Gun Control

[rrshock]

For me, saying I can't have an AR for self defense is bad. I am a helluva lot better shot with my AR than I am with my .40 semi auto hand gun. For me, banning something that I feel safer and more comfortable with is a burden.

I grew up with guns, own them, and teach my kids (including my 5 yr old) how to safely and accurately use them. They respect them, not fear them.

I truly believe that many that are against guns have never been around them and/or used them.

I mentioned the government previously as a reason for us needing these guns. If we look back to the revolutionary war, it happened because of over racing, ridiculous laws and no true representation. I don't really see a difference between now and then. Many of the things that Washington and Franklin used as reasons for our Constitution and laws are starting to appear again. The 2nd amendment is a good thing. If the government goes and tries to modify or do away with it, then it will be exactly like what Britain was doing back in the 1770's.

And look at France. It has horrible crime and guns are banned. Is this something that we as citizens really want? We think violence is bad now, wait til only the criminals have guns.

If they ban one gun, they will try to ban them all. Then who knows what they would go after next? I hate to imagine what is about to happen in this country with the large bunch of lunatics trying to run it. It will not end up being good for either side of the fence.

[jdshock]

It really isn't much of a debate. You either believe in the second amendment or you believe in European socialism. Neither belief is better than the other, they're just fundamentally different and can't be reconciled. The third possible belief is an irrational fear of an inanimate object.

I don't understand the connection between guns and socialism. How are they connected?

[wufan]

I don't understand the connection between guns and socialism. How are they connected?

Socialists ban guns (and other things) because the government knows better than the populous, so the government makes choices for the good of the people so thy don't harm themselves.

American conservatives believe in the rights of the individual. They believe that the government should be restricted and that it should stay out of the affairs of the individual. Guns are just one of many things that represent conservative individualism versus populist socialism.

[jdshock]

Socialists ban guns (and other things) because the government knows better than the populous, so the government makes choices for the good of the people so thy don't harm themselves.

American conservatives believe in the rights of the individual. They believe that the government should be restricted and that it should stay out of the affairs of the individual. Guns are just one of many things that represent conservative individualism versus populist socialism.

Sure, at a super high view that's true. If we went through the democratic process of amending the Constitution to get rid of the Second Amendment, I just don't understand how that puts us any closer to that type of economic system.

You said you either believe in the Second Amendment or you believe in European socialism. To me, it just seems like a thousand other combinations are possible. Why can't I be a raging capitalist that doesn't like guns? I think the government shouldn't regulate my economy, but I think guns are just like nuclear weapons, civilians have no right to them. Or, I could be in favor of a dictatorship, and I also prefer my citizens to not have guns.

Does supporting the Fourteenth Amendment automatically make you a European socialist?

More to the point, if I support federal securities laws, does that make me a European socialist? Does every federal law push us closer to socialism? And if so, how many can I support before I turn from an American conservative to a socialist?

[Ashockalypse]

Socialists ban guns (and other things) because the government knows better than the populous, so the government makes choices for the good of the people so thy don't harm themselves.

American conservatives believe in the rights of the individual. They believe that the government should be restricted and that it should stay out of the affairs of the individual. Guns are just one of many things that represent conservative individualism versus populist socialism.

Yeah, American conservatives and our Founding Fathers believe government should be restricted and that it should stay out of the affairs of the individual. There is a whole.roadmap for it called the CONSTITUTION. IT has worked remarkably well until some want to interpret it as anything that they feel like they want at the time should be how it should be read. It's words are clear. This issue is not just an honest disagreement between two sets of clear minded individuals. The Constitution made this country what it is and the further we venture from it the more we get the results were getting these days.

[jdshock]

Yeah, American conservatives and our Founding Fathers believe government should be restricted and that it should stay out of the affairs of the individual. There is a whole.roadmap for it called the CONSTITUTION. IT has worked remarkably well until some want to interpret it as anything that they feel like they want at the time should be how it should be read. It's words are clear. This issue is not just an honest disagreement between two sets of clear minded individuals. The Constitution made this country what it is and the further we venture from it the more we get the results were getting these days.

This is the type of thing that's just preposterously frustrating. Your inability to recognize that "clear minded individuals" may disagree on government responsibilities shows that you don't understand the opposing viewpoint at all.

Also, what are some of your favorite "clear" words from the Constitution? Here are some of mine that I find particularly "clear."

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for the ... general Welfare of the United States

To regulate Commerce ... among the several States

[wufan]

Sure, at a super high view that's true. If we went through the democratic process of amending the Constitution to get rid of the Second Amendment, I just don't understand how that puts us any closer to that type of economic system.

You said you either believe in the Second Amendment or you believe in European socialism. To me, it just seems like a thousand other combinations are possible. Why can't I be a raging capitalist that doesn't like guns? I think the government shouldn't regulate my economy, but I think guns are just like nuclear weapons, civilians have no right to them. Or, I could be in favor of a dictatorship, and I also prefer my citizens to not have guns.

