Colorado passes Gun Control Laws

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I wasn't talking about principle, I was talking about reality. And the reality is that the rights you have are the ones given you to the state, who in turn represent the collective will of the american people. The reason it's

---

How a State can "represent the collective will" of the American people is beyond me. I don't have and am not part of some collective will, I have an individual will. Again, a law that doesn't protect the will of the individual in the aggregate is a bad law. Laws do not have moral authority, but laws that protect the will of one against the abusive will of another are better. Laws against murder and theft protect the individual so that they can continue making choices. Laws against effective self-defense and soft drink containers do not do that. We need to share the planet, but we don't need to be going in the same direction.

The Ideal State is a tool to maintain individual rights in the face of large collectivist or natural threats to them. We need to come together to a minimal extent to protect us from the massive automaton of collective misery. I look forward to a world that doesn't need the State to educate individuals who can educate themselves, doesn't need a state to give their sexual relationship meaning, and doesn't need a state to protect them from scary looking guns or sodas or junk food. Even a state that doesn't need to protect you from crime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

The Ideal State is a tool to maintain individual rights in the face of large collectivist or natural threats to them. We need to come together to a minimal extent to protect us from the massive automaton of collective misery. I look forward to a world that doesn't need the State to educate individuals who can educate themselves, doesn't need a state to give their sexual relationship meaning, and doesn't need a state to protect them from scary looking guns or sodas or junk food. Even a state that doesn't need to protect you from crime.

---

Ironically, that's only possible with a degree of monitoring and subtile influence that makes 1984 look like child play. Which tells a lot about an existing freedom vs control paradox. Depending on circumstances, increased control can mean increased freedom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Ironically, that's only possible with a degree of monitoring and subtile influence that makes 1984 look like child play. Which tells a lot about an existing freedom vs control paradox. Depending on circumstances, increased control can mean increased freedom.

---

1984 was an example of minarchism? BS

EDIT: I was thinking about 3d home production of fully automatic weapons, and it occured to me that 3D home printers will be available exclusively in the libertine West - placing statist or tyrranical governments at a major economic disadvantage. A government like China would still need to mass-produce trinkets because they could never abide by their subjects printing whatever they wanted for the fear of the dissemination of firearms. We will be printing our home furnishings, small parts, computer parts, clothing; cutting China off from the volume that makes their mass production cost effective and undermining their economic base

This is our most potent weapon and developing economies will be cut-off from it due to cost of tech and archaic fear of their own people. This could be the final straw, time to ramp up production of personal 3d weapons to keep them off the scent of progress. The first time in a generation where individual rights were inextricably tied to technological progress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

1984 was an example of minarchism? BS

---

That's because you're obsessed with gun rights= induvidual rights. It's not. It's not even a desirable idea outside the US.
And places a goal of self information/education above what 99,99% of the population will do. Sure they'll pass on some fields, but in total? You'll get plenty of blanks.

State not needing to educate induviduals: Who controls it then? The children themselves? That's stupid, because they're too young. The parents? Not much better (poor parents, or parents not understanding that their children aren't clones of themselves as examples). The companies? At least you'll get what the companies want, at the cost of everything else. Besides, they'll want to dump to cost somehow. So some kind of subtile influence is needed.

Sexual relationships, fair enough, no problem there.

Scary looking guns? We don't want those freaking guns for self defense. We don't the idea to spread. Why? Because it'll increase the odds that the stupid punk will have a gun himself.

The scary soda and junk food? What will happen if you use this properly?:
Inactive ingredients: water, sodium laureth sulfate, sodium lauryl sulfate, diazomethane, cocamide MEA, zinc carbonate, glycol distearate, dimethicone, fragrance, cetyl alcohol, guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride, magnesium sulfate, pyrithione zinc, sodium benzoate, magnesium carbonate hydroxide, ethanethiol, ammonium laureth sulfate, benzyl alcohol, sodium chloride, methylchloroisothiazolinone, methylisothiazolinone, sodium xylenesulfonate, blue 1, red 4?

