[subego]

Originally Posted by Doc HM 

Why would I have to factor anything in. The situation is what it is. Deterrence is simply part of your argument. You have already said you want to deter your government form attacking you.

You prefaced the statement I responded to with "you feel".

If it's a statement about how I feel, one would factor in how I feel, no?

Originally Posted by Doc HM 

I assume you also feel you are deterring other people from attacking you, although people are rarely rational in the decision to apply violence, and are proven to be spectacularly bad a risk analysis in extreme situations.

Unless I misunderstand you, I've already stated I don't own a gun, so your assumption would be incorrect.

[Snow-i]

Doc:

Suppose something happens to our government? Suppose the global warming crowd is right and the world goes to shit. You think the government is going to protect us? The difference here is that I innately don't trust some suit in some office to put my protection ahead of their own when it becomes a choice (or even a matter of money), and I shouldn't have to.

Owning a weapon suitable to protect and provide for me and my own is what this is about.

As unspeakable a tragedy this is you're talking about 4 or 5 people (mass shootings this year) out of a country with over 330 million. We have a major problem with %0.000000015 percent of our population. As freely as pot, coke, heroin etc flows into this country, do you think anyone with no regard for the law isn't going to have essentially free access to the weapons they need? the guns are not the issue. We would do well to spend our time trying to figure out what can make someone do the things they do. Address the cause and not the symptoms.

[Snow-i]

Doc:

As a followup. How would you deal with the inevitable black market and the violence it creates for weapons should you outlaw them? I'll refer you to the picture I posted up there a few posts ago.

[Shaddim]

That's a big part, the crime from the inevitable black market. Think the drug wars are bad? The gun wars would make them look like a festival.

I'm not worried about my guns, I'm with law enforcement and have a federal permit (which is harder to get than a seat on the USSC), I'm tracked and checked more than anyone. Here it's equated to a right to life and tied to the idea of what it means to be a free man. Anyone steps on that, and there'll be hell to pay.

You think it's about the guns themselves, but it isn't, it's what they represent.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by subego 

This isn't an unreasonable point. Where do you draw the line?
OTOH, I often see this argument being presented as if the fact a line needs to be drawn makes the whole thing null and void. I don't get that.
I've heard very smart people imply this. What am I missing?

My take on the amendment isn't "the right to bear arms" you can't snip out the part you like. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
There are several key ideas in this.
1. Militia are made up of citizens not soldiers. (No oath to obey orders)
2. Security of a free state. (free as in rights of the citizen)
So by ensuring that citizens are capable of acquiring and carrying around what at the time were military or better quality weapons, they could at any time form militias in the defense of the peoples freedom "against all enemies, foreign and domestic"

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Doc:
As a followup. How would you deal with the inevitable black market and the violence it creates for weapons should you outlaw them? I'll refer you to the picture I posted up there a few posts ago.

Black market hah
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_118/579913_3D_printed_lower___yes__it_works_.html

[subego]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

My take on the amendment isn't "the right to bear arms" you can't snip out the part you like. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
There are several key ideas in this.
1. Militia are made up of citizens not soldiers. (No oath to obey orders)
2. Security of a free state. (free as in rights of the citizen)
So by ensuring that citizens are capable of acquiring and carrying around what at the time were military or better quality weapons, they could at any time form militias in the defense of the peoples freedom "against all enemies, foreign and domestic"
Black market hah
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_118/579913_3D_printed_lower___yes__it_works_.html

I'll say to you what I did to Spheric.

X, being necessary to Y, the right of the people to Z shall not be infringed.

How are you parsing this sentence to mean the right to Z is dependent on the existence of X?

[subego]

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

This sentence says you must have big, white trash hair to keep and bear hairspray?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Doc:

As a followup. How would you deal with the inevitable black market and the violence it creates for weapons should you outlaw them? I'll refer you to the picture I posted up there a few posts ago.

How does the civilized world deal with these problems?

We have unregistered guns and illegal trading. We treat them as crimes and put people in jail (or at least on probation) for them.

Simple.

This part really *is* simple. And if you don't want to criminalize everybody overnight, give them an 18-month transitional period to register or hand in their guns.

It's not like this is complicated, if you actually want to do it.

