NOT Gun Control

Quote:
Like I said earlier, this is a debate between the right to bear arms vs. the right to live.
No, it's not.

And, its not even close.

By framing the debate in those terms, you are equating the right to bear arms with committing murder. This argument brands ALL gun owners as murderers, automatically, as a prerequisite.

it is not accurate, it is not factual, it is not honest. It is stereotypical bigotry, and would be immediately dismissed as crap if it were applied to any other subject.

but it does make a good sound bite, doesn't it? Propaganda usually does. Doesn't change the fact that it's a lie at the heart of the matter, all that matters is that people hear the lie, over and over. Its the Big Lie in action, in a convenient package for media exploitation.
Click to expand...

No I'm not. My point was that one right is being abused by a few in order to violate another's right to live. This doesn't brand all firearms owners as murderers. My viewpoint and opinion on what should be done isn't propaganda. I'll also comment that this is a very emotional delivery coming from a moderator. I think I'll go back to arguing with Zuki now; I have to think about my responses with him:D

Is it genuinely your desire to discuss any tool that can directly end one's life, or just firearms?
Click to expand...

No, just firearms; I think it's pretty well established that the spirit of the 2nd is interpreted to be concerning firearms.

Does the potential for harm really distinguish the 2d from the 1st and 4th Amendments and voting. I knew people in school during the Cold War who voted for Gus Hall. That seems potentially quite harmful. Walter Duranty used his 1st Am. rights to conceal the deaths of millions of people while it was happening. Surely the NYT could suffer the mere inconvenience of vetting its articles with the government first, right?
Click to expand...

I think it does; any misuse of our rights has the potential to do harm, but the only one that has the potential for direct, tangible, person on person harm, is the abuse of the rights to the things pertaining to the second

What do you think of David French's idea?
Click to expand...

What was this?
 
Because the Supreme Court has stated that the right to own firearms is precisely the right to protect life. Unless or until the Court backs away from that idea, conflating the two as being separate and opposed to each other is a non-starter. They are in fact, the same thing.
Click to expand...

Sure, but it can also be abused by people to do the exact opposite of protecting life. It's a double edged sword, and I really don't see the issue in trying to ensure that the gun owning populace is competent and responsible via more stringent background checks and training/ education. Someone is going to say that one restriction leads to another and that's true. I think that sort of all or nothing attitude however, and inability to adapt is going to be the eventual end of the 2nd.
 
When Nikolas Cruz was blasting away at the students and teachers there was only one thing that could have stopped him at that moment and that would have been if someone could have returned fire. Here's one small suggestion, while we are waiting for congress to "do something" we need to do away with gun free zones.
Personally, I have no faith in congress to do the right thing, too many of them are on the record in favor of banning guns, not the ones I want in charge of handling this. If federal government was concerned about the 2nd amendment, why do I have to disarm to go into the post office, or any federal building or any of the millions of acers that the a.c.o.e. own? Government can not even stop the killings in our inner cities when we know the gangs are the ones doing the killing. Which brings up another question, how come liberals are too willing to lump all gun owners in the same group as the mass killers, but do not lump all the gang members together when they go on a shooting spree? I never hear government say we need to do something about gangs, but they will want to make it a burden for law abiding citizens to purchase a gun.
 
NateKirk said:
It's a double edged sword, and I really don't see the issue in trying to ensure that the gun owning populace is competent and responsible via more stringent background checks and training/ education.
Click to expand...

Do you have your license for expressing that opinion? Or did you just gloss over what I wrote?
 
I've been here a while. 44 AMP is smart and direct and posts in a spirit of give and a take. Don't hold the bold lettering against him.

Nate Kirk said:
Is it genuinely your desire to discuss any tool that can directly end one's life, or just firearms?
Click to expand...
No, just firearms; I think it's pretty well established that the spirit of the 2nd is interpreted to be concerning firearms.
Click to expand...

This really confirms a focus on limiting the rights described in the 2d Am. rather than an overriding public safety goal. If you aren't really concerned with the array of things that efficiently take a life, your focus on arms seems political. That's not a personal indictment, but a comment on the gist of your commentary.

Nate Kirk said:
Does the potential for harm really distinguish the 2d from the 1st and 4th Amendments and voting. I knew people in school during the Cold War who voted for Gus Hall. That seems potentially quite harmful. Walter Duranty used his 1st Am. rights to conceal the deaths of millions of people while it was happening. Surely the NYT could suffer the mere inconvenience of vetting its articles with the government first, right?
Click to expand...
I think it does; any misuse of our rights has the potential to do harm, but the only one that has the potential for direct, tangible, person on person harm, is the abuse of the rights to the things pertaining to the second.
Click to expand...

