[Sealobo]

I have an idea, but no this isn't what you think.

What if, just what if everyone in america is required by law to carry a loaded gun in public? Look, it's logical. No one is gonna do anything stupid knowing that everyone at sight can shoot back at you. Everyone will be nice and polite to each other in fear that some impulsive mofo will just pull the trigger on your ass. For sure there will be no more campus shooting.

I think I deserve the next round of Nobel Peace Prize nomination for just coming up with the thought.

[besson3c]

All logical thought process like this does not apply to the mentally ill.

[Gankdawg]

I'm a gun advocate, but I don't advocate requiring everyone to carry. It's a choice and I choose to carry. Requiring would mean more laws and we already have enough laws. We can't enforce the ones we have now, it's time to start eliminating laws.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I temporarily un-retired just so I could slop clap to this thread. You sir are the hero we need...not the hero we deserve

[shifuimam]

Slop clap? That sounds really messy.

[Spheric Harlot]

^ I agree.

Also, Billy Dee's wearing nail polish (or slop?) and has a cigar.

[sek929]

It was probably posted in a thread now in the PWL lounge but I think if we are to hold so dearly to this 2nd Amendment we should have mandatory gun classes and teach about the importance and significance of an armed populace from a very early stage in our school system.

Otherwise we should just drop the whole charade and admit that most people's justification for wanting a weapon has little, if not nothing, to do with the intention of the 2nd Amendment.

"inB4move2PWL"

[reader50]

There would need to be exceptions. A starting age (21?), requirement waived for anyone drinking, etc.

Regarding gun control, I've long wondered why each time we have a tragedy, the political reaction is to reduce our rights. We didn't do anything. Most citizens are entirely innocent of mass shootings, and will remain so all their lives. Why should our rights be restricted each time Security glitches up?

A suggestion: each time there is a tragedy, dock the pay of the local Mayor / Governor / Police Chief. Three tragedies, and they start sleeping nights in jail. We pay them good money + benefits to handle these problems. Penalize them, instead of us.

[Shaddim]

A local town just passed an ordinance requiring that all homeowners over the age of 21 have a gun (>.22) and ammunition on their premises.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by sek929 

It was probably posted in a thread now in the PWL lounge but I think if we are to hold so dearly to this 2nd Amendment we should have mandatory gun classes and teach about the importance and significance of an armed populace from a very early stage in our school system.

Otherwise we should just drop the whole charade and admit that most people's justification for wanting a weapon has little, if not nothing, to do with the intention of the 2nd Amendment.

"inB4move2PWL"

Of course not, they want to be able to kill people who are trying to harm them, which is perfectly understandable and natural.

[Leonard]

Sealobo, if that were true you wouldn't have gangsters killing gangsters. The truth is someone always has (or thinks they have) a better gun or are faster on the trigger than another. Or someone takes someone by surprise. Yeah you've got a gun, but if you don't see me coming up from behind you, I'm going to get the jump on you.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Of course not, they want to be able to kill people who are trying to harm them, which is perfectly understandable and natural.

I agree entirely, the motivations behind the belief they need to do so are where I begin to have doubts. I believe the fear of personal harm driving someone to buy a weapon is many times a product of delusion in a way.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Leonard 

The truth is someone always has (or thinks they have) a better gun or are faster on the trigg...

BLAM!

Heh. Too slow.

[BadKosh]

So, what would be the tipping point that started a civil war or removal of a politician the 2nd Amendment way?

[sek929]

I'd imagine once Americans stop being overfed, over-privileged, and generally stop living a great life as compared the rest of humanity. Violent crime and murder have been in decline for decades, yet people are as paranoid as ever.

I refuse to live life that way, and I have never felt the overwhelming need to purchase a device to kill my hypothetical attackers. If you feel the need to, go for it, but don't piss in my mouth and tell me it's lemonade.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

A local town just passed an ordinance requiring that all homeowners over the age of 21 have a gun (>.22) and ammunition on their premises.