I doubt it will happen, though.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

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

This sentence says you must have big, white trash hair to keep and bear hairspray?

Since the exact meaning of the phrasing has been in dispute for at least 45 years, I doubt that this will get resolved in three posts on an Internet discussion forum.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

How does the civilized world deal with these problems?
We have unregistered guns and illegal trading. We treat them as crimes and put people in jail (or at least on probation) for them.
Simple.
This part really *is* simple. And if you don't want to criminalize everybody overnight, give them an 18-month transitional period to register or hand in their guns.
It's not like this is complicated, if you actually want to do it.
I doubt it will happen, though.

Our rights, as delineated by our Constitution, aren't tied to gov't approval, they're inherit. "Civilized" it seems, is relative.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Since the exact meaning of the phrasing has been in dispute for at least 45 years, I doubt that this will get resolved in three posts on an Internet discussion forum.

So that's a yes?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

How does the civilized world deal with these problems?
We have unregistered guns and illegal trading. We treat them as crimes and put people in jail (or at least on probation) for them.
Simple.
This part really *is* simple. And if you don't want to criminalize everybody overnight, give them an 18-month transitional period to register or hand in their guns.
It's not like this is complicated, if you actually want to do it.
I doubt it will happen, though.

Our rights, as delineated by our Constitution, aren't tied to gov't approval, they're inherit. "Civilized" it seems, is relative.

They ARE tied, however, to legislative and Supreme Court interpretation.

And can obviously be amended, as the particular right you refer to was in fact NOT part of the Constitution.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Since the exact meaning of the phrasing has been in dispute for at least 45 years, I doubt that this will get resolved in three posts on an Internet discussion forum.

So that's a yes?

What's a yes? Yes, you've discovered the single interpretation of the 2nd amendment that obviously ends all discussion?

Apart from that, the text calls for a "well-regulated militia".

That pretty much EXPLICITLY calls for gun-control, depending upon interpretation.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

They ARE tied, however, to legislative and Supreme Court interpretation.
And can obviously be amended, as the particular right you refer to was in fact NOT part of the Constitution.

Interpretation is not a tie, gov't representatives do not grant us our rights, we grant them the privilege of service.

It was, in fact, part of the Constitution, most things are, the Bill of Rights was a blunder. They enumerated our "rights" to spell them out for the lowest common denominator, and that weakens all US citizens. There should have never been a Bill of Rights, and there should have never been an amendment process. It was a poor compromise. Hamilton knew it, and even wrote a formal protest, as did Madison. Instead of outlining, in strict detail, what Congress is allowed to do, it somehow turned into boundaries upon the freedoms of the American people. Our rule of law was the Golden Rule, and it was good, and then Jefferson decided to play Moses...

As it is, yes, the 2nd Amendment can be overruled, but that takes 38 states to ratify, and that won't happen.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

What's a yes? Yes, you've discovered the single interpretation of the 2nd amendment that obviously ends all discussion?
Apart from that, the text calls for a "well-regulated militia".
That pretty much EXPLICITLY calls for gun-control, depending upon interpretation.

No, it explains that a well regulated militia is a good thing.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That was the text the States ratified, that is what stands.

and I am part of a militia, my community has one numbering ~97.

[Shaddim]

Quite honestly, what it says is that citizens should all be part of the militia, and we should all keep and bare arms in the protection of our liberty. That's massive fail on our part, and we need to fix it.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Quite honestly, what it says is that citizens should all be part of the militia, and we should all keep and bare arms in the protection of our liberty. That's massive fail on our part, and we need to fix it.

The Second Amendment is a right (no matter how you interpret »well-regulated«), but not a mandate or a suggestion for citizen to bear arms and be part of a militia.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

What's a yes? Yes, you've discovered the single interpretation of the 2nd amendment that obviously ends all discussion?
Apart from that, the text calls for a "well-regulated militia".
That pretty much EXPLICITLY calls for gun-control, depending upon interpretation.

I asked if you interpret my statement as saying big hair is a requirement to have hairspray.

Does my statement call for big hair, or is it calling for the right to have hairspray, thus allowing you to have big hair?