Was your distinction also present when the BOR were adopted?

Nate Kirk said:
What do you think of David French's idea?
Click to expand...
What was this?
Click to expand...

It was linked at post 100 by Onward Allusion, and is discussed in 102 and 105.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/gun-control-republicans-consider-grvo/
 
I think French's idea of implementing more widespread use of GVRO's is a mostly good idea and one that I support. However, you mention:

If an angry girlfriend seeks vengeance and obtains such an order against you, how will the police store your arms? Will they file a number across the top of your trap gun? Will you get them back? How much time and money it take to get them back?
Click to expand...

I guess those are all things to be determined. There is always a risk when it comes to this sort of thing, but I think the potential for good outweighs the risk of abuse.

This really confirms a focus on limiting the rights described in the 2d Am. rather than an overriding public safety goal. If you aren't really concerned with the array of things that efficiently take a life, your focus on arms seems political. That's not a personal indictment, but a comment on the gist of your commentary.
Click to expand...

The myriad other ways there are to kill someone besides guns are irrelevant. As I stated before it's generally accepted that the 2nd pertains to firearms.

"Arms" obviously includes, swords, spears, bows, arrows, ninja stars, catapults, pointed sticks, fresh fruit, and about a million other things too, and if you like we can consider them added into my position. However the issue we are discussing is the conflicts surrounding firearms specifically, and firearms are the reason this thread was started.

Was your distinction also present when the BOR were adopted?
Click to expand...

Who can say? Not you or I. I don't think they could account for all the changes between then and now.
 
Nate Kirk said:
This really confirms a focus on limiting the rights described in the 2d Am. rather than an overriding public safety goal. If you aren't really concerned with the array of things that efficiently take a life, your focus on arms seems political. That's not a personal indictment, but a comment on the gist of your commentary.
Click to expand...
The myriad other ways there are to kill someone besides guns are irrelevant.
Click to expand...

The myriad other ways there are to kill someone can't be irrelevant to the issue of murder and a desire to reduce murder rates.

Nate Kirk said:
Was your distinction [between rights that permit direct harm and those the exercise of which may cause harm less directly] also present when the BOR were adopted?
Click to expand...
Who can say? Not you or I.
Click to expand...

Arms were a means of direct harm at the adoption of the BOR, just as they are now, so that can't be a reason to change the scope of the BOR.
 
GVROs...

<deactivate lurk mode>
zukiphile said:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...consider-grvo/
Click to expand...
One potential issue with the GVRO idea is how to enforce it without UBCs being enacted simultaneously.

One of my concerns here is that all roads potentially lead to UBCs.
 
If laws were an effective answer to this problem, the problem would have been solved long ago.

As far as applying “science” to this problem, a good “scientific” approach would require repeated demonstrable proof that a solution works or would work. If anything, “science” would seem to say laws don't work regarding this problem (since laws haven't effectively stopped the problem).

I suggest history might be better than science as a tool for finding some solutions.
 
And a link to an interview with the police chief of a school district that decided not to wait until after it happens:

http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/19/t...arry-firearms-leaves-msnbcs-jaw-on-the-floor/

The chief missed one point, though. The news guy asked if it's wise to bring guns into a school when the threat is on the outside. Reality check, Mr. Newsman -- if you have a shooter in your school, the threat is not on the outside, it's inside. The police are on the outside -- and who knows how far away. All the guns in the world on the OUTSIDE can't help when the bad guy with a gun is already inside.
 
Colordoredneck, are you saying that only medically trained ppl can talk about meds and effects??? Guess i can talk about guns cause I’m not a armorer, or trucks cuz I’m not a gressmonkey...
You ever had any drugs? They all screw with your mind
 
zukiphile said:
Bartholomew Roberts said:
But an actual compromise involves both sides getting something. Give me half of what you got and I won't take it all isn't a compromise.
Click to expand...
Bart, the argument I see being made is essentially for a settlement. We tell clients to make a settlement so they control the terms rather than gamble on total victory with a stranger who may also hand the client a total defeat. We tell clients how smart they are to fashion a settlement that preserves what they really need.
Click to expand...
It seems appropriate to insert this here. Many of you may have seen it before:

https://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-repost.html
 
NateKirk said:
What I am talking about is raising the standard for firearm ownership. More and better training and education and more stringent background checks, accomplished through a process to obtain a license to own a firearm (probably similar to drivers training) would raise the standard. If a fee must be implemented for the license to offset the cost of the more in depth background checks and personnel then so be it. Firearms would be in the hands of less ignorant and unstable people, and all the people have to suffer is the inconvenience of educating themselves on the lethal weapon they wish to purchase.
Click to expand...
In other words, scrap the Second Amendment, and convert the right (to keep and bear arms -- sometimes) into a privilege.
 
