Gun (Lack of) Control

[Tuariki]

Now that he has secured his second term Obama now has nothing to lose in going all out to do something about gun control. While I doubt he has much chance of making a whole lot of progress during this term of office he has the chance to sow the seeds of gun reform in the USA that hopefully will eventually bare fruit.

Lincoln (my apologies to Americans if I have gotten this wrong) was the catalyst for starting the process for black rights and black equality. And while the US is still not there yet massive progress has been made over the past 150 years.

Someone needs to have the courage to remove guns from the American psyche. I hope that someone is Obama. I believe that if James Madison, Noah Webster, George Mason and Patrick Henry, Robert Whitehill, James Munro and all of the other founding fathers could have looked into the future and seen Sandy Hook, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Oak Creek and other mass murder scenes they would have removed the Second Amendment from the Constitution - or at worst amended it to ban many of the weapons we see today.

[Daisy]

And Daisy, who is stopping the conversations?

Gutless politicians who pander to the NRA, based on the fear of not being re-elected, since their constituents believe the NRA's red herrings (one being that gun control is synonymous with no guns).

Interesting op-ed on the NRA's protection racket by Richard Painter, who was the chief White House ethics lawyer for Bush from 2005 to 2007.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opini ... acket.html

[Daisy]

It seems that many folks on this board believe that our Second Amendment rights need to be curtailed, but how many would be okay with further restrictions on our First Amendment rights?

This is the bit I don't really understand. In what way does gun control curtail the second amendment? I just don't see that being the case. Even if every semi-automatic were taken out of circulation, and obviously that is not going to happen, you'd still have guns.

Using this logic, the government wouldn't be curtailing our Second Amendment rights even if it restricted every one to one musket per household.

Actually, as many muskets as you want, since it says 'bare arms'.

So how is the second amendment right actually curtailed? You have your arms.

I'm sorry, I thought you wanted to have a thoughtful debate, but now you're just trolling.

Not at all, you're the one that brought up the muskets. And I already stated above that it is unlikely that all semi-automatics would be banned, but that is a reasonable hypothetical scenario in the context of this discussion.

The constituional right is to bare arms, not anything 'the people' wish. See "District of Columbia v. Heller", Justice Scalia said that laws banning “dangerous and unusual weapons” are “another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms.”

So, again, even if every semi-automatic were taken out of circulation, you'd still have guns. Shotguns and revolvers are not pea shooters. How is the second amendment right actually impinged on in that scenario?

[j-a-m]

It seems that many folks on this board believe that our Second Amendment rights need to be curtailed, but how many would be okay with further restrictions on our First Amendment rights?

This is the bit I don't really understand. In what way does gun control curtail the second amendment? I just don't see that being the case. Even if every semi-automatic were taken out of circulation, and obviously that is not going to happen, you'd still have guns.

Using this logic, the government wouldn't be curtailing our Second Amendment rights even if it restricted every one to one musket per household. In this context of this discussion, control is a synonym for curtail.

Also by the same logic, it wouldn't be curtailing the First Amendment by outlawing free speech in English; you'd still be allowed to say all you want in other languages, after all.

[j-a-m]

What some people perceive (incorrectly, of course) as their 2nd Amendment rights, are not rights at all, but privileges that may be granted under government oversight (like driving a car).

Of course it's a right, not a privilege. Now to what extent it's justified to restrict that right is another question, but it's still a right.

Actually, the Second Amendment is based not just on one but on two rights that are inherent in human nature, the right to own the fruits of your labor (i.e. property rights) and the right to self-defense.

[jazzcyclist]

This morning Chuck Schumer summed up in a nutshell the biggest obstacle to gun control when he pointed out that it's not a partisan issue, it's regional issue, and there are too many Democratic Congressmen who have majority pro gun rights voters in the districts. Michael Bloomberg would have a tough time getting elected dog catcher in upstate New York. New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D) is a classic example of this phenomenon. In 2008, before she was a Senator, she was a Congresswoman from upstate New York who recieved a 92% rating from the NRA. Then she was appointed to replace Hillary Clinton in the Senate and realized that she would need to attract voters statewide as opposed to her rural congressional district when she ran for reelection, and suddenly she had an epiphany on the gun issue. The result of this epiphany is that in 2012 she recieved a 0% rating from the NRA.

