[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

What makes one "qualified"?

Having a responsibility to protect their interests whether it be property, people, and/or possessions.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Sounds like a good plan for reducing income inequality.

I think you acknowledged earlier; we often agree on the goals, but...

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I stand corrected. Just most people that I have herd talk about defending against tyranny end up having to look up what tyranny even means when you ask them what it is. I just dont think its much on the minds of most people when they buy guns. Usally its about self defence, or cool factor or hunting.

I completely understand what you mean, but I think our systems (something besson was talking about in another thread) facilitate a degree of peace that would make such a notion unthinkable over time. We're very blessed and in many respects insulated from global folly because of our shared strength as nations, but I don't think that's on accident, Athens. I think it's because both our systems have had to deal with large populations of armed people, fierce individualism, and acknowledge the needs of self-defense. As respect for this right declines, I believe the collective is more vulnerable overall. It's an insurance policy that makes any hostile entity more hesitant to act, that's all.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I completely understand what you mean, but I think our systems (something besson was talking about in another thread) facilitate a degree of peace that would make such a notion unthinkable over time. We're very blessed and in many respects insulated from global folly because of our shared strength as nations, but I don't think that's on accident, Athens. I think it's because both our systems have had to deal with large populations of armed people, fierce individualism, and acknowledge the needs of self-defense. As respect for this right declines, I believe the collective is more vulnerable overall. It's an insurance policy that makes any hostile entity more hesitant to act, that's all.

I totally agree.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I think it's because both our systems have had to deal with large populations of armed people, fierce individualism, and acknowledge the needs of self-defense.

Wonderfully put.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I'm shocked, really. And here I was thinking you'd be swayed over to our "side".

Reasons I own firearms (my reasons, which are as valid as anyone's):

1. In defense of tyranny. Not only on a federal level, but state and/or local, as well. Since I can't predict the future, being prepared is logical.
2. Home/personal defense.
3. Sport. I don't hunt very often, but I do enjoy trap and target shooting.
4. Collectibility. I own some weapons that are worth a great deal, from both monetary and historical perspectives.

However, I don't need a reason, as long as I obey the laws and care for them properly. That's the foundation of this country's rule of law.

I'm sorry dude, it is completely and utterly illogical. I mean, it is pretty much Abe-level nuts.

You won't hear about tyranny in a modern democracy functioning as it should, because:

a) the government in a democracy with a thriving economy doesn't need violence to exert power over its own people, as discussed

b) as long as the government is not proposing doing away with elections, there are term limits, and incentives to not be tyrannical since this tyranny would have an expiration that would make it difficult to build and conquer in the manner that would be appropriate for the word "tyranny"

c) democracies have checks and balances


Out of all of the democratic countries in the world, we don't hear about tyranny very often in modern times, and out of all of these democratic countries the US probably has more checks and balances than all of them.

This fear is very tin-foil hatty.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I completely understand what you mean, but I think our systems (something besson was talking about in another thread) facilitate a degree of peace that would make such a notion unthinkable over time. We're very blessed and in many respects insulated from global folly because of our shared strength as nations, but I don't think that's on accident, Athens. I think it's because both our systems have had to deal with large populations of armed people, fierce individualism, and acknowledge the needs of self-defense. As respect for this right declines, I believe the collective is more vulnerable overall. It's an insurance policy that makes any hostile entity more hesitant to act, that's all.

That respect for that right is higher than it has ever been, because the government doesn't really care about taking it away from us. This right simply gives people like Shaddim comfort in feeling like they have some sort of defense against the government (although, of course, this "defense" would put him in jail), and get to enjoy the other pleasures and feelings of safety to boot in having lots of powerful guns.

The fear that the government had over an armed population pretty much went away when we invented stuff like drones, missiles that can take out small targets using satellite technology to ridiculous precision, stealth aircraft, nukes, etc. As I said before, Joe Sixpack Republican redneck with guns doesn't concern the government so long as he isn't doing anything criminal. If we are really concerned about having our liberties encroached upon, we should be more concerned with the other violations to our freedom already evolving (e.g. wiretapping, etc.) Where is the hysteria over these issues? If these issues continue to evolve as they have, sooner or later Bill Mahr is right, we'll be strip club bouncers to a strip club with no girls in it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The fear that the government had over an armed population pretty much went away when we invented stuff like drones, missiles that can take out small targets using satellite technology to ridiculous precision, stealth aircraft, nukes, etc.