You'll need to know if the product you use is safe. And by safe, I mean doesn't kill or cripple you within a year (that you can figure out by yourself). So you'll need extremely good information on what every product really contain and not what it's claimed to and what these products really do. Flame retardants? The bromated ones are made up because Brom is a waste product from mining that's useless for anything else, a lot because Brom compounds is poisonous. Made for your safety in mind? Not really.
That's an even bigger database than the goverment has today.

That's not counting that soda and junk food are food based on fooling your body and mind, created by comercial interests and certainly not helped by the artifical food creation we've made. We can put it this way: By eating the food you're developed for, you would never need to brush your teeth.

Crime is the best one. How many crimes is comitted were guns are irrrelevant? Most of them. Since you'll never fix the investigation part by yourself, unless you got access to a much larger and controlling databases than exists today with easy compiling of relevant information, you'll need to do "pre-crime". That identify criminals and crime before they happen. That's certainly possible, but will require quite a bit of information control. Child in risk zone with poor parents? Proact. Drunk, goading group of youngsters out, with a few ones who are aggressive drunks? Proact. Etc, etc.
Companies in charge of the investigation would be "fun".

Use this information and subtile manipulation and the society would be as free as you describe. Abuse it, and you'll get something worse than 1984.
The thing is that it really is this way. The increased information means that that the state can adapt if you chose a more induvidual way of living, instead of trying some kind of blunt average "one fits all". Focusing on the induvidual instead of the family is one example. The state knows more about you, but you're still freer.

Still makes it creepy though, agreed on that. Non-abusive, the net data-mining does lead to more relevant comercials or youtube clips for example. It still screams "I'm watching you and know who you are".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

EDIT: I was thinking about 3d home production of fully automatic weapons, and it occured to me that 3D home printers will be available exclusively in the libertine West - placing statist or tyrranical governments at a major economic disadvantage. A government like China would still need to mass-produce trinkets because they could never abide by their subjects printing whatever they wanted for the fear of the dissemination of firearms. We will be printing our home furnishings, small parts, computer parts, clothing; cutting China off from the volume that makes their mass production cost effective and undermining their economic base

This is our most potent weapon and developing economies will be cut-off from it due to cost of tech and archaic fear of their own people. This could be the final straw, time to ramp up production of personal 3d weapons to keep them off the scent of progress. The first time in a generation where individual rights were inextricably tied to technological progress.

---

There is a podcast from the Long Now Foundation from the 2/19/13 by Chris Anderson ,former editor of Wired who now runs his own drone company, on 3D printing.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/...rm/id186908455

3D printing exists at massive scales in China. The shift that is happening is allowing small businesses to order via web applets 3D printing and other CNC outputs from around the world. China isn't behind on this, they are supplying a lot of the custom output.

The biggest difference is that there is less (not zero) personal CNC access, and that is a matter of cash not appetite or political barriers. Chinese factories can already mill all our electronics both legit and pirated. It would not be hard for small scale Chinese factories to make weapons.

Also the whole Gung Ho program in early Chinese communism was that small collectives could manufacture weapons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese...l_Cooperatives... It was decided that this would not allow sufficient production, so the leadership went down the mass production path.

So I don't think 3D at home is going to remain exclusive to the west. Anymore then mobile (cell) phone penetration around the world or solar panels. In fact we will have suffocating patents to contend with and vested interests paying off government to restrict our rights.

I doubt you would find sodium lauryl sulfate in your food considering it's the primary surfactant used in shampoo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I doubt you would find sodium lauryl sulfate in your food considering it's the primary surfactant used in shampoo.

---

Schampoo has a much more interesting content list than food normally. But that's the reason I asked what would happen if you used it properly, instead of eating it.

But since you want to talk about food:
Tyramine
Hordenine
Melamine
Octopamine
Phenethylamine

All have been found in food. One was in a fairly recent scandal. Which one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Schampoo has a much more interesting content list than food normally. But that's the reason I asked what would happen if you used it properly, instead of eating it.