[jazzcyclist]

The constituional right is to bare arms, not anything 'the people' wish. See "District of Columbia v. Heller", Justice Scalia said that laws banning “dangerous and unusual weapons” are “another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms.”

So, again, even if every semi-automatic were taken out of circulation, you'd still have guns. Shotguns and revolvers are not pea shooters. How is the second amendment right actually impinged on in that scenario?

Of course the government can limit our rights. Even the NRA doesn't think we should be able to buy F-16's. I guess it's all going to come down to what the courts deem as the minimum firepower that's necessary for home defense. Perhaps the courts would uphold a law that drew the line at revolvers and non semi-automatic long guns, but I don't think such a law is politically feasible because too many people in rural America own guns like this:

http://delgranado.com/pictures/Alf%20pi ... %20742.jpg

Also, too many people rely on semi-automatic pistols as their weapon of choice for personal protection. A few days ago, a co-worker of mine said that even if he did want to get rid of his Glock that he keeps in the bedroom, his wife would be vehemently opposed to him doing so.

[preston]

I don't think you can just ban and grandfather in the people who already own these things (like jazz's clips). Without a total ban there just becomes a market for over-sized clips. I think there has to be a "ban and remove" mentality where whatever gets banned is then made illegal and bought back by government. That's expensive. And, it doesn't speak to political will, it speaks to the will of the people. If people are that righteous about removal of these guns and accessories than they have to be willing to buy them back. If we assume that of the 270 million guns that are in circulation in the US that 60% would become illegal ... at $500 per gun (many are WAY more expensive) ... it would cost $81 billion! (it cost Australia $500 million).

[Marlow]

Now my question to you is why did you falsely state that the right to bear arms is just a privilege when the courts have stated in unambiguous language that its a constitutionally protected right? Did you not know any better or were you just trying to put one over on me?

Are you counting the angels on that pin? Let's get semantically real. If a right can be suppressed (like free speech), it has become, de facto, a privilege, subject to restriction. Gun 'rights' are actually currently a privilege with some govt restriction; the amount of that restriction is in question now. The Supreme Court won't get involved in major way unless all guns are BANNED, which, of course, they never will be.

[jazzcyclist]

Meanwhile, here's a clip of Dianne Feinstein from 1995:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4234389

Like most people, when they're concerned for their personal safety, she made the deision that she would rather be tried by 12 than carried by six. This reminds me of Plaxico Burress, who was robbed at gunpoint twice outside his home before he made the decison he was going to start packing, which led to his unfortunate accident in a nightclub.

[preston]

Now my question to you is why did you falsely state that the right to bear arms is just a privilege when the courts have stated in unambiguous language that its a constitutionally protected right? Did you not know any better or were you just trying to put one over on me?

Are you counting the angels on that pin? Let's get semantically real. If a right can be suppressed (like free speech), it has become, de facto, a privilege, subject to restriction.

That's completely wrong. Speech is still a right; it's just that the other things that are restricted are NOT (killing is as much an act of "speech" as shouting fire in a crowded theater - and BOTH are illegal)

Gun 'rights' are actually currently a privilege with some govt restriction; the amount of that restriction is in question now.

Wrong again. Gun 'rights' are RIGHTS. The amount of which are DEFINED by the Constitution with an assist by the Supreme Court. What is in question is how much latitude that congress/SCOTUS will allow to CURRENT rights.

The Supreme Court won't get involved in major way unless all guns are BANNED, which, of course, they never will be.

You don't know that. What the court will and won't do has been a mystery to even the most ardent of SCOTUS watchers. The outright banning of guns don't necessarily have to be the trigger, it could be where you can carry or when.

[Marlow]

Wrong again. Gun 'rights' are RIGHTS. The amount of which are DEFINED by the Supreme Court.

OK, I like this new wrinkle, so let's go with it - Since gun 'rights' (or 'RIGHTS', if that makes you feel more empowered) are subject to 'defining' (what a great euphemism) by the courts, I think we just need to define them as extremely detrimental to others' 'right to life' (which is another right that the US govt can take away - capital punishment - which the courts have allowed) and therefore should be severely restricted. I think there's NO argument that the current 'restrictions' to gun use have cost us a heavy price in life, esp. in the USA. Life trumps guns, any sane person knows that.