The day you see so much as one drone flying over your city and dropping missiles is the day you'll see some band of miscreants taking them out of the sky. Trust me. Why don't we just do this in Afghanistan and call it day? Why do we have to have so many of those pesky boots on the ground all the time?

As I said before, Joe Sixpack Republican redneck with guns doesn't concern the government so long as he isn't doing anything criminal. If we are really concerned about having our liberties encroached upon, we should be more concerned with the other violations to our freedom already evolving (e.g. wiretapping, etc.) Where is the hysteria over these issues? If these issues continue to evolve as they have, sooner or later Bill Mahr is right, we'll be strip club bouncers to a strip club with no girls in it.

I don't know why the whole "Joe Sixpack Republican redneck" even enters the equation as if there aren't just as many gun-toting Joe Sixpack Democrat rednecks.

As far as complaints about warrantless wiretapping and the like, those all disappeared from this forum upon the election of Barack Obama in spite of me bringing them up. i.e. you'll have to inquire your ilk.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The day you see so much as one drone flying over your city and dropping missiles is the day you'll see some band of miscreants taking them out of the sky. Trust me. Why don't we just do this in Afghanistan and call it day? Why do we have to have so many of those pesky boots on the ground all the time?

Because dropping a nuke and calling it a day would be sloppy and would counter the goals of government. If government wanted to wage war on us, why would they be interested in minimizing casualties when the whole point would be to overwhelm us?

I don't know why the whole "Joe Sixpack Republican redneck" even enters the equation as if there aren't just as many gun-toting Joe Sixpack Democrat rednecks.

The gun nuts that think the government is out to get them are probably mostly right wing and libertarian types. After all, the left loves the government, don't they?

As far as complaints about warrantless wiretapping and the like, those all disappeared from this forum upon the election of Barack Obama in spite of me bringing them up. i.e. you'll have to inquire your ilk.

And they were largely absent on the right during the Bush years when the Patriot Act came to be. This isn't an ilk thing, this is the population generally being asleep at the wheel, which is exactly why the government doesn't care about us owning guns - it gives us a false sense of security in our liberties being salvaged when repealing our 2nd amendment rights are of literally no interest to the government (and I mean that in an absolute sense, as in taking away *all* gun privileges).

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Having a responsibility to protect their interests whether it be property, people, and/or possessions.

A "responsibility"? Do I have a responsibility to protect my stuff? Why doesn't Obama?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I think you acknowledged earlier; we often agree on the goals, but...

It was tongue -in-cheek. Unless you think taxes are actually sending the "prosperous" the other way.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm sorry dude, it is completely and utterly illogical. I mean, it is pretty much Abe-level nuts.

You won't hear about tyranny in a modern democracy functioning as it should, because:

a) the government in a democracy with a thriving economy doesn't need violence to exert power over its own people, as discussed

b) as long as the government is not proposing doing away with elections, there are term limits, and incentives to not be tyrannical since this tyranny would have an expiration that would make it difficult to build and conquer in the manner that would be appropriate for the word "tyranny"

c) democracies have checks and balances


Out of all of the democratic countries in the world, we don't hear about tyranny very often in modern times, and out of all of these democratic countries the US probably has more checks and balances than all of them.

This fear is very tin-foil hatty.

Sorry, I feel you're wrong, and it's very doubtful that you ever "listened to this debate for a while and trying to keep open-minded". In fact, you've made such statements in the past to try and sway others, when it was clear from the beginning that you had no intention whatsoever. See, being open-minded (and Liberal) is to actually allow differing opinions to foment, like I did on the matters of abortion and capital punishment. I thought about them for a long while (years), weighing the pros and cons from a neutral perspective, and eventually allowed my core opinion on those issues to change. I'm not aware of many others around here who are capable of such introspection. It's scary for most because it requires you to believe, on a fundamental level, that your views could be wrong.