Which is pointless, since they included an exemption that basically says "if you don't like guns, you don't have to have one." Which makes me think the people behind the law have severe cognitive problems.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by sek929 

I agree entirely, the motivations behind the belief they need to do so are where I begin to have doubts. I believe the fear of personal harm driving someone to buy a weapon is many times a product of delusion in a way.

It's a similar impulse to what makes people feel "safe" in an SUV, despite the fact that they're a lot more likely to hurt themselves and others?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Which is pointless, since they included an exemption that basically says "if you don't like guns, you don't have to have one." Which makes me think the people behind the law have severe cognitive problems.

Or it's a symbolic gesture, intended to show support for gun ownership and solidarity. Your world is a very bleak, lonely, little corner of hell.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

All logical thought process like this does not apply to the mentally ill.

Last time I checked, mentally ill don't care about the law, so we should be safe.

-t

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

A local town just passed an ordinance requiring that all homeowners over the age of 21 have a gun (>.22) and ammunition on their premises.

But the right to own guns goes both ways, you are free to choose not to own one. So why shove it down people's throats?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Or it's a symbolic gesture, intended to show support for gun ownership and solidarity.

Yes, that's always a successful anti-crime strategy.

Any chance we can get some politicians who make actual, not symbolic, laws?

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

It's a similar impulse to what makes people feel "safe" in an SUV, despite the fact that they're a lot more likely to hurt themselves and others?

I'd love to see some research into this. I cannot recall where or when, but I read that SUVs save lives. There were no environmental variables taken into account IIRC.

[Spheric Harlot]

There has been research (not sure if conducted by, but at least published by the ADAC) that shows that SUVs are more likely to fatally wound pedestrians - especially children - due to the higher hood edge, which makes it more likely for a pedestrian to crack his skull if hit.

In addition, the higher weight also means that in any accident, the opponent has a better chance of dying.

There is also the higher center of gravity, which means these automobiles are more likely to flip over.

[Gankdawg]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Violent crime and murder have been in decline for decades, yet people are as paranoid as ever.

And gun ownership and concealed carry permits have been on the rise for decades.

I refuse to live life that way, and I have never felt the overwhelming need to purchase a device to kill my hypothetical attackers.

As a gun owner, I support your right to refuse to live life that way. What's frustrating is people who don't support my choice. If you don't want to own guns, fine by me.

If you feel the need to, go for it, but don't piss in my mouth and tell me it's lemonade.

I don't understand this statement.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

But the right to own guns goes both ways, you are free to choose not to own one. So why shove it down people's throats?

It's like that town in Mass. where it's a law that you must wear green on St Patty's day (unless you aren't Irish), as a sign of community support. There are no penalties if you don't, other than some good-natured ribbing, but it's a clear sign that you've crossed over into Celtic country.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Yes, that's always a successful anti-crime strategy.

Any chance we can get some politicians who make actual, not symbolic, laws?

Maybe Obama can start with Gitmo and the Patriot act (or maybe legalizing pot)? Instead of stupid gun laws that either won't be enforced, criminals will ignore, or make very little practical sense. Hmm...

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

There has been research (not sure if conducted by, but at least published by the ADAC) that shows that SUVs are more likely to fatally wound pedestrians - especially children - due to the higher hood edge, which makes it more likely for a pedestrian to crack his skull if hit.

In addition, the higher weight also means that in any accident, the opponent has a better chance of dying.

There is also the higher center of gravity, which means these automobiles are more likely to flip over.

Yeah those points were in the article that I read, but the counter argument was that more people (overall) were saved since they were effectively in a tank. And then there was the soccer Mom, kids are more likely to be in SUVs argument.

Not saying that I disagree with you, its just when I last looked (a while ago) it wasn't so clear cut.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Gankdawg 

And gun ownership and concealed carry permits have been on the rise for decades.

Correlation does not equal causation. Hundreds, if not thousands, of factors have to be considered when talking about a decline in crime.

Originally Posted by Gankdawg 

I don't understand this statement.