Please, feel free to substitute your own values for X, Y, and Z. It's quite possible I'm unconsciously stacking the deck in my favor, but until I see a set of values wherein the sentence parses as the right to Z is dependent on the existence of X, I'm not buying into the argument the sentence is open to interpretation.

Seriously. If I get one where what the sentence is saying is the right to Z is dependent on the existence of X, I'll back off. I'm maintaining my position only because no one has offered me a counter.


For reference:

X, being necessary to Y, the right of the people to Z shall not be infringed.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

How does the civilized world deal with these problems?
We have unregistered guns and illegal trading. We treat them as crimes and put people in jail (or at least on probation) for them.
Simple.
This part really *is* simple. And if you don't want to criminalize everybody overnight, give them an 18-month transitional period to register or hand in their guns.
It's not like this is complicated, if you actually want to do it.
I doubt it will happen, though.

Dude seriously....I'll post it again just in case you missed it. Give it a little thought this time.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

and I am part of a militia, my community has one numbering ~97.

And how are you regulated?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

How does the civilized world deal with these problems?
We have unregistered guns and illegal trading. We treat them as crimes and put people in jail (or at least on probation) for them.
Simple.
This part really *is* simple. And if you don't want to criminalize everybody overnight, give them an 18-month transitional period to register or hand in their guns.
It's not like this is complicated, if you actually want to do it.
I doubt it will happen, though.

Dude seriously....I'll post it again just in case you missed it. Give it a little thought this time.

Have you ever considered that there is a world of over six and a half billion humans OUTSIDE the United States?

Just assuming that your people is incapable of following laws even after years of practice is giving them very little credit.

You're saying you need guns because Americans are to stupid to figure out how laws work that work rather well in other places?

Or did you just not actually bother reading the thread, specifically the part above where I pointed out that the Big Problem the US is facing is how to get there from here? I suspect the latter, since you're hell-bent on painting me (and everybody else who disagrees with you) as some sort of naïve hippie.

Well if you think what you've got right now is the greatest solution, then the natural side effect is that people die. Poor kids, but hey, this is America, Land of the Free.
I guess it's your right to think so but letting people who do make the rules seems...unsatisfactory so far.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The Second Amendment is a right (no matter how you interpret »well-regulated«), but not a mandate or a suggestion for citizen to bear arms and be part of a militia.

It says a militia is a necessity, and the militia is comprised of "the people", not "some people" or "a few people".

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

And how are you regulated?

Well.

[besson3c]

This whole holding a document written in the era of musket technology as sacrosanct, and this whole idea of being overrun by our democracy warranting militias is just absurd to me. This reeks of all kinds of fear and paranoia that sadly feeds itself and continues to feed itself.

The antidote to an overly violent culture is not this sort of fear and paranoia. If you feel threatened and want to protect yourself, you can protect yourself with a handgun, you don't need a freaking assault rifle.

Why is it in many states you can't obtain alcohol on a Sunday, but you can shop for guns 24 hours a day?

Sometimes I feel like I'm living in some weird bizarro land where nothing makes sense.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The Second Amendment is a right (no matter how you interpret »well-regulated«), but not a mandate or a suggestion for citizen to bear arms and be part of a militia.

[It says a militia is a necessity, and the militia is comprised of "the people", not "some people" or "a few people".

As in "We the People", ALL of whom signed? Right? "Representative" democracy ring a bell?

What speaks against a model like the Swiss one, where the self-defense force is well-regulated, and everybody who's a member gets to carry a gun, with clear rules on how access must be restricted and how the guns are to be secured?

Surely that follows the letter AND the spirit in which the original text was framed?

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

And how are you regulated?

Well.

HOW?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

As in "We the People", ALL of whom signed? Right? "Representative" democracy ring a bell?
What speaks against a model like the Swiss one, where the self-defense force is well-regulated, and everybody who's a member gets to carry a gun, with clear rules on how access must be restricted and how the guns are to be secured?

Restricted? I don't see restricted in there, I see "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". You're wiggling and trying to read into something that isn't there, as determined by the USSC and most Constitutional scholars. Able-bodied men and women are shirking their duties by not forming and/or being involved with a local militia. If more people learn to respect and properly handle firearms, safety (and security) would rise dramatically.

HOW?

Well, we have picnics, and sometimes BBQs, but often we just meet at the range and shoot.