But then, MacNN PWL has rarely ever been about folks challenging their own beliefs, and more a pulpit to bludgeon others with their gospel. That's the problem with the Right and Left, both are, in truth, Conservatives (statists), incapable of any real flexibility in their doctrine.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Out of all of the democratic countries in the world, we don't hear about tyranny very often in modern times, and out of all of these democratic countries the US probably has more checks and balances than all of them.

This fear is very tin-foil hatty.

Well, it MIGHT HAVE BEEN all "tin-foil hatty" until Feinstein's latest proposal, which shows that there's a bunch of kooks out there who believe at least one of these things:

1) MORE gun control will actually keep criminals from using guns, or

2) MORE gun control will convince the sheep out there that politicians are "doing something" and therefore buy some votes.

This is the point in the debate where all the fears that legal gun owners have about government tyranny come true: ban on magazines, ban on guns based on arbitrary characteristics, tying of gun ownership to health care through a records system, requiring private citizens to record sales of private property to other private citizens, requiring registration of private property outright and via a resale record system, etc. If this doesn't justify the tinfoil hats I'm not sure what does.

The last 6 weeks have proven everything the NRA has said for years. And more. As with other inalienable rights, there should be no compromise on this issue.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

A "responsibility"? Do I have a responsibility to protect my stuff?

Who else is going to do it for you?

Why doesn't Obama?

His responsibility is fulfilled by a taxpayer funded and heavily armed security group for the rest of his life (that he appointed to himself). Its not something he has to worry about.

I'll give you an analogy. Cars and transportation.

Lets say we're trying to ban cars from our roads. I am the president, you are Joe Schmoe. I have a fleet of jets, cars and helicopters at my disposal yet I push legislation so that you cannot own a car, as I feel that you don't need it and you pose a risk to the rest of society. You'll just have to walk to get to work. You have no recourse, even though you watch all those with connections to the government stock up on Benzes and Hummers. Thats not for you though, they need it so they can run the country (which is ok). But you? No, you can't be trusted to have one. You might kill someone accidentally, or you may go nuts and run down 28 kids at a school.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I have a fleet of jets, cars and helicopters at my disposal yet I push legislation so that you cannot own a car, as I feel that you don't need it and you pose a risk to the rest of society.

"Let them eat cake!"

[Athens]

besson3c, im getting this feeling your anti gun? This correct?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Well, it MIGHT HAVE BEEN all "tin-foil hatty" until Feinstein's latest proposal, which shows that there's a bunch of kooks out there who believe at least one of these things:

1) MORE gun control will actually keep criminals from using guns, or

2) MORE gun control will convince the sheep out there that politicians are "doing something" and therefore buy some votes.

This is the point in the debate where all the fears that legal gun owners have about government tyranny come true: ban on magazines, ban on guns based on arbitrary characteristics, tying of gun ownership to health care through a records system, requiring private citizens to record sales of private property to other private citizens, requiring registration of private property outright and via a resale record system, etc. If this doesn't justify the tinfoil hats I'm not sure what does.

I can see why you wouldn't believe number 1 (despite the colossal amount of evidence to suggest it is accurate), thats just people on the right being people on the right, but you seriously don't believe that added control could work as a cynical move to make people think something has been done? Now thats kooky.

The BS to do with magazine sizes and pistol grips is nothing more than trying to find political middle ground. It looks like they are doing something for those on the left who want something done, but it does nothing in reality so should be ok with those on the right who for some unfathomable reason are bitching about it anyway. What is wrong with you? Banning faux assault weapons is meaningless and has no discernible effect on who can own or shoot what but should silence a few of the people who want to take your precious guns away for a while which is EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT no?

[Athens]

I think both sides bickering distract from the things that would make a real difference.

Which is better of the 3 options

1) No background check of any kind. Any one can buy a gun including mentally crazy people, and ex criminals

2) Background check at the point of sale for all sold weapons.

3) Gun license requirement background check at time of license not at time of sale.

I haven't herd any one talk about 3 at all. Just 1 and 2. And personally I see 2 as problematic. That's a lot of work for each and every sale when it really makes more sense to do background checks on a license and at the time of sale just making sure the license is in good standing.

Of course the very subject of a license creates a uproar because its a right to bear arms no license should be required. Well fair enough it is a right and that does get in the way. But what system is easier for the seller, the buyer and the system as a whole to support and maintain...

