Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Obama's response to gun question

Obama's response to gun question
Thread Tools
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2016, 06:28 PM
 
https://www.facebook.com/newshour/vi...4247237078675/

What in this answer is unreasonable?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2016, 08:20 PM
 
There are certainly parts based on spurious reasoning.

Cars aren't mentioned in the Constitution, for example, so that's a poor analogy.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2016, 08:51 PM
 
Do you really think the gun culture has been built by constitutional scholars? I think Obama was just trying to speak to Joe Sixpack here, not your legal geeks.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2016, 09:05 PM
 
But it's the legal argument which acts as an impediment to his implied policy, which seems to be one should be licensed to have a gun.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2016, 09:10 PM
 
And FWIW, I've actually flipped on my own personal reading of the Second Amendment, but that doesn't matter because the SCOTUS ruled differently.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2016, 09:11 PM
 
Fine then, what about his arguments are unreasonable or impractical if you take interpretations of what is legal out of the picture?

At some point these questions need to be asked like we are doing with pot now, but let's leave aside the constitution for now because we've had that conversation a million times, if you don't mind?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2016, 09:12 PM
 
As long as owning guns remains an inalienable right they will never require a permit. The day one is federally required is the day we need to rise up against tyranny.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2016, 09:20 PM
 
Imagine if this same reasoning applied to voting rights which are also enshrined in the Constitution. It's interesting how many who feel that gun rights are "inalienable" also have no qualms placing what they perceive to be "common sense" restrictions on unfettered voting rights.

OAW
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2016, 09:36 PM
 
There is no permit for voting, some places require a photo ID, simply to prove you are who you claim to be. Guess what? You have to present a photo ID to buy a gun too.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2016, 09:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
As long as owning guns remains an inalienable right they will never require a permit. The day one is federally required is the day we need to rise up against tyranny.

Again, if the constitution didn't exist would you say that this is a practical thing to say?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2016, 09:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Again, if the constitution didn't exist would you say that this is a practical thing to say?
Absolutely.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2016, 09:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Absolutely.
Why?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2016, 10:06 PM
 
Because I concern myself with the actions of people, not inanimate objects.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2016, 10:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Because I concern myself with the actions of people, not inanimate objects.
Nuclear weapons are inanimate objects too.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2016, 11:36 PM
 
Technically not, because if left unattended and unmaintained they will become a public hazard all on their own, just laying around. I don't believe you've thought that through, have you?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2016, 11:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Fine then, what about his arguments are unreasonable or impractical if you take interpretations of what is legal out of the picture?

At some point these questions need to be asked like we are doing with pot now, but let's leave aside the constitution for now because we've had that conversation a million times, if you don't mind?
The meta-question at play is whether gun violence is something one stops, or is it a sacrifice one makes in order to achieve a specific end.

If the answer is the former, then Obama's arguments are reasonable and practical.

If the answer is the latter, the challenge isn't to the internal consistency of his arguments, it's to his goal.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2016, 02:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
There is no permit for voting, some places require a photo ID, simply to prove you are who you claim to be.
Yet as has been incontrovertibly demonstrated time and time again ... voter impersonation fraud is practically NON-EXISTENT. So the requirement to present a "photo ID" ... which as you already said can only prove that you are who you say you are ... and NOT whether or not you are actually eligible to vote ... essentially becomes a "permit for voting" in practice n'est-ce pas?

OAW
     
iMOTOR
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: San Diego
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2016, 04:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Yet as has been incontrovertibly demonstrated time and time again ... voter impersonation fraud is practically NON-EXISTENT.
How would you know?

Originally Posted by OAW View Post
So the requirement to present a "photo ID" ... which as you already said can only prove that you are who you say you are ... and NOT whether or not you are actually eligible to vote ... essentially becomes a "permit for voting" in practice n'est-ce pas?
And a requirement to present photo ID to purchase alcohol, cigarettes, cough syrup, allergy medicine, cash SS checks, open a bank account, board a plane, purchase a firearm, enter government buildings, visit a doctor, become a permit for such?
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2016, 09:31 AM
 
The first thing you do when trying to become a dictator / oligarchy is take away their weapons.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2016, 10:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by iMOTOR View Post
How would you know?
There is an entire thread dedicated to this very topic. If you really want to know you can find numerous links to a variety of news sources which answer this question.