Does supporting the Fourteenth Amendment automatically make you a European socialist?

More to the point, if I support federal securities laws, does that make me a European socialist? Does every federal law push us closer to socialism? And if so, how many can I support before I turn from an American conservative to a socialist?

You are presenting socialism and conservatism as economic systems. That is only one part. They are systems to govern. One of the items we grant the federal government is the right to make decisions about international and interstate commerce. We grant them that right, along with a few others.

If you believe in the right of the individual, then you believe in the second amendment as it grants power to the individual. The 14th amendment does too...you can be a capitalist (economic system) that believes in gun control, but if you believe in gun control then you will eventually find yourself believing in EuroSoc...

I didn't want to imply anyone was a fascist, but that's a possability too, but as a dictator, one must support that the leader is the ultimate person and power and the only person that should have guns...can't have it the other way.

To have guns or not to have guns...it's about who rules. Do the people rule the government, or does the government rule the people. I chose the former.

[shock]

@jdshock: is looking at this as a theory. It works in his models the same way communism and socialism work as a theory.

When implemented, gun control can be used by the corrupt as a means of widening the gap between the ruled and the rulers.
You are already seeing this with Obamacare and exempt parties. OC doesn't work. It has never worked. Soon you will start seeing cries for a single payer system. If we move to that, it puts the policy makers directly above the populace.

With gun control, you already have a wide gap between the policy makers and the populace. The military is much more advanced than the public. Taking away more and widening that gap is just making it easier to ride roughshod over the populace.

So how then do we fix our issues?
We can start by backing up law enforcement. We can have a president that is not afraid of calling in the National Guard. The police don't need to be militarized. That's what the Guard is for. Bring them back and put them to use here. There are tanks and armored vehicles at armories all over the US. Use them.
Train the populace on firearm safety. Kids are already learning how to put raincoats on their dicks in health class. Make firearm safety a mandatory class just like health. The least it will do is teach people real facts about guns so they don't look like dipshits asking if that hearing protection they found were rubber bullets.
And ignore it. The post Brady bill years were great until Obama took office. Cars kill more people than anything, iirc. Yet instead of banning cars, we ask people to be safe while using them and demand that they wear seat belts. Why can't we do the same with guns?

[jdshock]

@jdshock is looking at this as a theory. It works in his models the same way communism and socialism work as a theory.

When implemented, gun control can be used by the corrupt as a means of widening the gap between the ruled and the rulers.
You are already seeing this with Obamacare and exempt parties. OC doesn't work. It has never worked. Soon you will start seeing cries for a single payer system. If we move to that, it puts the policy makers directly above the populace.

With gun control, you already have a wide gap between the policy makers and the populace. The military is much more advanced than the public. Taking away more and widening that gap is just making it easier to ride roughshod over the populace.

I actually agree with a decent amount of this. I'm sure a totalitarian government is more likely to successfully form in a country with no guns, but I'm not sure I buy that weapons available to citizens can possibly do anything to prevent that as is.

Also, "soon you will start seeing cries for a single payer system:" I think that is one reason Bernie did as well as he did. I think most people believe current Obamacare is unsustainable. I'm somewhat convinced Obamacare was passed with the intention of making a single payer system easier to pass in the coming years.

The disagreement you and I have is fundamental, which is much more understandable. I just feel the need to defend the point of view when people act like it's not an internally consistent viewpoint or it's idiotic or whatever. I don't care at all if you come to a different result as me, just don't act like gun control proponents haven't thought through the issue yet.

I do have one naive question that has to do with your kid safety point. And it's honestly, probably because I don't know very much about guns.

There seems to be an alarmingly high number of gun accidents in homes. Kids get hurt playing with their parents' guns all the time. Kids that are too young to have learned anything in a health class. What is the solution to this problem? Do you keep your guns in a safe while your kids are too young to understand gun safety? If you keep it in a safe, how do you rely on it for safety?

[shock]

I actually agree with a decent amount of this. I'm sure a totalitarian government is more likely to successfully form in a country with no guns, but I'm not sure I buy that weapons available to citizens can possibly do anything to prevent that as is.

Also, "soon you will start seeing cries for a single payer system:" I think that is one reason Bernie did as well as he did. I think most people believe current Obamacare is unsustainable. I'm somewhat convinced Obamacare was passed with the intention of making a single payer system easier to pass in the coming years.

The disagreement you and I have is fundamental, which is much more understandable. I just feel the need to defend the point of view when people act like it's not an internally consistent viewpoint or it's idiotic or whatever. I don't care at all if you come to a different result as me, just don't act like gun control proponents haven't thought through the issue yet.

I do have one naive question that has to do with your kid safety point. And it's honestly, probably because I don't know very much about guns.

There seems to be an alarmingly high number of gun accidents in homes. Kids get hurt playing with their parents' guns all the time. Kids that are too young to have learned anything in a health class. What is the solution to this problem? Do you keep your guns in a safe while your kids are too young to understand gun safety? If you keep it in a safe, how do you rely on it for safety?