[Spheric Harlot]

That doesn't sound "regulated" at all.

It sounds like a nice regular thing, but it doesn't seem like there's any regulations governing how it's held, or how the gun aspect is handled. As mandated by the 2nd Amendment.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You mean like some sort of "police state?" Where you simply concentrate all the power in the police, and hope that they don't abuse it? Hasn't that been tried before?

Sorry, to be clear, that wasn't a solution I thought was viable - I was just raising the point that in terms of making your environment "safer", the obvious solutions are being completely overlooked in favour of weird, overbearing mechanisms such as "massively increased police force to compensate for everyone having guns".

Secondly, every other civilized country in the world has a police force that is far more well-armed than the populace, simply by virtue of carrying a handgun. And yet....the worst cases of police abuse seem to stem from America, don't they?

To be frank, in my experience with law enforcement in the US and Canada (and less so in Europe), American police are more likely to be rude, aggresive and/or violent - possible because they fully prepare for each person they encounter to have access to a gun.

To be more frank, all the talk about "protection from Government!!!" is BS. It's just a thinly veiled smokescreen.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

I see it as the final check and balance on state and federal authority. They may be able to rig election laws. Set up parties so they can detemine who the candidates will be. Gerrymander(sp) to their little hearts content. take money from all sorts of evil. But as long as they don't deprive the populace of the combat power needed to remove them they can only go so far. Hence every administration in the last century has been pro gun control.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

I see it as the final check and balance on state and federal authority.

Elsewhere, they call it "elections"

[...quote]But as long as they don't deprive the populace of the combat power needed to remove them they can only go so far before we get to vote them out of office in favour of someone who will do something different[/quote]
Fixed?

[Spheric Harlot]

One of the basic tenets of the German Grundgesetz is that the state has a monopoly on violence. While this may seem ironic, given our history, that's exactly why it's there. Because state officials and officers have an intricate and clearly delineated set of rights and duties, and their job depends upon following them.
The police forces and the military are, in fact, those very well-regulated militia designed to protect the rights and the freedom of the people from whom they are recruited.

Police officers have to account for every single round they fire. A warning shot fired into a ceiling means a detailed report and investigation. Those are the regulations.

It's actually worked out rather well over the past sixty-three years.

Having lived in the red-light district in Hamburg, there is NO WAY I would entrust my neighbors with judging whether the government needs to be overthrown. And while nut jobs in America always seem to argue that the reason the gun amendment exists is to protect the people against overzealous government tyranny, I'd think it was designed primarily to protect the country against EXTERNAL forces (like the English). Or is there a separate article covering the foundation of a state military?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

I see it as the final check and balance on state and federal authority.

Elsewhere, they call it "elections"

But as long as they don't deprive the populace of the combat power needed to remove them they can only go so far before we get to vote them out of office in favour of someone who will do something different

Fixed?

That's cute

[Spheric Harlot]

You mean the founding fathers built a democracy they didn't trust, so they added the right for the populace to take arms against the very government designed to represent them?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You mean like some sort of "police state?" Where you simply concentrate all the power in the police, and hope that they don't abuse it? Hasn't that been tried before?

Sorry, to be clear, that wasn't a solution I thought was viable - I was just raising the point that in terms of making your environment "safer", the obvious solutions are being completely overlooked in favour of weird, overbearing mechanisms such as "massively increased police force to compensate for everyone having guns".

Secondly, every other civilized country in the world has a police force that is far more well-armed than the populace, simply by virtue of carrying a handgun. And yet....the worst cases of police abuse seem to stem from America, don't they?

To be frank, in my experience with law enforcement in the US and Canada (and less so in Europe), American police are more likely to be rude, aggresive and/or violent - possible because they fully prepare for each person they encounter to have access to a gun.

I have to be honest with you, you're not making a very convincing argument for giving these individuals exclusive power over life and death

To be more frank, all the talk about "protection from Government!!!" is BS. It's just a thinly veiled smokescreen.

Has it ever occurred to you that the only thing that's been holding the other "civilized" governments in check could have been that they weren't on top? A government can be checked by a larger nation or by its own people, what happens when you finally remove both?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

You mean the founding fathers built a democracy they didn't trust, so they added the right for the populace to take arms against the very government designed to represent them?