Originally Posted by iMOTOR
And a requirement to present photo ID to purchase alcohol, cigarettes, cough syrup, allergy medicine, cash SS checks, open a bank account, board a plane, purchase a firearm, enter government buildings, visit a doctor, become a permit for such?
NONE of which are "constitutional rights" with the exception of the one you have highlighted above. So again ... my point here is that if as some argue the government should never infringe upon the "constitutional right" to bear arms ... by that same reasoning it should never infringe upon the "constitutional right" to vote. And yes there are PLENTY of people who believe that a photo ID requirement (or a background check or gun registration) in order to purchase a firearm is an unconstitutional infringement upon their Second Amendment rights. But interestingly enough many of them can't fathom this same logic being applicable to casting a ballot. Now I don't personally have an issue with a photo ID requirement to vote provided that it's handled fairly. Even though it's clearly a solution in search of a problem. My only point here is that from an intellectual consistency standpoint ... what goes for the goose should go for the gander.

OAW
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2016, 12:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Yet as has been incontrovertibly demonstrated time and time again ... voter impersonation fraud is practically NON-EXISTENT. So the requirement to present a "photo ID" ... which as you already said can only prove that you are who you say you are ... and NOT whether or not you are actually eligible to vote ... essentially becomes a "permit for voting" in practice n'est-ce pas?
No it doesn't, but thanks for playing. Both voting (in some places) and purchasing a firearm (in all places) require an ID merely for the purpose of establishing identity, not as a requirement for establishing fitness to engage in an action (ie. a permit). Furthermore, let's be honest here, 2,068 cases of verified voter fraud in 12 years doesn't equate to "practically NON-EXISTENT", no matter how you want to spin it, more accurately it is categorized as uncommon*.


(*There's absolutely no way of knowing how many instances have been successful (the vast majority, I'm sure), because, well, they were successful and we don't know about them (duh?). Hell, it could be 10s of 1000s per election, since no one was actively checking.)
( Last edited by Cap'n Tightpants; Jun 4, 2016 at 12:32 PM. )
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2016, 12:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by iMOTOR View Post
And a requirement to present photo ID to purchase alcohol, cigarettes, cough syrup, allergy medicine, cash SS checks, open a bank account, board a plane, purchase a firearm, enter government buildings, visit a doctor, become a permit for such?
Indeed, all instances anti-voter ID people like to ignore. "But those aren't rights." Negative. Although the activities themselves aren't rights, you DO have the right to pursue those activities and may engage in them, provided you are who you claim to be and aren't a danger to society or underage.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2016, 01:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
No it doesn't, but thanks for playing. Both voting (in some places) and purchasing a firearm (in all places) require an ID merely for the purpose of establishing identity, not as a requirement for establishing fitness to engage in an action (ie. a permit). Furthermore, let's be honest here, 2,068 cases of verified voter fraud in 12 years doesn't equate to "practically NON-EXISTENT", no matter how you want to spin it, more accurately it is categorized as uncommon.*
You really can't help yourself can you? Seriously. You seem fundamentally incapable of linking to a source that actually says what you claim it does.

One study last month, conducted by a group of journalism students through a project called News21, found 2,068 cases of alleged voter fraud in the U.S. since 2000, including 10 cases of voter impersonation.
Again. Photo ID can only address "voter IMPERSONATION fraud". Not "voter fraud" in general. Now I know you want to muddy the waters and try to use the terms interchangeably. Or at a minimum conveniently fail to note the very real distinction between the two. But you really ought to know by now that doesn't work with me.

Now the article you cited was written in Sept. 2012. And the time period of the study went back to 2000. Well let's just talk about POTUS general elections alone. No primaries. No state or local elections. These are the approximate number of votes cast.

2000 - 100M
2004 - 121M
2008 - 129M

So out of 350 million POTUS general election votes cast in the US there are a grand total of 10 verified voter impersonation fraud cases! So you'll have to excuse me if I continue to stand on my statement ...