But since you want to talk about food:
Tyramine
Hordenine
Melamine
Octopamine
Phenethylamine

All have been found in food. One was in a fairly recent scandal. Which one?

---

The melamine. It was in Nestle products and I freaked out because I thought it was in my hot chocolate powder until the news told me that it was just in infant/baby formula.

EDIT: Now that I have looked at the wikipedia pages for all of them, my initial suspicions that most of those were prevalent plant compounds to begin with was correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

The melamine. It was in Nestle products and I freaked out because I thought it was in my hot chocolate powder until the news told me that it was just in infant/baby formula.

EDIT: Now that I have looked at the wikipedia pages for all of them, my initial suspicions that most of those were prevalent plant compounds to begin with was correct.

---

You're interested in chemistry? You do feel to be more well red on the subject than most. Most biological amines are neurotransmitters so it was tricky to get a decent list. I was thinking about the Chinese milk scandal as the big one for melamine though, even if it's getting a bit old.

FYI I did some modifications in that Head & Shoulder schampoo. They're fairly easy ones to spot and makes the product unsellable. But it's not hard to create a schampoo that sells better than the original, but is long term lethal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I get it Piers Morgan! The Gun Issue matters a lot to you! But I am really tired of turning on CNN to see that he has an entire hour to do nothing but rail against guns and tug at your heartstrings! Its a waste of a news-hour, and exactly the kind of editorial focus that ruined Fox. Tired of this guy.

---

Don't watch.

Mass Murder Pills

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Piers Morgan

---

Avoid all cable news. Seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

You're interested in chemistry? You do feel to be more well red on the subject than most. Most biological amines are neurotransmitters so it was tricky to get a decent list. I was thinking about the Chinese milk scandal as the big one for melamine though, even if it's getting a bit old.

FYI I did some modifications in that Head & Shoulder schampoo. They're fairly easy ones to spot and makes the product unsellable. But it's not hard to create a schampoo that sells better than the original, but is long term lethal.

---

I am interested in chemistry. My major was in chemistry until I switched to chemical engineering. Just finishing up my year of organic chemistry classes right now actually. I was just lucky with this example because it was something in the news I payed close attention to. I will take a look to see if I can spot the modifications. But the only reason I spotted the sodium lauryl sulfate in the first place is because I like reading and wikipedia searching ingredients to products I use often.

See that is why I need a waterproof touchscreen in the shower so I can check my shampoo ingredients in the shower.

It might come into some additional recreational use...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

See that is why I need a waterproof touchscreen in the shower so I can check my shampoo ingredients in the shower.

It might come into some additional recreational use...

---

Seeing training videos on how to entertain yourself in the shower?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoPofJeWuR0

Well there are IP57 rated phones with touchscreen out there.

sorry for not replying sooner. been busy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

More clearly then. By restricting the amount of acccepted violence to a minimum, like you do with the monopoly of violence, you're reducing violence in total.

---

how?

how does in effect, decreeing that only the state should have a monopoly on force/violence, actually solve the problem we are facing? how does it take the crime (and guns) off the streets, and into honest hands (which according to you, would be Government)?

and what about wars? or when the government turns on the people? then how does your "solution" work?

you see why I have a problem with the concept? yes, in practice it is true, but it doesn't mean I have to philosophically agree with it. The implications are, as I told HoreTore, very disturbing, at least to me. I can at least say that he was consistent.

Quote:

---

By accepting a certain use of violence, you'll also get more violent criminals, because they reflect their own culture. That the US has surrendered the idea of the monopoly of violence for now, is a loss, even if it might be an adaptation for the current situation.