We can't even get into discussions about options like the 3rd one because we are so entrenched in the concept of restrictions period should there be restrictions or not. Cant get to the details of what is appropriate and what isn't.

What I learned in a different thread one I started is that the bill of rights isnt absolute. Anything can be taken or restricted and it seems more like flexible goo of melted plastic then a hard uncompromising stone. A criminal can lose his right to vote. Well that's not a right then. If something so important as the fundamental right of voting can be in some situations removed, seems all the bill of rights can have if ands or butts placed on them. And if so that includes gun control. You can bear arms, it is your right except for if and butt this and that. It would be within practice of current rights and how they are applied as it is today already.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

What I learned in a different thread one I started is that the bill of rights isnt absolute. Anything can be taken or restricted and it seems more like flexible goo of melted plastic then a hard uncompromising stone. A criminal can lose his right to vote. Well that's not a right then. If something so important as the fundamental right of voting can be in some situations removed, seems all the bill of rights can have if ands or butts placed on them.

The passive voice makes these things sound equivalent when they're not. Criminals (some of them) lose certain rights because of choices they made when they decided to stop obeying the law. Don't equate that to taking away rights from people who can't do anything to avoid it, because that's not at all the same thing.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Who else is going to do it for you?

That's not a responsibility.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

heavily armed security group for the rest of his life (that he appointed to himself)

Appointed himself?

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Who else is going to do it for you?

I'll give you an analogy. Cars and transportation.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Lets say we're trying to ban cars from our roads. I am the president, you are Joe Schmoe. I have a fleet of jets, cars and helicopters at my disposal yet I push legislation so that you cannot own a car, as I feel that you don't need it and you pose a risk to the rest of society. You'll just have to walk to get to work. You have no recourse, even though you watch all those with connections to the government stock up on Benzes and Hummers. Thats not for you though, they need it so they can run the country (which is ok). But you? No, you can't be trusted to have one. You might kill someone accidentally, or you may go nuts and run down 28 kids at a school

Once again, cars are a terrible analogy. Cars are not a weapon, and get used by a lot of people every single day (Like 128 million people). Oh and they're way more regulated.

PS. No one is banning guns, but there is a proposed ban on subset of guns. I do not think this ban will do much if enacted.

[Athens]

I have always been under the opinion that a right is a right regardless of actions and choices. That it applied equally to all. I don't distinguish between the lose of certain rights because of a choice and the lost of rights of those that can't or didn't do anything thing to deserve it.

If a action and a choice can remove a option from a right, it shouldn't be called a right but a privilege. You have the privilege to vote until you murder some one then your privilege to vote is revoked. You have the privilege to gun ownership until you commit a criminal offence then this privilege is revoked. You have the privilege to drive until you drink and drive and get into accident then that privilege is revoked. To me a right to liberty, a right to freedom of speech and the right to vote should be iron clad. Its a right its not revocable no matter what the action. And I honestly thought that was the way it was in the US.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I have always been under the opinion that a right is a right regardless of actions and choices. That it applied equally to all. I don't distinguish between the lose of certain rights because of a choice and the lost of rights of those that can't or didn't do anything thing to deserve it.

If a action and a choice can remove a option from a right, it shouldn't be called a right but a privilege. You have the privilege to vote until you murder some one then your privilege to vote is revoked. You have the privilege to gun ownership until you commit a criminal offence then this privilege is revoked. You have the privilege to drive until you drink and drive and get into accident then that privilege is revoked. To me a right to liberty, a right to freedom of speech and the right to vote should be iron clad. Its a right its not revocable no matter what the action. And I honestly thought that was the way it was in the US.

You used the example I was going to use. If liberty is a right then how can anyone be jailed, thus depriving them of it? My answer is that a "right" gives you control over it, including the right to throw it away by abusing it.

[Athens]

And thus any laws to govern gun ownership is ok because a right isn't iron clad.

[Uncle Skeleton]

No, I repeat, taking away people's rights regardless of their action is not the same thing as someone deciding to give up their rights by abusing them.

[Athens]

but it is being abused, sadly by the few which affects the many. Some would make that argument... (Im not one of them as you know im a supporter of guns) im just saying though it can be taken that way. While its not being abused by Joe, its been abused by Paul so Joe has to pay the price with Paul.