Originally Posted by OAW
Yet as has been incontrovertibly demonstrated time and time again ... voter impersonation fraud is practically NON-EXISTENT.
I mean I could stop right there. But I just have to point out how ONCE AGAIN in a lame attempt to "correct" me you end up citing a source that is making my exact same point! Because if you had actually bothered to read your sources beyond the HEADLINE and see what the ARTICLE actually says ... better yet, if you had bothered to follow the link to the actual STUDY the article was referencing you would have seen this ...

Exhaustive Database of Voter Fraud Cases Turns Up Scant Evidence That It Happens - A News21 2012 National Project

OMG! Dude. Just cut it out already! I keep telling you that you simply aren't very good at this debate thing. Please just STOP embarrassing yourself!

OAW

PS: And we are really getting OT. There's an entire thread to go round and round about this issue. My only point in bringing it up here was to try to get people to see that if one believes that a photo ID requirement is a "common sense measure" when it comes to voting rights. Then there shouldn't be such opposition to "common sense measures" when it comes to gun rights as Obama has advocated.
( Last edited by OAW; Jun 4, 2016 at 01:26 PM. )
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2016, 01:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
You really can't help yourself can you? Seriously. You seem fundamentally incapable of linking to a source that actually says what you claim it does.
So predictable. You think ID laws are only to curb impersonation? There are several types of voter fraud, but you didn't think about that.

Again. Photo ID can only address "voter IMPERSONATION fraud". Not "voter fraud" in general. Now I know you want to muddy the waters and try to use the terms interchangeably. Or at a minimum conveniently fail to note the very real distinction between the two. But you really ought to know by now that doesn't work with me.
Nope, they can also check for state, county, and city of permanent residence, too. A lot of things "don't work with you", such as reasoning.

Now the article you cited was written in Sept. 2012. And the time period of the study went back to 2000. Well let's just talk about POTUS general elections alone. No primaries. No state or local elections. These are the approximate number of votes cast.

2000 - 100M
2004 - 121M
2008 - 129M

So out of 350 million POTUS general election votes cast in the US there are a grand total of 10 verified voter impersonation fraud cases! So you'll have to excuse me if I continue to stand on my statement ...
and 2 out of the last 4 elections would have seen completely different results if a tiny number of votes were added or moved in crucial swing states, but again, you're not thinking through the issue.

I mean I could stop right there...
You should, because your position hasn't been properly considered, at all.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2016, 01:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
PS: And we are really getting OT. There's an entire thread to go round and round about this issue. My only point in bringing it up here was to try to get people to see that if one believes that a photo ID requirement is a "common sense measure" when it comes to voting rights. Then there shouldn't be such opposition to "common sense measures" when it comes to gun rights as Obama has advocated.
I see the connection.

The whole constitution thing is a red herring when it comes to this issue anyway.

I would be willing to bet that most Americans want a practical balance between rights for responsible gun owners and something that keeps guns out of the hands of the wrong people in the form of background checks, and the constitution exists on the side. As Obama pointed out, most are in favor of some form of background check. The problem with this issue is that the gun lobbies and various other powers have been disingenuous in reframing this issue and make sure that any kind of reform is completely off the table.

I'm not trying to invalidate constitutionally derived arguments, but your Joe Sixpack is not that sophisticated to make constitutional arguments that hold water. This analogy will probably get me into trouble, but look at how your layperson buys computers. Most don't care about viruses, UX, cost of ownership, etc. They just care about what seems to be practical and of good value.

I see no reason in the world why gun stuff couldn't be approached the same way. I think most people would like to see gun violence diminish, but then you have gun lobbies use arguments about Chicago and other things that have been so effective at shutting down the debate entirely in a one-sided way. If you happen to agree with this one side, fine, but you can't deny that this side has been absolutely dominate in shutting down debates.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2016, 01:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
The whole constitution thing is a red herring when it comes to this issue anyway.
Until you need those weapons to force a change in leadership, which when looking at the fall of countries in the past, happens more often than not.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2016, 01:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Until you need those weapons to force a change in leadership, which when looking at the fall of countries in the past, happens more often than not.

This is ridiculous.