---

How? OK, so people here (ideally) have the right to defend themselves with a firearm (just to be clear here: you do realize the difference between that and a blanket "gun" culture, right?), if they wish. how does that make the same people more violent? It's the same argument I hear about video games, from those at the capitol. I'm dead serious, let me paraphrase:

"by accepting the presence of violent video games in our homes for our children to play, we are increasing violence among children, because it is in their culture". yes, this does get said in the US too. And to demonstrate the absurdity of this, let me ask you a question: are you any more violent, for playing a game (I assume, this place being what it is, a total war one), that involves the simulated mass murder of people? unless you have some inability to distinguish reality from fantasy, I think not.

similarly by analogy/Qiyaas, most human beings, not being "satan's spawn", aren't going to go around shooting people, just because they can own a gun and defend themselves with it--certainly no more than I would go around bludgeoning people with my crow's beak, just because I have one for rock beds, and can use it: and don't give me this guff about video games not being real while guns are, because again, most normal people never use their guns to kill people with (or even necessarily for defense), nor do they encourage it: not in America, not in Sweden, or anywhere else. Point is, most people--certainly more than one might expect--know sufficient difference between right and wrong.

of course, all this raises a question, which has yet been answered, having been raised before: "if you can't trust people to own firearms as they wish within the framework of the law, why should you trust the state, when it's staffed by the very same people?"

And again, this doesn't actually address why the crime rate is high here in the US, but higher still in Mexico, where some of the proposals made by the gun control camp are part of the law already. It also doesn't address the fact that again, the greatest concentration of gun violence (in fact, all types of violence) in the US And Mexico occurs regardless of the level of regulation on guns.

Quote:

---

I've already pointed out my position on the US, allow more research to get decent laws on the issue. But don't pretend for a minute that the mentality to guns among criminals isn't influenced by the gun mentality among the population.

---

well, I guess we agree on that position: we do need better laws (which, I did state earlier). we also need to get rid of some bad laws. some that actually fuel the violence.

And of course there is cultural influence on the criminals (here and elsewhere), but it doesn't necessarily explain why they start killing, when there is hardly a culture out there that glorifies cold blooded murder (outside the military, but I digress). it may explain the method of killing, but not necessarily why it's done.

Quote:

---

Reputation here refers to regions where the legal control has lapsed a bit, say ghettos. And it's about appearing scary. Usually it's solved by that, but in some cases it ends up in violence. Our version of animal territory aggression and defense.
Escalation is when both parties have access to guns. Sure not all conflicts ends up with shooting (if nothing else, because robbery is a lesser crime than murder), but the odds of a conflict ending in killing increases.

---

there is a group, called LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition), that talks about this inner city trouble a lot: you can find them on youtube and they can easily be googled. they will tell you why their crime rate (and especially murder), has gone up since the "war" started. And again, most of the ones I heard about, are by criminal gangs, not by the local Average joe....the criminal gangs will often attempt to intimidate people, as will those with a criminal bent to them.

also, a bit off topic, but you know who else engages in such behavior? the part about territory aggression and defense? governments do. again, raises that nagging question no one has answered: why do you think they'd do a better job?

Quote:

---

The alternative uses are almost entirely squished in between in this debate.

---

which again, should not even have to matter anyways: if people want weapons to hunt with, fine. if they want it because they feel it makes them safer, fine too. all this fear-mongering isn't going to help one way or another. I don't see why one group should be punished over the fear of the other.

Quote:

---

Wallets? You're in the life insurance buissness?

---

the point I was making was that my attitude on gun control has little to do with American attitudes as a whole--be they the actual opinions, or what you think they are yourself. the "cost in their wallets" was a reference to the waste of money people commit by buying a weapon they have no need of, and will never use. That should have been clear in the context of the part I was replying to: I cannot see how you could have misunderstood that. I'll save the second half--your question, and its insinuation--till the end.

Quote:

---

Timothy McVeigh is in another category than the shooters. The shooters would not simply replace it with bombs, since the act of shooting (aka directly taking lives) is a major part of why they do it.