I do not mind if someone wishes to own a gun to shoot their would-be attackers. I take issue with the 2nd amendment being used as a blanket to cover their own desires. Individuals packing heat have nothing to do with a well-regulated militia, yet we never hear that part of the 2nd, just the whole "right to keep and bear arms."

So if you wish to own a gun, don't knock me about the head with some pseudo-patriotic nonsense.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Yeah those points were in the article that I read, but the counter argument was that more people (overall) were saved since they were effectively in a tank. And then there was the soccer Mom, kids are more likely to be in SUVs argument.

Not saying that I disagree with you, its just when I last looked (a while ago) it wasn't so clear cut.

SUVs are classified as light trucks, and as such are held to much less stringent safety regulations. Their stiff frame transfers all the force of an impact to the driver, they have a high center of gravity and they are very heavy and take a lot longer to stop. Old cars were tanks too, but a modern little sedan will leave it's occupant in much better shape after an accident.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Gankdawg 

And gun ownership and concealed carry permits have been on the rise for decades.

So have computer and cellphone ownership.

Also, violent computer game consumption.

[subego]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Individuals packing heat have nothing to do with a well-regulated militia, yet we never hear that part of the 2nd, just the whole "right to keep and bear arms."

Isn't a militia a group of individuals packing heat?

[sek929]

It could also be called a mob, hence the "well-regulated" part. In the context of the time, the well regulated militias were disciplined armies.

[subego]

A well-regulated militia is still a disciplined army.

I posit the amendment says you can't have a well-regulated militia without individuals packing heat, therefore the right of individuals to pack heat shall not be infringed. It's not saying the right to pack heat is dependent on the existence of a militia, regulated or otherwise.

Let's replace the components of the amendment. These are my favorites, but choose your own if you think I've stacked the deck here.

subego's second:

Big, white trash hair, being necessary to me getting a boner, the right to bear product shall not be infringed.

In this amendment, I'd say it's 100% clear your right to bear product isn't dependent on your hair, or my turgidity.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Yes, that's always a successful anti-crime strategy.

Any chance we can get some politicians who make actual, not symbolic, laws?

I read somewhere that the mayor of NYC decided to make such a symbolic gesture to repaint over graffiti, even though the graffiti would be replaced the next day, he would keep fixing it as soon as it was replaced. The thing is, it worked, and the non-graffiti-related crime rate started to drop. The idea was that an atmosphere of non-specific lawlessness was bad for everyone, and symbolic, seamingly-sisyphean gestures could curb that.

I didn't not bother to try to verify this tale's accuracy.

[Spheric Harlot]

A policy like that is rather different from codifying something into law.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by sek929 

It could also be called a mob, hence the "well-regulated" part. In the context of the time, the well regulated militias were disciplined armies.

CWPs count as being "regulated". I also wouldn't mind mandatory firearm safety classes in school (like we had in my state when I was young).

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

A policy like that is rather different from codifying something into law.

How so? (And as a different question, does it relate to the post I was replying to, which mocked symbolic gestures as a "successful anti-crime strategy?")

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Individuals packing heat have nothing to do with a well-regulated militia, yet we never hear that part of the 2nd, just the whole "right to keep and bear arms."

Regulated back in the day of the constitution's drafting meant orderly and disciplined. The general population (comprised of individuals) was the militia. The meaning of the word in context was that each citizen had a right to bear arms as it was necessary to keep people from acting a fool upon each other, just as it helps keep order today.

It did not mean government regulations nor was it meant to limit those with a right to bear arms. If you were a male in the colonies at the time of the revolution, you were the resist...err militia. That definition would apply to any citizen with interests in the homeland today. I.e. all US citizens.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

How so? (And as a different question, does it relate to the post I was replying to, which mocked symbolic gestures as a "successful anti-crime strategy?")

Laws are literal and can (and will) be enforced to the letter. In fact, a court may find itself in a position where it HAS TO proclaim someone guilty, even if they think the law is stupid or outdated. They can make a recommendation to the lawmaking body that law be changed, but they cannot usually judge in violation of a law.