More than 50% of the population doesn't even vote, and you think that your Joe Sixpack is really thinking about some sort of armed rebellion against their democractic government at this point? If they cared this much they would vote.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2016, 02:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
So predictable. You think ID laws are only to curb impersonation? There are several types of voter fraud, but you didn't think about that.
Yes. More on that in a bit.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Nope, they can also check for state, county, and city of permanent residence, too. A lot of things "don't work with you", such as reasoning.
You sure about that? Ok. Again, from your own source ...
Here’s a Guide to Identifying Voting-Related Fraud

Registration fraud - Violations of the voter-registration process, typically occurring when people are paid to get registrations; they invent names to get paid more.

Vote buying - A candidate or campaign worker pays individuals money or provides services in exchange for votes.

Absentee ballot fraud - Election fraud occurring when a corrupt campaign gains control of voters’ absentee ballots and fills them out to its candidate’s benefit.

Falsification of election counts - Election officials or others who have access to ballots, falsify the count and election results.

Campaign fraud - Procedural violations of election laws involving matters like campaign finance, qualifying for office, gathering nominating petition signatures, etc.

Casting an ineligible vote - Individuals whose ballots are ineligible because they aren’t registered, or are voting outside their home precinct, or other reasons.

Felon casting an ineligible vote - Felons voting in states where they are ineligible.

Noncitizen casting ineligible vote - Noncitizens who vote.

Double voting - Individuals who vote more than once in the same election, often by absentee ballot and then in person.

Voter impersonation fraud - Individuals who vote in person on Election Day by impersonating another registered voter.

Intimidation - Individuals, typically associated with a particular campaign, coercing voters to cast ballots a certain way.

Petition fraud - Similar to registration fraud, these cases typically involve people paid to gather petition signatures who instead make up names and forge signatures to be paid more.

Other -Accusations that do not fall into any of the other categories, such as making false statements on campaign literature.
Here’s a Guide to Identifying Voting-Related Fraud - A News21 2012 National Project

Now the types of voting-related outlined above in italics are the ones that an actual voter could engage in. So take a look at that list in the context of your own words:

Both voting (in some places) and purchasing a firearm (in all places) require an ID merely for the purpose of establishing identity, not as a requirement for establishing fitness to engage in an action (ie. a permit).
If you are not registered or outside your precinct, or a felon whose voting rights have been rescinded, or a non-citizen, or you've already voted ... by your own words all a Photo ID does is establish your identity. Francois from Quebec who's working in NYC on a long-term project can present a valid New York drivers license that proves that he is who he says he is. But that in no way proves that he's actually eligible to vote!

So again, the only item on that list above that Photo ID can be used to counter is voter impersonation fraud! And as for "check[ing] for state, county, and city of permanent residence, too" that's also a completely bogus argument. I know here in Missouri if you are between the ages of 21-69 you only have to renew your drivers license every 6 years. But people move all the time. Do you really think they don't let people vote because their current address doesn't match what's on their drivers license? The election officials already have a list of who is registered to vote in a given precinct. If your name is on the list you get to vote. And even IF someone challenged you because the address on your driver's license doesn't match all you would need to produce is a valid voter registration card or a piece of official mail (e.g. utility bill, school district correspondence, paycheck, etc.) with your current address. Neither of which is Photo ID!

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
and 2 out of the last 4 elections would have seen completely different results if a tiny number of votes were added or moved in crucial swing states, but again, you're not thinking through the issue.
"Tiny" as in 10 votes? Like I said. Just STOP.

OAW
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2016, 09:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
This is ridiculous.

More than 50% of the population doesn't even vote, and you think that your Joe Sixpack is really thinking about some sort of armed rebellion against their democractic government at this point? If they cared this much they would vote.
There comes a point where it doesn't matter if 10% or 100% of the population vote.
Once the system has corrupted to a certain state, it can't be fixed by votes.

Look at present day Venezuela. Sadly, the only chance for the people is civil war. Their government is not just going to step down or make changes. If anything, you'll see the military take over, but that's just another flavor of a tyrrany.

-t
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2016, 10:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
More idiotic rehashing of shit I've already countered. *yawn*

"Tiny" as in 10 votes? Like I said. Just STOP.
10 of a specific type of fraud, in a system where it's nearly impossible to detect. Again, it's not that it only happened 10 times, it's that it's nigh impossible to discover, given the slapdash nature of our voting system. Seriously, extract your head from your bum, it's obvious you aren't thinking clearly. We're one of the only countries in the Western world that doesn't require a photo ID for voting, I'm sure people in the EU and Canada look at this and think, "so what?"