[Uncle Skeleton]

The right to throw your own rights away and the right to throw others' rights away are not the same either.

Edit: are you saying it's ok to jail Joe for Paul's crime too?

[Athens]

Oh I know that, and I was not trying to say that was the same. We need to be clear in what is a right, and what is a privilege. Because privileges by definition fits better in how its being described. You have the privilege to own guns until you F up and lose that privilege. You have the right to a attorney, you can choose to wave that right but nothing you did can prevent the state from offering you that attorney.

Hey at the end of the day it might just be what I define as a right is different from what you define as being a right and the scope of what that entails. That would be a cultural or personal difference between you and I.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Oh I know that, and I was not trying to say that was the same. We need to be clear in what is a right, and what is a privilege. Because privileges by definition fits better in how its being described. You have the privilege to own guns until you F up and lose that privilege. You have the right to a attorney, you can choose to wave that right but nothing you did can prevent the state from offering you that attorney.

Yeah I get it, it's an interesting question.


I think a privilege is something someone can grant you at their will, whereas a right is something you can control through your own will. Privileges are things you don't have until you go get them, rights are things you do have until you go lose them. Privileges are off by default, rights are on by default. That's my opinion.

[Athens]

Heh if we where debating this in person I would expect a smack across the back of the head for this one. But if that's the case, isn't most things privileges just by the fact that people earn those rights/privileges just by the very act of turning the proper age to which we as society say you are allowed to do this, you have been granted the right to drink at 19, you have been granted the right to drive at 16 and you have been granted the right to own a firearm at 19 and so forth.

I know I'm grasping.....

[Uncle Skeleton]

But you don't get to drive just by turning 16, you have to apply for a license and pass a test. That's why I don't consider driving a right.

[Athens]

And that's the winner

Though at times I think it would be in societies best interest if people had to apply to be able to speak, make babies and be allowed in public. Just once in a while I think this lol

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That's not a responsibility.

Protecting your estate is not a responsibility that you have as an adult? Can you clarify what you mean?

Appointed himself?

Obama signs bill, gets Secret Service protection for life – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

I'll give you an analogy. Cars and transportation.

Once again, cars are a terrible analogy. Cars are not a weapon, and get used by a lot of people every single day (Like 128 million people). Oh and they're way more regulated.

And 80 million use guns. Cars kill more people than guns do. Err, let me restate. People kill more people being stupid with cars than they do being stupid with guns.

I believe the analogy is spot on. They are both tools for a purpose. They are both deadly in the wrong hands. They are both capable of murder in the wrong hands. You shouldn't operate either while drunk. You shouldn't put mentally unstable in control of either.

Just because you are uncomfortable with one does make it a "terrible analogy." A car can absolutely be used as a weapon and a gun can be used as a tool.

PS. No one is banning guns, but there is a proposed ban on subset of guns. I do not think this ban will do much if enacted.

That is the endgame, and if you do not think this ban would do much, whats even the point? It will cost billions to enforce, lost revenues of gunsmiths for R&D and current stock. For what?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Obama signs bill, gets Secret Service protection for life – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Along with every other president we've had:

Originally Posted by cnn article

Lifetime government-provided security for former presidents was the law of the land until 1997, when Congress passed legislation limiting Secret Service protection to ten years after leaving office.

Don't make things personal when they aren't. He didn't invent this, he just put it back the way it used to be.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I believe the analogy is spot on. They are both tools for a purpose. They are both deadly in the wrong hands. They are both capable of murder in the wrong hands. You shouldn't operate either while drunk. You shouldn't put mentally unstable in control of either.

Just because you are uncomfortable with one does make it a "terrible analogy." A car can absolutely be used as a weapon and a gun can be used as a tool.

I think it's a good analogy, and also a convincing argument for treating guns much like we do cars: requiring a license to operate, license plates (registry), a title, bill of sale, accountability, perhaps even regular inspections. Insurance I don't see much point in, but it fits the analogy and people are asking for it. In other words, it's so similar to driving (a privilege not a right), that it probably should be a privilege, not a right. It's hard to argue that gun access equivalent to current car access would prevent law-abiding citizens from deserved usage.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Along with every other president we've had:

Don't make things personal when they aren't. He didn't invent this, he just put it back the way it used to be.

