more power to you, and you should be completely free to do that. I tried for pheasant with a .410 thru middle school or so. I don't think that kind of use is the issue. But when guns seem necessary for home defense, or self protection, or if you have that pipe dream that your guns could actually stop what the gov't wants to do to you (how it wants to manipulate and control you), I think you have a broken society. The short-term solution might be to use guns to protect yourself, but long term, some thinking/action is required to fix what is really wrong. Fortunately, your (and Jim's) opinion of what the proper motivations for gun ownership should be don't matter at all. In your personal life, you're free to do whatever you want- including denigrating this country (another Constitutional right). In the immortal words of George Thorogood, "that don't confront me none". Obama's been great for gun owners here. Possibly the only decent thing of his term. He exposes the absurdity of gun control arguments (even liberals generally agree that nothing he's proposed would do anything to stop or even curtail "gun violence") and his willingness to completely circumvent the normal system of governance in this country so that he can appear to be doing something just drive home how pointless it all is. And every time he opens his mouth, guns sell out (you do remember that that was the point of this thread to begin with?). Go Barry! Ride that pointless lame duck into the sunset! Good riddance.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 11, 2016 6:57:01 GMT -5
These days, I have difficulty believing that an armed citizenry (a lot of individuals, armed to the degree that they are now) would have much of a chance against an organized and far better equipped and trained military. Our equipped and trained military has been defeated by an armed citizenry in every military action we've undertaken since Korea. The ridicule goes: "You and your pea-shooter are going to stand up against an army tank?" The real answer is: "No. But 100 million armed citizens having that army turned on them by their government DO stand a pretty good chance of making that government think twice about such actions." The ridicule goes: "Why do you need THAT kind of gun for target shooting or hunting?" The real answer is: "The government has tanks." I don't have guns. I'm personally a little alarmed at many of those in my family who are arming themselves. But they live in large cities. I don't. I understand something of what they are up against. And the "tell" is that gun control as currently pursued by the government starts and ends with removing guns from the law-abiding. If that same government was similarly obsessed with removing guns from the criminal element that is using them to cause most of the gun deaths in the country, then I think those who are opposing gun control might be a little more open to listening to the plan.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Jan 11, 2016 7:34:49 GMT -5
I think you have to go with the first one.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Jan 11, 2016 8:06:11 GMT -5
... And the "tell" is that gun control as currently pursued by the government starts and ends with removing guns from the law-abiding. ... Can you explain that? (to someone to whom that is not so obvious)
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Jan 11, 2016 8:30:32 GMT -5
These days, I have difficulty believing that an armed citizenry (a lot of individuals, armed to the degree that they are now) would have much of a chance against an organized and far better equipped and trained military. Our equipped and trained military has been defeated by an armed citizenry in every military action we've undertaken since Korea. ... Well, the US/UN didn't "lose" in korea to an armed citizenry--they lost to another army. And they lost to another army in vietnam. Maybe you're thinking of one of the other wars that the US has engaged in? As I said, these days you need a little more weaponry than is now legally allowed in the US to defeat some incoming (or tyrannical) force. Or maybe go asymmetrical--fight bullets with something else? That idea/possibility is probably not even on the I-gotta-have-my-gun guy's focus on the 2nd amendment. I mean bullets are bullets, and they're for killing, right? And there's no other (constitutional) way to do the other in, right? So with your guns, if some "enemy" comes at you with a wave of illegal immigration, you're helpless. If your banks fuck you over royally, your guns won't help. If your economy moves on, creating jobs for some 70 months or so, and you haven't got one, maybe having a gun will provide some solace. So what exactly is your gun doing for you? What is it fixing? What is it providing you with?