---

first off, No he isn't--not in terms of his actions: motives, yes, scale? sure, but action, no. I mean, he's a mass murderer, isn't he? so are the people who do the mass shootings/mass murders: both are initiating force against many innocent civilians. OK, so the motive does indeed dictate the method, but again, and this is where the second point comes in:

how does banning or severely restricting firearms in the manner some politicians here in the US intend address the issues these people have, that motivate people like Lanza to go forward with this? especially as, when they don't have guns, they can use other weapons, like knives, or axes, or any variety of personal weapons? the Bath School disaster is case in point (which I did mention): the guy in question had similar motives to Lanza or that Aurora shooter (personal/psychological grievances), as did that one guy who tried to carve people in China this last year. yet neither he nor that guy in China used a firearm. Look, don't get me wrong, you are right that some of these people want the personal experience in all likely hood: but you are wrong in saying that it is preventable by the restriction on guns, or that it even requires the use of firearms, as a personal experience of taking life can be gained with a knife--heck, it's a "better" one in terms of how personal it is. same with swords, axes, hammers, etc.The only thing firearms have over the others really, is that it's the easiest and most convenient thing to use--a point that I made earlier. after-all, you can easily teach an idiot to use a firearm.

And again, you didn't address the fact that if such people want to use a firearm for its sake, they'll inevitably find a way, either legally, or not. Breivik did it, so can anyone else.

Quote:

---

Well actual research is forbidden. But existing research does imply that common sense works here. Legal citizens and criminals does share a lot of cultural attitudes.

---

doesn't mean they share the motivation to commit murder: why conflate the two? unless again, you're implying humans are all psychopaths (which they aren't, and I don't think you mean it: I wish I could say the same about that line up there you made). Which again begs that question I asked about the state's right to monopolize on force. the one I raised repeatedly...and no one has answered.

Quote:

---

Not that much kills in the border states. I do wonder why Georgia is such a cop killer state though.

---

really? and it's hardly unique for the border region either. And even if you mean just the cops, so? doesn't change the fact that yes, cops do die there a lot (Mexican and American), and yes, it's largely related to the local cartel.

it's clear to me you didn't even bother to look this part up, or if you did, you misunderstood--otherwise, you wouldn't have said something this...wrong...and yes, it's wrong, sorry, but there's no other way of putting it.

and yes, Georgia is a "cop-killer"...and? Texas has more lax gun laws, and it has a lower rate. See, I can play the correlation-causation fallacy game too....Also, not all the deaths listed in the main sources are from shootings: many die of illness, auto-accidents, and the like. shootings are still the main cause, yes, but the statistics I've seen don't say who has the highest rate because of shootings proper. For all I know, it's because Georgians can't drive squat, and all the murders are in California! they aren't obviously, but without further info, you can't just blame the death rate in Georgia on the guns. And again, you're ignoring the fact that murders are committed by use of guns, simply because it's the most convenient way to do it throughout the Americas--regardless of policy.

Also, one thing that is missing but cogent to what I said: where in the states? if it's in the cities or along the border, I'm not terribly surprised: Atlanta and Savannah are hubs of transportation, so I can see the crime there being high--including against cops. Helps Georgia is dirt poor, so there is a greater incentive to turn to crime.

Quote:

---

So you say that it's the gun attitude that is the underlying problem (with gun regulation as a patching, unless it influences the attitude).

---

no, I'm not saying that--that you'd confuse a physical, legal, and economic factors with a cultural/mental one (the attitude people here supposedly have), is a mystery (and yes, there is a subtle difference). In fact, you should have known this, as I showed how it can potentially happen in Britain, should it have similar circumstances to those in the US (which it doesn't have).

In fact, I explicitly stated why there are so many criminals here doing what they do, and the way they do it: our laws here create a black market for various things (notably drugs), which encourages the rise of a black market (with gangs). the fact that guns are available (through legal means or the black market, means that they will use them to repel rivals, or (as the police have guns) to get the police out of the way. We also happen to be next to the source of the "illicit" drugs. note that this has little to do with cultural attitudes: Latin America has a different attitude to Gun control than the US, and yet we see the same exact problem (the gangs), using the same methods (shooting each other, among other things). It certainly doesn't help that the US is the number 1 source of demand.