To your kiddo question- Switzerland is doing something right. I don't know what that is.

I think basic safes like Stackon need to be a tax alternative. Instead of a tax deductible, it's $100 in taxes that you get back. Any "luxury" safes are tax deductible.

And it's about time that parents were held responsible. I know that it's a touchy issue when a parent loses a child, but it is involuntary manslaughter. They need to be tried as such. There needs to be a consequence that parents think about.

[pie n eye]

@wufan: That type of statement is just another example of why it's difficult to try to have an honest discussion about guns. "You either believe in the second amendment or you believe in European socialism."

@ShockTalk: You took my post, assumed the worst, and ran with it. I said guns were invented to kill/maim while trucks were invented to transport people/goods from point A to point B. I didn't make an argument for or against guns, just against the nonsensical "vehicles kill people so why don't you hear calls to ban them?" equivalency. Just like the statement above (if you don't agree with my interpretation of the 2nd amendment, you're a Euro socialist) the trucks = guns has no purpose in a discussion.

Do store owners park their trucks inside as protection from other people with trucks?

Do people drive their trucks into movie theaters in case someone decides to bring their truck and kill them with it?

When was the last time anyone was robbed at truck point?

When someone lives in a bad neighborhood do they go buy a truck to protect themselves?

[shocka khan]

@wufan: That type of statement is just another example of why it's difficult to try to have an honest discussion about guns. "You either believe in the second amendment or you believe in European socialism."

@ShockTalk: You took my post, assumed the worst, and ran with it. I said guns were invented to kill/maim while trucks were invented to transport people/goods from point A to point B. I didn't make an argument for or against guns, just against the nonsensical "vehicles kill people so why don't you hear calls to ban them?" equivalency. Just like the statement above (if you don't agree with my interpretation of the 2nd amendment, you're a Euro socialist) the trucks = guns has no purpose in a discussion.

Do store owners park their trucks inside as protection from other people with trucks?

Do people drive their trucks into movie theaters in case someone decides to bring their truck and kill them with it?

When was the last time anyone was robbed at truck point?

When someone lives in a bad neighborhood do they go buy a truck to protect themselves?

You forgot the truck safe (to prevent your truck from being stolen) and the truck interlocker (analogous to a trigger guard to prevent your truck from being started by an unauthorized person).

Just having a little fun today! :)

[shocka khan]

I read this post and marvel at the sheer comedy of you calling out a "bunch of fearful ******".

He wasn't being funny, he was trolling you. He does that a lot.

[shocka khan]

For me, saying I can't have an AR for self defense is bad. I am a helluva lot better shot with my AR than I am with my .40 semi auto hand gun. For me, banning something that I feel safer and more comfortable with is a burden.

I grew up with guns, own them, and teach my kids (including my 5 yr old) how to safely and accurately use them. They respect them, not fear them.

I truly believe that many that are against guns have never been around them and/or used them.

I mentioned the government previously as a reason for us needing these guns. If we look back to the revolutionary war, it happened because of over racing, ridiculous laws and no true representation. I don't really see a difference between now and then. Many of the things that Washington and Franklin used as reasons for our Constitution and laws are starting to appear again. The 2nd amendment is a good thing. If the government goes and tries to modify or do away with it, then it will be exactly like what Britain was doing back in the 1770's.

And look at France. It has horrible crime and guns are banned. Is this something that we as citizens really want? We think violence is bad now, wait til only the criminals have guns.

If they ban one gun, they will try to ban them all. Then who knows what they would go after next? I hate to imagine what is about to happen in this country with the large bunch of lunatics trying to run it. It will not end up being good for either side of the fence.

I've been to France quite a few times. I never got robbed, never had a car stolen, never had a hotel room broken into. I would bet their crime rate is lower than our is. And if it isn't I'm absolutely sure the murder rate is lower.

I did see a rather attractive Russian lady do a dine and dash in a restaurant on the Champs-Elysses. We also saw our first Paris street rat running around in the restaurant. Even though the food sucked, my girlfriend and I thought it was a great entertainment venue.

Note I can't say the same thing for Belgium (saw a train passenger get their luggage stolen), and know for a fact that they have a huge problem with pickpockets and petty thieves in Brussels and Antwerp.

Oh, and by the way, even though most all of them speak English, they hate Americans.

[wufan]

@wufan: That type of statement is just another example of why it's difficult to try to have an honest discussion about guns. "You either believe in the second amendment or you believe in European socialism."

I have laid out a logical argument that gets me to that point. If you'd like to counter them, please feel free, but I'd suggest that you come to terms with either your fear of guns or your belief that the government is more capable than you at making decisions about your life. If you don't believe, let's check it out. Should guns be banned? We can start there and follow the logical path.

Also, guns and trucks have different intents, you are correct. A gun is intended to protect the gun user against something that is trying to harm them. Do you believe that to be a less valuable intent than transportation of goods? Statistically, it's much safer!