I'm not sure it takes anything away from the point I'm trying to make. If you think otherwise, could you elaborate?

[Athens]

Its hard to take anything you say seriously when you get something so wrong or so biased in there as well...

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I think it's a good analogy, and also a convincing argument for treating guns much like we do cars: requiring a license to operate, license plates (registry), a title, bill of sale, accountability, perhaps even regular inspections. Insurance I don't see much point in, but it fits the analogy and people are asking for it. In other words, it's so similar to driving (a privilege not a right), that it probably should be a privilege, not a right. It's hard to argue that gun access equivalent to current car access would prevent law-abiding citizens from deserved usage.

Isn't that what we already have with background checks in order to purchase handguns and more dangerous guns such as automatics?

Same with cars, in a way. You don't need a license for a mini scooter or kit car/go kart, or for cars used exclusively at the track or on your own property.

You can already see the abuse of the auto "privilege" with profit based speed and red light cameras that are proven to slightly increase the incidence of accidents in most areas. If you don't pay you don't drive. Not to mention the extremely poor state of MVA services across the country. Its a running joke in our culture about going to the MVA.

And wouldn't your suggestion also reinforce the idea of leaving it up to the states to regulate, much the roads systems? I mean there are federal mandates for gas mileage and safety, much like the gun industry...but nonetheless.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Its hard to take anything you say seriously when you get something so wrong or so biased in there as well...

Could you be a bit more specific please? I'm not seeing anything to counter the point I'm trying to make.

[Athens]

Background checks are a total failure at the moment because the data is terrible.

How the violent mentally ill can buy guns - CNN.com

This story highlights a very real and serious problem that has nothing to do with guns but with information access and sharing.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Could you be a bit more specific please? I'm not seeing anything to counter the point I'm trying to make.

Ignore what I said I just realized it was a quote for some one else. My mistake, sorry.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

But you don't get to drive just by turning 16, you have to apply for a license and pass a test. That's why I don't consider driving a right.

On public roadways, yes. But on farms and exclusively on your own land you do not need to register a vehicle or have a license.

[Athens]

so your saying you should be able to have a gun on your own property but in order to take it places in public you need to be licensed, registered and insured?

(I actually like that)

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Athens 

so your saying you should be able to have a gun on your own property but in order to take it places in public you need to be licensed, registered and insured?

(I actually like that)

But we already have that with concealed carry permit, and licenses for handguns and rifles in general. In my state you can only have any gun with you if you can prove that you are going to or from a gunshop or gunsmith, to or from a hunting ground (and a hunting permit), or to and from your place of business and home(s).

Insurance would also serve no purpose.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I'm not sure it takes anything away from the point I'm trying to make. If you think otherwise, could you elaborate?

It's not "his" thing, it predates him.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Because dropping a nuke and calling it a day would be sloppy and would counter the goals of government. If government wanted to wage war on us, why would they be interested in minimizing casualties when the whole point would be to overwhelm us?

Oh... nukes? That changes things a bit. Truth be told, I think civil war is already well under way before anything so drastic as even drones and missiles, let alone nukes. I mean, I don't want to talk apocalyptic movie scenarios, but somehow maintaining rapport with you requires it.

The gun nuts that think the government is out to get them are probably mostly right wing and libertarian types. After all, the left loves the government, don't they?

This is silly, besson. Naturally, the left loves their government. They're every bit as nuts as anyone else when they don't get their way.

And they were largely absent on the right during the Bush years when the Patriot Act came to be.

Hmm... not the right-wing and libertarian types. Otherwise, that shit was all overwhelmingly bipartisan causing many republicans to become more openly anti-establishment; party and government.

This isn't an ilk thing, this is the population generally being asleep at the wheel, which is exactly why the government doesn't care about us owning guns - it gives us a false sense of security in our liberties being salvaged when repealing our 2nd amendment rights are of literally no interest to the government (and I mean that in an absolute sense, as in taking away *all* gun privileges).