[jazzcyclist]

Are you counting the angels on that pin? Let's get semantically real. If a right can be suppressed (like free speech), it has become, de facto, a privilege, subject to restriction. Gun 'rights' are actually currently a privilege with some govt restriction; the amount of that restriction is in question now. The Supreme Court won't get involved in major way unless all guns are BANNED, which, of course, they never will be.

"De facto privilege"? Talk about playing semantics? You give parsing a bad name. This reminds me of Slick Willie's "the-meaning-of-the-word-is" testimony.

[preston]

Stop with the cheap used car sales pitch. Things like "any sane person know this" or "the people in this thread" or "the people on this forum" only shows that you can't find a more logical way to express yourself. I would hope that you're better than that.

It all comes down to what's inalienable to the individual and what is the responsibility of a community and somehow hope that neither is trampled by the other. I accept your point, but than you might have to accept that car's be governed by a speeds of no more than 12 mph. You allow more than 12 mph BECAUSE there is a point of ACCEPTABLE loss of life; otherwise, you would be clamoring to reduce speed limits to the point where deaths would be nearly impossible to occur (the level you seem to be advocating for guns).

Gun use has not come close in cost to life as Alcohol or drugs. That's right, you want to ban both of those, too.

[jazzcyclist]

Marlow, I think you would love living in Singapore, the ultimate democratic nanny state.

[Blues]

Marlow, I think you would love living in Singapore, the ultimate democratic nanny state.

If I had to choose I think I'd rather buy the house next to Marlow, even if it meant living in Singapore.. ... If my baseball accidentally went on Jazz's property and I tried to fetch it, I might end up on the business end of a completely legal semi-automatic AR15 like this one, that in many states can currently be legally acquired and purchased in just a few minutes.. I guess it's kind of like a microwave or toaster, something our founding fathers, back around 1790, obviously felt the average household shouldn't have to do without. Gotta love the music.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BHZlpT8n10

[Daisy]

Every house with an AR15 and 'stand your ground'. Or Singapore. Mmm.

[Marlow]

Gun use has not come close in cost to life as Alcohol or drugs. That's right, you want to ban both of those, too.

Are logical fallacies becoming pandemic to the pro-gun lobby?
Does my consistency bother you?
As for cars (another logical fallacy argument), we regulate those quite nicely, I think. Seat-belts, anyone?

Marlow, I think you would love living in Singapore, the ultimate democratic nanny state.

Your fundamental misperception of me is astounding, esp. given my post count!

[Marlow]

a completely legal semi-automatic AR15 like this one, that in many states can currently be legally acquired and purchased in just a few minutes.. I guess it's kind of like a microwave or toaster, something our founding fathers, back around 1790, obviously felt the average household shouldn't have to do without. Gotta love the music.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BHZlpT8n10

Ha, the patriotic music really does it. AND !!! it comes with a LASER sight, for those more 'mobile' targets. I gotta get one of them, just like all the other REAL MEN have!

[Pego]

This reminds me of Plaxico Burress, who was robbed at gunpoint twice outside his home before he made the decison he was going to start packing

If somebody sticks a gun between your ribs, your own gun in the pocket will be worth squat.

[Marlow]

If somebody sticks a gun between your ribs, your own gun in the pocket will be worth squat.

So, I've been over 21 for 41 years now, including 20 in the US Navy, all over the world many times, and I've had how many occasions to pull a gun? . . . zero. If, however, I had been packing all that time, I bet I could have made myself think I WAS in many situations that could use one. Luckily, I've never owned one. Now, I'm betting any amount that I have MORE self-restraint than the average male adult, so y'all can do the math on why guns are so dangerous. Like alcohol, guns immediately bestow a false bravado on little (psychologically speaking) men that that absolutely can not be trusted with it.

[jazzcyclist]

Gun use has not come close in cost to life as Alcohol or drugs. That's right, you want to ban both of those, too.

Are logical fallacies becoming pandemic to the pro-gun lobby?
Does my consistency bother you?
As for cars (another logical fallacy argument), we regulate those quite nicely, I think. Seat-belts, anyone?