NateKirk said:
No I'm not. My point was that one right is being abused by a few in order to violate another's right to live. This doesn't brand all firearms owners as murderers.
Click to expand...
A terrorist recently mowed down a number of people on a bike path in New York City with a rented vehicle. Can we conclude that you are now advocating for more stringent background checks on everyone who wants to buy or rent a motor vehicle> If not ... why not? Obviously we need to raise the standard for possession of a motor vehicle.
 
Last edited:
In my little pea brained opinion the only thing that is ever going to work is to make schools a hard target. Gun control and mental health screening has more holes in it than a colander. Now, I know parents don't like the optics of it. I don't like the optics of it. But, it is not the 50's anymore. And, it is the only solution that will actually work.
 
I would point out there are myriad of soft targets besides schools. School shooters sometimes have some beef with the school (not always). But someone dedicating to killing can look at lots of places to carry out such an act. A better solution is for people to be able to act to defend themselves. The debate about mandatory training is complex. I would prefer highly educated voters on the issues but we went down that road of using tests to discriminate.

Morally, I think gun carriers and voters have the responsibility to get up to speed. Should we mandate it? I had no problem with the CCW experiences in TX and OR, I would support them for concealed carry. For simple ownership, no.
 
NateKirk said:
What I am talking about is raising the standard for firearm ownership. More and better training and education and more stringent background checks, accomplished through a process to obtain a license to own a firearm (probably similar to drivers training) would raise the standard. If a fee must be implemented for the license to offset the cost of the more in depth background checks and personnel then so be it. Firearms would be in the hands of less ignorant and unstable people, and all the people have to suffer is the inconvenience of educating themselves on the lethal weapon they wish to purchase.
Click to expand...

Why is it the job of government to raise the standard for firearm ownership? For that matter, who has done more to propagate good info and raise standards for gun ownership - government or NRA? What are you doing personally to help the people you see around you that you think need more knowledge?

There are a lot of things that can only be done by a community but people don't want to do the work of taking care of their own garden.
 
The myriad other ways there are to kill someone can't be irrelevant to the issue of murder and a desire to reduce murder rates.
Click to expand...

They're not, when discussing murder rates. But the discussion pertains to firearms specifically.

Arms were a means of direct harm at the adoption of the BOR, just as they are now, so that can't be a reason to change the scope of the BOR.
Click to expand...

This logic makes murder legal and constitutional, as long as one uses a "arm" to accomplish the task because that is their original purpose and was during the formation of the BOR.

In other words, scrap the Second Amendment, and convert the right (to keep and bear arms -- sometimes) into a privilege.
Click to expand...

Obviously any restriction to or limit of a right instantly turns it into a privilege, if you want to look at it that way. I have the right to use the facilities when I like. I have the right to sing Broadway showtunes loudly outside my neighbor's house at 2 am, but I'll more than likely be arrested or ticketed for disturbing the peace. So much for the "right" to free speech, huh?

A terrorist recently mowed down a number of people on a bike path in New York City with a rented vehicle. Can we conclude that you are now advocating for more stringent background checks on everyone who wants to buy or rent a motor vehicle> If not ... why not?
Click to expand...

I covered this:
"People use guns to kill each other because they are convenient not just effective. Requiring more of a shooting education and investment in order to access firearms legally, will make them less convenient. Someone will make the argument that people are going to just kill each other anyway, even if they have to use a different method; that is besides the point. The point is that firearms will be less convenient to the unstable making mass shootings less feasible, and by making these compromises the firearms community will be protected."

And:
"Many mass shootings are not about the act but inflating the killer. Many tie firearms into their ego (as I believe the latest perpetrator did) and are more inclined to use a firearm to carry out the act.

Another important point is that the people who carry out mass shootings would rather I'm sure be remembered as a killer or a murderer, the label the gun provides, rather than as a psychopath or terrorist, the label that bombs, trucks, machetes, etc, provides."
 
Last edited:
It seems appropriate to insert this [the LawDog 'Cake' post] here. Many of you may have seen it before:
https://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/.../a-repost.html
Click to expand...

Inspiring.

Now imagine a far left president, congress, and supreme court, and then combine that with another school shooting. The owner of the "cake" now has a gun put to his head and his cake taken anyway, every crumb. It's stone headed, unyielding thinking like this that makes me believe the 2nd amendment will be repealed sometime in my children's lifetime. It's just matter of the right factors lining up. Ownership rates and public opinion are not in our favor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top