You could say the same thing about the checks and balances. Why do we need 3 branches to balance each other? Does that mean we don't trust any of them? Why would we even create any of these branches if we didn't trust them in the first place?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This whole holding a document written in the era of musket technology as sacrosanct, and this whole idea of being overrun by our democracy warranting militias is just absurd to me. This reeks of all kinds of fear and paranoia that sadly feeds itself and continues to feed itself.

That's called chronological snobbery. Should we ignore the first amendment too, just because it's even slightly older? If it is obsolete, it can be amended by support of the people through the amendment process.

I already explained how your fear and paranoia of guns is just as fearful and paranoid as those who keep guns. Did you forget? If this is all just going to be a game of who can repeat themselves more times, I hope you realize by now that progressives don't usually win that game.

The antidote to an overly violent culture is not this sort of fear and paranoia. If you feel threatened and want to protect yourself, you can protect yourself with a handgun, you don't need a freaking assault rifle.

Have you ever fired a handgun?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

How does the civilized world deal with these problems?
We have unregistered guns and illegal trading. We treat them as crimes and put people in jail (or at least on probation) for them.
Simple.
This part really *is* simple. And if you don't want to criminalize everybody overnight, give them an 18-month transitional period to register or hand in their guns.
It's not like this is complicated, if you actually want to do it.
I doubt it will happen, though.

Dude seriously....I'll post it again just in case you missed it. Give it a little thought this time.

Have you ever considered that there is a world of over six and a half billion humans OUTSIDE the United States?

Where gun running never happens?

Just assuming that your people is incapable of following laws even after years of practice is giving them very little credit.

Are you under the impression that the "war on drugs" has been successful? Are you high?

No assumption is necessary to conclude that some laws are unenforceable, it's been demonstrated ad nauseam. The only question is which ones, and there is a very high risk involved in finding out by trial and error.

Well if you think what you've got right now is the greatest solution, then the natural side effect is that people die. Poor kids, but hey, this is America, Land of the Free.
I guess it's your right to think so but letting people who do make the rules seems...unsatisfactory so far.

Automobiles kill 3x as many people as guns. If you think that what we have right now on the roads is the greatest solution, then the natural side effect is that people die. Every day is the day to talk about automobile bans. Right?

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Elsewhere, they call it "elections"
[...quote]But as long as they don't deprive the populace of the combat power needed to remove them they can only go so far before we get to vote them out of office in favour of someone who will do something different

Fixed? [/quote]

You're assuming you can vote someone out of office. Which you can't. You can only vote someone else in.
7765/width/350/height/700[/IMG]

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Originally Posted by subego 

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Since the exact meaning of the phrasing has been in dispute for at least 45 years, I doubt that this will get resolved in three posts on an Internet discussion forum.

So that's a yes?

What's a yes? Yes, you've discovered the single interpretation of the 2nd amendment that obviously ends all discussion?

The fact that something has been "in dispute" is no reason to think that the dispute has been logical. Otherwise, evolution and climate change deniers can always deflect any evidence by saying "that's disputed," merely by virtue of their own unfounded objections.

Laws can still exist despite being supportable only via politics, not by logic. Gay marriage comes to mind. Is it lolworthy to try to debate the logic of gay marriage, just because it's been in dispute for 45 years or more?

[The Final Dakar]

Did my best to read the thread, apologies for an redundancies.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Then, like imposing an expensive form of insurance or bond, you're creating another class division. It won't slow me down from buying a new pistol, but it'll stop the average Joe in his tracks. Wealthy people get guns, poor people don't. Think that won't blow up in our faces?

Yeah, I agree. In a country with continually increasing wealth inequality, this strikes me as particularly poorly thought out. Who knows, maybe we'll be turning those guns against not the tyranny of the government, but the rich.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Gun control and weapon bans may work for Europe and other countries, where gun ownership isn't a centuries old, and unbroken, tradition. Here? Not so much.

Agreed again. Which is not to say this will never be possible, but it will require a long road of increasing restrictions and a disinterested mentality from the populace. Neither feels likely in the short term.