Actually, preston made a good point. If folks like you feel that further limits need to be put on our Seccind Amendemnt rights because too many people are dying, why wouldn't you advocate more restrictions on our driving privileges since the automobile causes a lot more deaths than guns?

[Marlow]

Actually, preston made a good point. If folks like you feel that further limits need to be put on our Seccind Amendemnt rights because too many people are dying, why wouldn't you advocate more restrictions on our driving privileges since the automobile causes a lot more deaths than guns?

What part of 'logical fallacies' are you not getting? There is zero connection between the two. You might as well have said we need to ban water because people drown in it.

[jazzcyclist]

This reminds me of Plaxico Burress, who was robbed at gunpoint twice outside his home before he made the decison he was going to start packing

If somebody sticks a gun between your ribs, your own gun in the pocket will be worth squat.

That's only if you get caught off guard. My best friend's mother was leaving a mall late one night a few days before Christmas, and heading to her car when a guy strolling through the parking lot started heading towards her. When she saw him, she immediately reversed course and headed back to the entrance of the mall and waited for the man to pass where her car was parked and was a good distance from her car. When she felt he was a safe distance away, she headed to her car, but as she approached her car, the man turned around and started heading towards her, yelling that he needed some directions. At that point, she yelled back that he could ask his question from where he was standing and he didn't need to come any closer, but the man continued walking towards her. As he got closer to her, she did what any sensible woman would do, she pulled her .38 special out of her purse and warned him that if he got any closer she would blow his brains out. At that point, the man turned and started walking away, with my friend's mother keeping a watchful eye on him with her gun still drawn. Once she felt he was a safe distance from her, she immediately rushed to her car, jumped in while throwing all of her packages on the front passenger's seat. As she was backing out of her parking spot, the man ran back towards her car and tried to open the passenger's door as she was driving away, but fortunately, she had locked the doors as soon as she got in.

The lesson here is to keep your eyes and ears open and always be aware of your surroundings whenever you're in a situation where you think that a gun might be necessary.

[jazzcyclist]

What part of 'logical fallacies' are you not getting? There is zero connection between the two. You might as well have said we need to ban water because people drown in it.

All you're doing is throwing up strawmen. I'm not talking about banning cars, just puttiing further restrictions on their usage. Similarly, I'm not talking about banning free speech just putting further restrictions on the First Amendment. Surely, you aren't too obtuse to understand this simple straightforward analogy.

[Marlow]

she pulled her .38 special out of her purse and warned him that if he got any closer she would blow his brains out.

Cuz that's the ONLY alternate she had. Oh, except for going back in the mall and calling security. THIS is exactly why we should NOT have guns: People would want to take matters into their own hands. If I am robbed at gunpoint, I give the guy everything. Making him be dead is the LAST thing on my mind (nor would I want it on my conscience). As soon as you can rationalize it as - he started it; he just got what he deserved - we're in the realm of 8-year-old playground mentality.

All you're doing is throwing up strawmen. I'm not talking about banning cars, just puttiing further restrictions on their usage. Similarly, I'm not talking about banning free speech just putting further restrictions on the First Amendment. Surely, you aren't too obtuse to understand this simple straightforward analogy.

No dear, that's what you've already done. I'm just pointing it out.
My obtuseness aside, my profession (both as teacher and AP Exam grader) demands that I recognize logical fallacies when I see them.

[TN1965]

Are you unfamiliar with "District of Columbia v. Heller" and "McDonald v. Chicago" in which the Supreme Court ruled that the right to bear arms is constituionally protected?

The Supreme Court also ruled that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in "Dred Scott v. Smith" and that "separate could be equal" in "Plessy v. Ferguson." Just because they ruled in one way, that is not the final decision that can never be overturned by later decisions.

[TN1965]

If folks like you feel that further limits need to be put on our Seccind Amendemnt rights because too many people are dying, why wouldn't you advocate more restrictions on our driving privileges since the automobile causes a lot more deaths than guns?

I personally think that the current limit for BAC is way too lenient. I also think that the driver's license should not be issued to anyone under 18. There are many other restrictions on our driving privileges that I would support in a heartbeat.

[odelltrclan]

If somebody sticks a gun between your ribs, your own gun in the pocket will be worth squat.