You still haven't explained your ridiculous premise that an ID is somehow a permit, either, other than saying "Is so!"

Edit: I wasn't the one who derailed this thread, either.
( Last edited by Cap'n Tightpants; Jun 4, 2016 at 11:17 PM. )
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2016, 11:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
There comes a point where it doesn't matter if 10% or 100% of the population vote.
Once the system has corrupted to a certain state, it can't be fixed by votes.

Look at present day Venezuela. Sadly, the only chance for the people is civil war. Their government is not just going to step down or make changes. If anything, you'll see the military take over, but that's just another flavor of a tyrrany.

-t

I can definitely see a civil war, but not really an attempt to physically topple our entire system of government. I see more of people like BadKosh who think that our problems will be solved by replacing Ds with Rs, or vice versa. There is one faction that sees the government as corrupt but would advocate for a Bernie Sanders-like approach, and the other that would prefer the Donald Trump approach (however this approach would be characterized). However, they both have radically different visions for America, so I think that when your population is divided civil war is far more likely than uniting to topple government.

I often think that America would actually be better off as two or three separate countries.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2016, 03:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The meta-question at play is whether gun violence is something one stops, or is it a sacrifice one makes in order to achieve a specific end.

If the answer is the former, then Obama's arguments are reasonable and practical.

If the answer is the latter, the challenge isn't to the internal consistency of his arguments, it's to his goal.
...
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2016, 03:21 PM
 
Fine Subego, I'll take your bait and get back to the constitution/tyranny thing, since this thread seems like it isn't gaining traction...

What's the difference between an insurgency and a civil war? I would argue one of these differences is that we'd need a civil war to topple a government, but that in this generation it is very remote that we'll ever see this again when insurgent groups can cause ample destruction and cause ample disruption without the cost of waging war against a government that is equipped with drones and nuclear weapons.

One reason that these insurgent groups are so effective today is because they can be decentralized and mobilized by communication technology that didn't exist in years past.

I think the same is probably true of international war.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2016, 03:22 PM
 
Wait...

Where did I mention the Constitution? I presented a philosophical dichotomy, not a legal one.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2016, 03:28 PM
 
I'm not sure I understand where your question is going.

A successful insurgency becomes a civil war.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2016, 10:25 PM
 
Does the constitution call for a license or a permit for anything else? Was anything else a licensed activity at the time the constitution was written?

I find the notion that licensing anything should be considered tyranny to be utterly preposterous. Surely freedom of movement is a more fundamental right than owning a gun? Yet there are universally accepted circumstances where that right can be revoked permanently. Since felons are already forbidden to own guns, something which few people seem to object to, how do they propose that gun dealers identify felons? Isn't a background check essentially a passively acquired licence?

I thought the point about the terrorist sympathisers on the no-fly list being allowed to buy guns was particularly interesting. I'd love to hear what the NRA and some of their most Islam friendly supporters think of that of that.


As for abandoned nuclear weapons being a public safety issue I'm sure there is plenty of hazardous substance regulations to cover that. Would unattended loaded weapons left in a kindergarten constitute a safety hazard in your eyes?
( Last edited by Waragainstsleep; Jun 6, 2016 at 08:39 PM. )
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2016, 09:10 AM
 
The government needs to go through quite an elaborate process before it gets to "de-license" your freedom of movement. It was put there specifically out of fear from tyrannical abuse.

The fundamental issue with background checks is it allows the creation of a master list of gun owners.

Let me present you with a minor example of where that can go.

Illinois has some of the most (if not the most) restrictive gun laws in America. To own a gun you are required to register with the State Police.

Our State's Attorney wanted to print the list of registered owners in the paper.

This is how the government wants to behave when everybody is still playing nice. How are they going to behave once the gloves come off?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2016, 09:59 AM
 
To be clear, is the above argument meant to be a slam-dunk argument for outlawing background checks? No.