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

This is why I advocate for a complete ban on handguns. But I want people to have access to assault rifles, high power rifles, and man portable anti-tank weapons.

It's perversely clever. However, I don't recall too many of these mass shootings relying on the element of stealth a handgun can provide.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

It took me 2 minutes to find the directions to a small homemade shrapnel bomb, that a 12 y/o could build, with all the materials available at Home Depot and Wal-Mart. A high schooler could easily carry 4 of these in a book bag, and each has the capacity to kill everyone in a classroom (body count of 100-140), even more during a student assembly.

And yet, nobody does this. I don't think it's coincidence.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I'm not suggesting banning hunting weapons, but leaving guns where disturbed kids can get at them shouldn't be happening.

I think everyone can agree on that. The problem is we can't necessarily make it happen. Leaving cigarettes where (disturbed or otherwise) kids can get them shouldn't be happening either, but despite our best efforts, kids still smoke if they put their minds to it, even in schools. The difference between the US and other western countries isn't just the number of guns. There is something causing the motive, not just the means, and that motive can be pursued by other means even if we manage to choke off all the guns.

This all reminds me of the war on terrorism. Shouldn't we be able to just hunt down and kill all the terrorists? Well surprisingly, the more we tighten our grip, the more starsystems slip through our fingers, or something like that. The point is, you have to address the true cause, and going overboard on a symptom is only going to make things worse.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

It's perversely clever. However, I don't recall too many of these mass shootings relying on the element of stealth a handgun can provide.

The vast majority of gun deaths are not mass shootings. I don't know how accurate this is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg
The rifle used in this shooting is just as easy if not easier to get than a handgun. But almost useless to actual criminals due to its size.
Gun control won't stop mass shootings, well it would, they'd just switch to other weapons.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

I see it as the final check and balance on state and federal authority. They may be able to rig election laws. Set up parties so they can detemine who the candidates will be. Gerrymander(sp) to their little hearts content. take money from all sorts of evil. But as long as they don't deprive the populace of the combat power needed to remove them they can only go so far. Hence every administration in the last century has been pro gun control.

I don't find the logic holds up in this case. You're effectively explaining ways the system is being rigged and the will of the people is being thwarted, yet guns don't seem to be solving that problem.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Automobiles kill 3x as many people as guns. If you think that what we have right now on the roads is the greatest solution, then the natural side effect is that people die. Every day is the day to talk about automobile bans. Right?

I have no idea who the original poster that brought up the idiotic cars analogy is, but its so amusingly dishonest. When a tragedy occurs involving cars, the car has done something outside it's intended function (transport). When a tragedy occurs involving guns, the gun has been used for its intended function (killing).

If cars are so dangerous and effective killing machines, why don't we substitute them for guns in thwarting possible future tyranny?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

The vast majority of gun deaths are not mass shootings. I don't know how accurate this is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg
The rifle used in this shooting is just as easy if not easier to get than a handgun. But almost useless to actual criminals due to its size.
Gun control won't stop mass shootings, well it would, they'd just switch to other weapons.

I see, I was thinking far too narrowly. It's a good point that we should be looking to reduce all unnecessary gun deaths, not just mass shootings.

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Automobiles kill 3x as many people as guns. If you think that what we have right now on the roads is the greatest solution, then the natural side effect is that people die. Every day is the day to talk about automobile bans. Right?

Have we not done this earlier. However, in the case of cars, in the 50's they were death traps for both drivers and pedestrians. Legislation has been enacted over the decades that has transformed car safety, legislation that for the most part has been fought by the manufacturers, their lobbyists and the public complaining about civil liberties.

And yet... cars are now far more regulated than they were. And much much safer.

Much of the anti regulation pressure in gunland seems to come from the NRA and other lobbyists, which have succeeded in scaring almost all politicians into silence. Do you really think that any organisation that had Charlton "cold dead hands" Heston as it's spokesperson, really speaks for average America?

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I don't find the logic holds up in this case. You're effectively explaining ways the system is being rigged and the will of the people is being thwarted, yet guns don't seem to be solving that problem.

Yet.