I still don't understand where you're getting this argument. The government has not been this interested in gun ownership in decades. It has maintained an active interest in gun ownership. I don't see anyone concerned about negating the 2nd Amendment entirely.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Isn't that what we already have with background checks in order to purchase handguns and more dangerous guns such as automatics?

Not required though, and straw sales (and gifts etc) are not enforced. If you give a car as a gift, the driver still needs a valid license. But if you give a gun as a gift, the user can be completely invisible to the state/feds. That's not parity with driving.

Same with cars, in a way. You don't need a license for a mini scooter or kit car/go kart, or for cars used exclusively at the track or on your own property.

Except that would be moving the goal posts. You built the analogy by comparing the effects of cars on public roads to the effects of all gun ownership in general, and that is a fair analogy. The vast majority of dangers from cars come from public roads, so excluding them is a large change of the analogy. The vast majority of dangers from guns come from guns that are nominally kept on private property, so excluding them is a big change too.

You can already see the abuse of the auto "privilege" with profit based speed and red light cameras that are proven to slightly increase the incidence of accidents in most areas. If you don't pay you don't drive. Not to mention the extremely poor state of MVA services across the country. Its a running joke in our culture about going to the MVA.

Irrelevant, unless you're going to argue that this overhead is not worth the safety gains from regulating motor vehicle usage?
BTW, I just moved to MD from WA, and WA's dept. of licensing is way better than here. The DMV being necessarily horrible is a fallacy. I don't know what's wrong with Maryland, but it doesn't have to be this way.

And wouldn't your suggestion also reinforce the idea of leaving it up to the states to regulate, much the roads systems? I mean there are federal mandates for gas mileage and safety, much like the gun industry...but nonetheless.

Sure, but state by state driving requirements don't just happen to all be so similar. If Nevada decided to make vehicular homicide legal, they wouldn't get away with it. As long as it's understood that the same level of good faith would be applied by the states regarding gun control, yes.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

But we already have that with concealed carry permit, and licenses for handguns and rifles in general. In my state you can only have any gun with you if you can prove that you are going to or from a gunshop or gunsmith, to or from a hunting ground (and a hunting permit), or to and from your place of business and home(s).

Insurance would also serve no purpose.

Your state is more restrictive then Canada. That kind of restriction only applies to our restricted weapons, handguns. I can take a rifle pretty much anywhere any time and even leave it in the car as long as it was locked.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Victorysensors 

Victorysensors are engaged in manufacturing Industrial Oven. These Industrial ovens are manufactured using quality range of raw material and are available in the market at the most competitive prices.

All this makes me want to do is pretend I'm an interested buyer and waste as much of your staff's time as I possibly can.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

All this makes me want to do is pretend I'm an interested buyer and waste as much of your staff's time as I possibly can.

With a name like that, it makes me worry that they're made in Germany.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Protecting your estate is not a responsibility that you have as an adult? Can you clarify what you mean?

Sure – a responsibility is something you have an obligation to do, right? I don't think I'm obligated to protect my stuff (particularly with lethal force).

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Obama signs bill, gets Secret Service protection for life – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Along with every other president we've had:

Don't make things personal when they aren't. He didn't invent this, he just put it back the way it used to be.

Bingo. Did he request the bill too?

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

And 80 million use guns.

Not everyday and not as frequently as vehicles, and definitely not outside a job that requires them.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Cars kill more people than guns do. Err, let me restate. People kill more people being stupid with cars than they do being stupid with guns.

Cars are used far more frequently than guns are. What's the gun equivalent of bumper to bumper rush hour traffic that happens every weekday? What's the gun equivalent of mass travel on a holiday weekend? What's the gun equivalent of driving in heavy rain or icy roads?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I think it's a good analogy, and also a convincing argument for treating guns much like we do cars: requiring a license to operate, license plates (registry), a title, bill of sale, accountability, perhaps even regular inspections. Insurance I don't see much point in, but it fits the analogy and people are asking for it. In other words, it's so similar to driving (a privilege not a right), that it probably should be a privilege, not a right. It's hard to argue that gun access equivalent to current car access would prevent law-abiding citizens from deserved usage.

Yeah, that's the thing. If you're willing to subject gun rights to the same limits as car usage then you have the beginnings of an equivalent argument. I've not seen any strong 2nd amendment supporters put forth such an idea.