Laws are not symbolic things. They are literal, hard truth.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Laws are literal and can (and will) be enforced to the letter. In fact, a court may find itself in a position where it HAS TO proclaim someone guilty, even if they think the law is stupid or outdated. They can make a recommendation to the lawmaking body that law be changed, but they cannot usually judge in violation of a law.

Laws are not symbolic things. They are literal, hard truth.

I don't see how laws are more "literal hard truth" than actions. If anything I would say that actions are more literal and truthy than laws, since laws mean nothing until they are acted on (and that was also McKenna's complaint, that the law would not result in action).

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by sek929 

It could also be called a mob, hence the "well-regulated" part. In the context of the time, the well regulated militias were disciplined armies.

Originally Posted by subego 

A well-regulated militia is still a disciplined army.

LOL, far too many examples throughout history to prove that armies are far from disciplined.

Lord Byron said it best, and it applies to all sorts of power, not just political.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by subego 

A well-regulated militia is still a disciplined army.

I posit the amendment says you can't have a well-regulated militia without individuals packing heat, therefore the right of individuals to pack heat shall not be infringed. It's not saying the right to pack heat is dependent on the existence of a militia, regulated or otherwise.

Let's replace the components of the amendment. These are my favorites, but choose your own if you think I've stacked the deck here.

subego's second:

Big, white trash hair, being necessary to me getting a boner, the right to bear product shall not be infringed.

In this amendment, I'd say it's 100% clear your right to bear product isn't dependent on your hair, or my turgidity.

When the Second Amendment was written, the "militia" was the adult male population who came out voluntarily to support first the revolutionists and later the various local communities when they were threatened by various intrusions, etc. Also at the time it was written, "well regulated" was semantically identical to "trained and thoroughly practiced." In other words, they were talking about the local populace having the opportunity to maintain practice with their own firearms for the purpose of the common defense. The Founding Fathers were anything but idealistic about "the government" having the people's best interests at heart, having justs spent about a decade experiencing what the English Parliament thought of as good for England (and who cares what the colonists think about it). They were very much, as a group, of the opinion that the citizens needed an affirmative means to exercise control over the government. The Second Amendment is about formally placing political power, (as defined by Mao), in the hands of the citizens, not the government.

I am very much with reader50 on how politicians react to some madman's actions by acting to restrict everyone's rights. What about doing something about madmen? What about making us safer from idiots who have no idea what they're doing when they gets behind the wheel drunk, or from people who (apparently not drunk) drive their dump trucks like they are the used Eclipse they go home in? What about protecting us from falsely advertising SUVs as "safer" when in fact they are only (as Spheric noted) likely to do more damage to whomever they run over than is done to them?

My father-in-law did not go through 5 years of hell in WWII to give some guy in a fancy suit the ability to tell me that I am not to be trusted with a firearm because a very tiny number of incidents perpetrated by whack jobs (but with lots of headline potential) gives them the opportunity to make political points. I did not serve this nation for over 23 years (regularly swearing to protect and defend ALL of the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic) and have myself and even my family exposed to all manner of hazards for that "privilege", to be characterized as an extremist for supporting the entire Constitution... Restricting my rights does not in any way seem like any sort of useful method of protecting me, particularly when those who are attempting to establish those limits have less background and information on the subject than my pet dog (ref: Colorado legislator who did not know that a magazine could be refilled....?!?).

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

LOL, far too many examples throughout history to prove that armies are far from disciplined.

[ ] You know the difference between a prescriptive and descriptive statement.

-t

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I don't see how laws are more "literal hard truth" than actions. If anything I would say that actions are more literal and truthy than laws, since laws mean nothing until they are acted on (and that was also McKenna's complaint, that the law would not result in action).

There are enforceable legal consequences when violating a law, however "symbolic" or stupid it may be.

This may result in policy, but they are very different things.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

My father-in-law did not go through 5 years of hell in WWII to give some guy in a fancy suit the ability to tell me that I am not to be trusted with a firearm because a very tiny number of incidents perpetrated by whack jobs (but with lots of headline potential) gives them the opportunity to make political points.