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jan 11, 2016 8:32:01 GMT -5
... And the "tell" is that gun control as currently pursued by the government starts and ends with removing guns from the law-abiding. ... Can you explain that? (to someone to whom that is not so obvious) A simple example: The US Attorney in Chicago chooses to simply not prosecute violations of current straw purchase laws. On a similar note, simply being a felon in possession of a gun is a Federal crime good for five years in prison, and yet authorities in many large cities like Chicago do not refer those cases to the Feds, because (among other reasons), they know the Feds aren't interested.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jan 11, 2016 8:33:55 GMT -5
Our equipped and trained military has been defeated by an armed citizenry in every military action we've undertaken since Korea. ... Well, the US/UN didn't "lose" in korea to an armed citizenry--they lost to another army. And they lost to another army in vietnam. Maybe you're thinking of one of the other wars that the US has engaged in? As I said, these days you need a little more weaponry than is now legally allowed in the US to defeat some incoming (or tyrannical) force. Or maybe go asymmetrical--fight bullets with something else? That idea/possibility is probably not even on the I-gotta-have-my-gun guy's focus on the 2nd amendment. I mean bullets are bullets, and they're for killing, right? And there's no other (constitutional) way to do the other in, right? So with your guns, if some "enemy" comes at you with a wave of illegal immigration, you're helpless. If your banks fuck you over royally, your guns won't help. If your economy moves on, creating jobs for some 70 months or so, and you haven't got one, maybe having a gun will provide some solace. So what exactly is your gun doing for you? What is it fixing? What is it providing you with? Enjoyment. Why is that any of your business?
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 11, 2016 8:38:14 GMT -5
So what exactly is your gun doing for you? What is it fixing? What is it providing you with?
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Jan 11, 2016 8:39:33 GMT -5
Fantastic--thank you!
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Jan 11, 2016 8:40:55 GMT -5
Can you explain that? (to someone to whom that is not so obvious) A simple example: The US Attorney in Chicago chooses to simply not prosecute violations of current straw purchase laws. On a similar note, simply being a felon in possession of a gun is a Federal crime good for five years in prison, and yet authorities in many large cities like Chicago do not refer those cases to the Feds, because (among other reasons), they know the Feds aren't interested. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jan 11, 2016 8:42:44 GMT -5
... And the "tell" is that gun control as currently pursued by the government starts and ends with removing guns from the law-abiding. ... Can you explain that? (to someone to whom that is not so obvious) No. If it's not obvious, that someone couldn't possibly understand the explanation.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Jan 11, 2016 8:45:27 GMT -5
Can you explain that? (to someone to whom that is not so obvious) No. If it's not obvious, that someone couldn't possibly understand the explanation. I understand Jeff's answer, thanks anyway.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jan 11, 2016 8:47:23 GMT -5
No. If it's not obvious, that someone couldn't possibly understand the explanation. I understand Jeff's answer, thanks anyway. Oh, then it was obvious.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Jan 11, 2016 9:19:15 GMT -5
I can't wade into the back-and-forth mortar fire here. But I will resurrect the original posts.
It saddens me that whenever some type of gun regulation is discussed by government, that so many people rush out, like the woman discussed, and buy a weapon totally unsuited for them and their life. (The woman with the .357). These are the people that are potentially much more harm to themselves and those around them than they'll ever be from a criminal. I don't want to change the constitution. I don't want to take weapons away from responsible people who know and understand the risk and will act knowledgeably and responsibly with their guns, like Kris and some here. But so many people rushing out to buy guns makes it a more dangerous world for me and my family.
On the subject of the constitution and gun regulation; I've said it many times before; the country already regulates weapons. You can't own a tank. And assault weapons were legally and constitutionally banned once before. The legislation had a sunset provision. So it's not a constitutional issue to ban them again. It's merely a voting issue. "All in favor or against say yay, or nay."
It would seem to me that proper background checks hurts NO responsible gun owner advocate in any way. In fact it protects them, because it allows them to be armed as they see fit, and makes it harder for nefarious people to be armed.
But mostly I'm very saddened by the number of people that irresponsibly buy something out of the ability to handle. If they don't have enough sense to get something they can handle, how can we expect them to control and use it properly. They are a hazard to us all.
|
|