So, I've been over 21 for 41 years now, including 20 in the US Navy, all over the world many times, and I've had how many occasions to pull a gun? . . . zero. If, however, I had been packing all that time, I bet I could have made myself think I WAS in many situations that could use one. Luckily, I've never owned one. Now, I'm betting any amount that I have MORE self-restraint than the average male adult, so y'all can do the math on why guns are so dangerous. Like alcohol, guns immediately bestow a false bravado on little (psychologically speaking) men that that absolutely can not be trusted with it.

I don't own a gun though I am not opposed to it. However, I once had someone get ticked off about something on the freeway and chase me for something like 20 miles threatening me, nearly trying to run me off the road. Fortunately I found a copy at the side of the road and pulled up behind him and the guy fled. I know of two people in similar situations who had guns and it saved their lives.

Feel lucky if you never have to use one, which most of us won't. You are more likely to get struck by lightning than to die from something like this. But, some people sleep easier having a gun and power to them.

[jazzcyclist]

Are you unfamiliar with "District of Columbia v. Heller" and "McDonald v. Chicago" in which the Supreme Court ruled that the right to bear arms is constituionally protected?

The Supreme Court also ruled that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in "Dred Scott v. Smith" and that "separate could be equal" in "Plessy v. Ferguson." Just because they ruled in one way, that is not the final decision that can never be overturned by later decisions.

You're right that Brown vs B.O.E. overturned Plessy vs Ferguson, but Dred Scott was decided before the passage of the 13th Amendment, which means that there was nothing unconstutitional about slavery at the time.

[preston]

...we're in the realm of 8-year-old playground mentality.

Yet, your sanctimony can't stop you from responding to every post and taking everyone else's posts as a personal crusade against you. If you're not 8, you're easily the most immature or paranoid.

My obtuseness aside, my profession (both as teacher and AP Exam grader) demands that I recognize logical fallacies when I see them.

...and that's the other problem. You're not Socrates, you're not "educating" us; we're not your children or your students. I feel for the captive audience that you've found in the children you coach/teach; because you're consistent in your incompleteness of thought, I can only think they would fare better with a more learned coach/teacher.

[jazzcyclist]

she pulled her .38 special out of her purse and warned him that if he got any closer she would blow his brains out.

Cuz that's the ONLY alternate she had. Oh, except for going back in the mall and calling security.

She went back to the mall the first time he approached her, but that wasn't an option the second time because the would-be perp was between her and the mall entrance.

[jeremyp]

Then there's this from The Atlantic about how they got around the last ban on assault weapons.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics ... les/60197/

[Marlow]

your sanctimony can't stop you from responding to every post and taking everyone else's posts as a personal crusade against you. If you're not 8, you're easily the most immature or paranoid. ...and that's the other problem. You're not Socrates, you're not "educating" us; we're not your children or your students. I feel for the captive audience that you've found in the children you coach/teach; because you're consistent in your incompleteness of thought, I can only think they would fare better with a more learned coach/teacher.

Well, didn't take ALL that long for you to take this down in the mud of personal attack. Sorry you feel that overwhelmed with logic, but YET again, we (yes, me too) have overstayed our gh welcome in this charming tête-à-tête (and we were doing so well on the SFH thread!), so peace out for awhile.

[preston]

your sanctimony can't stop you from responding to every post and taking everyone else's posts as a personal crusade against you. If you're not 8, you're easily the most immature or paranoid. ...and that's the other problem. You're not Socrates, you're not "educating" us; we're not your children or your students. I feel for the captive audience that you've found in the children you coach/teach; because you're consistent in your incompleteness of thought, I can only think they would fare better with a more learned coach/teacher.

Well, didn't take ALL that long for you to take this down in the mud of personal attack. Sorry you feel that overwhelmed with logic, but YET again, we (yes, me too) have overstayed our gh welcome in this charming tête-à-tête (and we were doing so well on the SFH thread!), so peace out for awhile.

Why do you think any view that doesn't jibe with your own as a the starting gun to a tête-à-tête? Why do you constantly attack others and then howl in horror if responded to in kind? For someone who constantly rails on others about his heightened sense of morality (drinking, drugs, sex, etc), I'm always struck by how quickly you descend (usually first, unfortunately) into the mud. You should leave that to us unrepentant "sinners". Because, if you're an advertisement for rectitude ...