This argumentation is hopelessly romantic and sadly beautiful.

It also makes no sense at all, whatsoever.

Your father-in-law went through five years of hell HERE IN EUROPE (or in Asia) so that morons with firearms are free to kill 30,000 of your fellow citizens per year in your own country.

I mean, even if that were by some bizarre twist of logic desirable, how on Earth do you make the connection?

This doesn't affect the rest of your post, or its point's validity, but every time I see this formulaic phrase of "your grandfather didn't go through X years of hell in WWII", I just stop and go "WTF?", because it's one of those guilt-pressure things that simply make zero sense at all, and usually have absolutely no relevance to whatever is being discussed.

Unless, that is, you're actually talking about the freedom WE enjoy, here in Europe, which, incidentally, is a near-total freedom from gun deaths, as well, thanks to the wisdom of our post-war founding fathers and their advisors: You.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

All logical thought process like this does not apply to the mentally ill.

Guns are dangerous things. Some people can't be trusted to DRIVE let alone carry a projectile weapon. They would be more harm to themselves and others just because of the accident rate.

No, guns should be carried and used by those who know how. It isn't an easy or cheap investment, and it's risky. CDC will show you that households with guns are more likely to see gun violence (accidental or not) than others. I'm not sure we should make that worse just by requiring guns in the home.

Besides, with crooks, the uncertainty of whether the homeowner has a gun is a GOOD thing. It keeps the folks who don't want to bear the costs of private gun ownership (the free riders) from getting broken into too.

There are social costs to guns, as we know, but social benefits as well. That's where the Lefties have trouble with consistency I think.

[Spheric Harlot]

Well, the War on Terror has cut into your Freedom WAY more than even complete abolishment of the Right to Carry would, and that for a fraction of a percent of the number of American victims.

Social costs, to be sure.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

My father-in-law did not go through 5 years of hell in WWII to give some guy in a fancy suit the ability to tell me that I am not to be trusted with a firearm because a very tiny number of incidents perpetrated by whack jobs (but with lots of headline potential) gives them the opportunity to make political points. I did not serve this nation for over 23 years (regularly swearing to protect and defend ALL of the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic) and have myself and even my family exposed to all manner of hazards for that "privilege", to be characterized as an extremist for supporting the entire Constitution... Restricting my rights does not in any way seem like any sort of useful method of protecting me, particularly when those who are attempting to establish those limits have less background and information on the subject than my pet dog (ref: Colorado legislator who did not know that a magazine could be refilled....?!?).

Right on...

It's amazing to me how the folks who are the most rapid supporters of the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments routinely pass over the 2nd and 10th. The amendment process is the same for all of them, and they're all equally important (unless you consider that without the 2nd the 1st wouldn't have lasted this long...).

As I've said before: thank you for your service. It seems to me, too, that your opinion SHOULD carry a bit more weight given your life experience, but maybe I'm biased.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Well, the War on Terror has cut into your Freedom WAY more than even complete abolishment of the Right to Carry would, and that for a fraction of a percent of the number of American victims.

Social costs, to be sure.

Don't get me started.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Well, the War on Terror has cut into your Freedom WAY more than even complete abolishment of the Right to Carry would, and that for a fraction of a percent of the number of American victims.

Social costs, to be sure.

Yes, but the war on terror isn't evident on my commute to and from in my daily life, and when my wife goes grocery shopping. The criminal element IS evident in our everyday lives, and something that we have to deal with. Private gun ownership is a great way to deal with it, mainly because it's leveraged - only a few of us have to maintain competence with guns in the home or car to persuade criminals that the risk is just too great.

The European model isn't really valid here because population density and actual diversity is just too different. When seconds count, police are just minutes away. Let's give our friends in Europe a few generations with their expanding ethnic diversity and endemic poverty and see how they feel about personal protection. I certainly don't see it getting any better over time.