Has everyone here heard about how you can put a frog in cold water and then slowly raise the temperature till it boils to death without realizing anything is wrong?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

I see it as the final check and balance on state and federal authority. They may be able to rig election laws. Set up parties so they can detemine who the candidates will be. Gerrymander(sp) to their little hearts content. take money from all sorts of evil. But as long as they don't deprive the populace of the combat power needed to remove them they can only go so far. Hence every administration in the last century has been pro gun control.

I don't find the logic holds up in this case. You're effectively explaining ways the system is being rigged and the will of the people is being thwarted, yet guns don't seem to be solving that problem.

Half right. The system can only be rigged in such a way that it does not thwart the will of too many people. Since I know you'll love this , I will use another car analogy: Cadillac is about to introduce a self-driving car, but it is designed in such a way that it only activates when it feels pressure on the steering wheel. IOW, it can only drive itself when it's not driving itself. Political corruption can only break the rules as long as they're still generally in line with what the people think is ok. If they do the same thing to arrive at a different conclusion, there would be hell to pay.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Automobiles kill 3x as many people as guns. If you think that what we have right now on the roads is the greatest solution, then the natural side effect is that people die. Every day is the day to talk about automobile bans. Right?

I have no idea who the original poster that brought up the idiotic cars analogy is, but its so amusingly dishonest. When a tragedy occurs involving cars, the car has done something outside it's intended function (transport). When a tragedy occurs involving guns, the gun has been used for its intended function (killing).

Regardless, the metric of "then people die" is fundamentally broken. I could argue that the intended purpose of guns is not killing, but forcing the preservation of our freedoms (from tyranny, from crime, etc). But really that's irrelevant, the only thing that matters is that the "people die" argument is dishonest.

If cars are so dangerous and effective killing machines, why don't we substitute them for guns in thwarting possible future tyranny?

Now who's being dishonest? Yeah when I see the 21st century version of redcoats coming, or a home invader, I'm going to hold them off with my Kia. That will stop them!

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by Doc HM 

Much of the anti regulation pressure in gunland seems to come from the NRA and other lobbyists,

The regulations were to make cars safer but as someone mentioned guns are meant to be not-safe. So it's impossible to regulate them to make them safe so they regulate them to restrict access, which is in direct conflict with the 2nd amendment.
Now someone comes up with an equivalent for the star trek phaser stun setting and things change because then you have a non-lethal weapon that satisfies my interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Doc HM 

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Automobiles kill 3x as many people as guns. If you think that what we have right now on the roads is the greatest solution, then the natural side effect is that people die. Every day is the day to talk about automobile bans. Right?

Have we not done this earlier. However, in the case of cars, in the 50's they were death traps for both drivers and pedestrians. Legislation has been enacted over the decades that has transformed car safety, legislation that for the most part has been fought by the manufacturers, their lobbyists and the public complaining about civil liberties.

And yet... cars are now far more regulated than they were. And much much safer.

Much of the anti regulation pressure in gunland seems to come from the NRA and other lobbyists, which have succeeded in scaring almost all politicians into silence. Do you really think that any organisation that had Charlton "cold dead hands" Heston as it's spokesperson, really speaks for average America?

Yes or no, a mentally ill individual would have little difficulty obtaining a car to drive through a school, even if he wasn't licensed to drive?

The difference of course is intention. Not means and not result, but intention. Cars can be made safer from unintended deaths, but it's much more difficult to stop someone with the intention to cause deaths. No safety regulations on cars will ever stop someone who decides that they want to use it to kill. And the same is true of guns. The real problem we need to solve is to figure out why it's more common here for people to acquire the intention to kill, not the means.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

Originally Posted by Doc HM 

Much of the anti regulation pressure in gunland seems to come from the NRA and other lobbyists,

The regulations were to make cars safer but as someone mentioned guns are meant to be not-safe. So it's impossible to regulate them to make them safe so they regulate them to restrict access, which is in direct conflict with the 2nd amendment.
Now someone comes up with an equivalent for the star trek phaser stun setting and things change because then you have a non-lethal weapon that satisfies my interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

I was thinking the "sick sticks" from Minority Report. Of course, even better would be the pre-cogs from Minority Report. Why is the government suppressing pre-cog technology!

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The real problem we need to solve is to figure out why it's more common here for people to acquire the intention to kill, not the means.

Is it? No-one has shown me any evidence of this.