Quote:

---

So how do you handle the underlying problem? Personally I would give the monpoly of violence as an example.

---

well, in case you missed what I was implying, for starters, I would end drug prohibition--all of it: we need to put the trade in the hands of the free market--let legal businesses and vendors deal in the drugs. that would eliminate a good deal of many of these gang's "raison d'etre". similarly--and God forgive me for this, for I wish only to save lives--I'd end bans on prostitution, "illegal" gambling, and just about anything that has created a black market here where gangs and other criminals have a toe-hold in, which involve violence. basically, do what was done in 1933 vis a vis alcohol.

I'd also change the jail system (which acts as a uni for crime really over here), fix the immigration policy, legalize research into violence as a whole (not just "gun violence"). I'd also implement (or repeal) policies regarding conditions in the inner cities (which of the options depending on what the effects are), so that they can be more self-sufficient, and less crime ridden. that would involve changes in the economic policy, such as to encourage investments in the crime-ridden regions. the end of these prohibitions would of course create more openings and job opportunities--only it won't require a pistol. These can be done starting at the municipal level too, with little input from the Federal government, which frankly, should keep it's involvement to a minimum: it's not like some guy in Washington DC is going to know the goings on of downtown Seattle or Houston in sufficient Detail to make all the decisions themselves.

that alone could undercut the crime rate more than you realize--including violence by firearm. you know, considering that many or most crimes here are tied to the above?

Now, if the crime rate is enormously high even afterwards (considering that the effects will naturally take time to fully materialize, one way or another), then we an see about regulating guns in a manner as strict as some people are suggestion.

as to the mass shooters like Lanza and the Aurora shooter? again, we need a better understanding of what drives them to this: it's clear that they have or had pent issues even before the shootings, and understanding them would help us identify warning signs (at least potentially).


*where for example, dosages can be monitored, addicts can be spotted, and treated--not thrown in jail.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

As to that other part--that "question of yours' that I saved till now, as it has little bearing to the argument itself: frankly, I don't appreciate the implication of what you say, and I find it extremely inappropriate--especially as I said nothing to you or anyone here to warrant this.

no, I don't want an apology, nor expect one: I can take an insult anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

how does in effect, decreeing that only the state should have a monopoly on force/violence, actually solve the problem we are facing? how does it take the crime (and guns) off the streets, and into honest hands (which according to you, would be Government)?

and what about wars? or when the government turns on the people? then how does your "solution" work?

you see why I have a problem with the concept? yes, in practice it is true, but it doesn't mean I have to philosophically agree with it. The implications are, as I told HoreTore, very disturbing, at least to me. I can at least say that he was consistent.

---

I have to be perfectly honest here. In order to have state sanctioned violence, you need to be in an environment where such violence is fostered or even supported. People who would be wielding the weapons would not simply be drones. They are people as well, they would be having their weapons targeted at their friends and family. Could you easily say if you were ordered, you would shoot upon your friends?

The issue is not a question of "evil governments!" it is more about the people upholding the system and the principles they enshire. The time America ends up shipping people to NWO detention centres is not the time they take away your guns, it is the time for when there is popular support for them to put people in detention centres.

The problem with these scenarios is that they dehumanise the 'other'. You are apparently in a minority where only the select few care and the rest are going to impose their tyranical will upon you the moment you lock your gun away in its cabinet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

how does in effect, decreeing that only the state should have a monopoly on force/violence, actually solve the problem we are facing? how does it take the crime (and guns) off the streets, and into honest hands (which according to you, would be Government)?

and what about wars? or when the government turns on the people? then how does your "solution" work?

you see why I have a problem with the concept? yes, in practice it is true, but it doesn't mean I have to philosophically agree with it. The implications are, as I told HoreTore, very disturbing, at least to me. I can at least say that he was consistent.

---

It's a concept that needs practical applications. Mexico is an example on a state losing the monopoly on violence (the older, mostly redundant in the west version even).

If very few criminals have guns, then the police doesn't need to be defending themselves against guns often, further reducing the risk of gun violence.