It is meant to be an explanation for why I'm wary.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2016, 10:27 AM
 
With doctor/patient privilege getting in the way of reporting wack jobs to teachers, police, authorities and emplyers it makes background checks worthless. Lawyers again!
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2016, 10:54 AM
 
IIUC, there's nothing stopping a doctor from committing you if they think you're a threat to yourself or others.

My knee-jerk reaction is that will cover most situations.

I don't think the right policy is for doctors to rat on you to... everybody.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2016, 08:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The fundamental issue with background checks is it allows the creation of a master list of gun owners.
Surely a licensing system is what creates a master list? Background checks are used instead specifically to avoid the list.

Wouldn't the NRA membership list serve as a good enough list in the event of tyranny? I assume this could be obtained via a court order or a road of some kind if it came down to it. Maybe a hack?

I realise its not a comprehensive list, but if you know where even 50% of the guns are and you can neutralise them, your tyranny will be pretty tough to stop.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
Let me present you with a minor example of where that can go.

Illinois has some of the most (if not the most) restrictive gun laws in America. To own a gun you are required to register with the State Police.

Our State's Attorney wanted to print the list of registered owners in the paper.
I can't imagine what he hoped to achieve by doing that.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2016, 08:47 PM
 
If someone tried to pass a law barring anyone on the terrorist no-fly list from buying a gun, would the gun owners assume that they would all get put on no-fly lists?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2016, 02:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Surely a licensing system is what creates a master list? Background checks are used instead specifically to avoid the list.

Wouldn't the NRA membership list serve as a good enough list in the event of tyranny? I assume this could be obtained via a court order or a road of some kind if it came down to it. Maybe a hack?

I realise its not a comprehensive list, but if you know where even 50% of the guns are and you can neutralise them, your tyranny will be pretty tough to stop.
That's why the NRA is organized by state, no other state knows the other's members, and the lists are encrypted (would take decades to brute force).

I can't imagine what he hoped to achieve by doing that.
Create targets for social "justice" of course.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2016, 04:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Surely a licensing system is what creates a master list? Background checks are used instead specifically to avoid the list.

Wouldn't the NRA membership list serve as a good enough list in the event of tyranny? I assume this could be obtained via a court order or a road of some kind if it came down to it. Maybe a hack?

I realise its not a comprehensive list, but if you know where even 50% of the guns are and you can neutralise them, your tyranny will be pretty tough to stop.



I can't imagine what he hoped to achieve by doing that.
She.

I don't know what her intentions were. I could hypothesize, but nothing I can come up with is particularly charitable.

I think you make a decent argument for why one shouldn't join the NRA. However, I'm much less worried about that vector than I am about the one requiring registration with the state police to own a gun.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2016, 04:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
That's why the NRA is organized by state, no other state knows the other's members, and the lists are encrypted (would take decades to brute force).
I remember 2600 magazine getting asked about how secure their subscriber list was from snooping.

They had a long bit about multiple levels of encryption, only two people know the passwords, the computer with their records is air-gapped, etc., etc.

After all that, the last sentence was "of course, if the government wants to know who our subscribers are, they could ask the Post Office".

I feel the NRA is in a similar situation.
     
iMOTOR
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: San Diego
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2016, 02:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post

After all that, the last sentence was "of course, if the government wants to know who our subscribers are, they could ask the Post Office".

I feel the NRA is in a similar situation.
That's why I buy 2600 at the news stand with cash.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2016, 03:18 PM
 
Heh... one year, for my birthday, my ex got me a subscription, but she put it in her name.

She gave me a little note with the first issue which said "don't worry, I'm the one on the 'list'".
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2016, 11:24 AM
 
Be a member for a year or 2. Then let your subscription lapse for 4-6 months before re-enlisting. Throws them off.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2016, 05:28 PM
 
You guys are so paranoid.

I can understand how our rules would give you a heart attack if you won't even get a magazine subscription in your name, but in practice the whole process is simultaneous taken very seriously but is also very chilled out. The firearms officers typically end up on very friendly terms with licence holders, none of the licencees have any interest in overthrowing any governments, tyrannical or otherwise and the firearms cops don't seem remotely interested in tyrannising anyone.
Its odd when you consider that its supposedly our government who inspired your centuries of paranoia in the first place.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2016, 07:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
You guys are so paranoid.
says the guy who has so few rights left...
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:13 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,