Wars and forceful goverment oppression are rather outside the scope. Which can be seen by the effictiveness of the handgun/shotgun militia. They are not good tools for war. So that is needing a different approach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

How? OK, so people here (ideally) have the right to defend themselves with a firearm (just to be clear here: you do realize the difference between that and a blanket "gun" culture, right?), if they wish. how does that make the same people more violent? It's the same argument I hear about video games, from those at the capitol. I'm dead serious, let me paraphrase:

---

Population A has 1% gun users -> 1% gun using criminals.

Population B has 15% gun users -> 15% gun using criminals.

If they behave exactly the same, population B will have much higher gun use (good and bad). In video game terms: If more people own shooter games and have exactly the same behavior as the smaller group, the total number of people shot in games will increase. If more people play Black Ops II MP, more players will die, unless the larger playerbase would cause a huge shift in behavior.

So the question isn't that I say that people with guns become devils, it's why you expect them to become angels. I expect them to stay mostly the same. The big difference is the number of people willing to use guns for self defense/offense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

of course, all this raises a question, which has yet been answered, having been raised before: "if you can't trust people to own firearms as they wish within the framework of the law, why should you trust the state, when it's staffed by the very same people?"

---

If lethal mistakes are made, do you prefer 100 or 10.000 people to have the abillity to make those mistakes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

And again, this doesn't actually address why the crime rate is high here in the US, but higher still in Mexico, where some of the proposals made by the gun control camp are part of the law already. It also doesn't address the fact that again, the greatest concentration of gun violence (in fact, all types of violence) in the US And Mexico occurs regardless of the level of regulation on guns.

---

I might be needing to point this out more clearly. I've been more focused on the consequences of embracing guns for self-defense, compared to treating it as a borderline anathema (as most of the west do). Roughly it gives less gun crimes and gun incidents at the cost of less defense during more extreme events (like Brevik).
Gun regulation (or lack of it) then becomes more on it's influence to cause an attitude shift between these positions rather than it's practical applications in a specfic situation. To put it this way. There's four questions:

Do you prefer gun for self defense or not?
Which way does the above question affect gun crime and gun use?
Does gun regulations have an influence on gun attitude?
What are the best practical applications to reduce gun crimes in the US?

I've got extremely low focus on the last question in this debate, but question 2 and 4 do have overlapping themes, so it's easy to confuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

which again, should not even have to matter anyways: if people want weapons to hunt with, fine. if they want it because they feel it makes them safer, fine too. all this fear-mongering isn't going to help one way or another. I don't see why one group should be punished over the fear of the other.

---

It's a normal problem when a smaller question is heavily influenced by a larger one. For example, one very big issue for hunting is the fear of "teh goverment is going to take our guns", since it makes it harder to regulate hunting weapons on the issue of hunting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

the point I was making was that my attitude on gun control has little to do with American attitudes as a whole--be they the actual opinions, or what you think they are yourself. the "cost in their wallets" was a reference to the waste of money people commit by buying a weapon they have no need of, and will never use. That should have been clear in the context of the part I was replying to: I cannot see how you could have misunderstood that. I'll save the second half--your question, and its insinuation--till the end.

---

I said "no matter the cost" a term usually associated with paying a high price in say blood, rather than the financial cost. I've never talked about how much a gun cost in money. So basically I say it's a cost in blood. You respond by entering an entirely new subject, saying it's a wallet cost, as the only response on that argument.

I say "blood", you respond with "money". No black joke situation there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

The only thing firearms have over the others really, is that it's the easiest and most convenient thing to use--a point that I made earlier. after-all, you can easily teach an idiot to use a firearm.

---

While not solving the core issue, when the maniacs does use less lethal weapons, they do get less dangerous. I agree that school shootings are by themselves poor issues to form a gun policy from. Frequency might be relevant, although I haven't studied that data enough there (outside that it's unusually common in the US, but I would need data on if guns affect frequency in any way or only lethality).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

And again, you didn't address the fact that if such people want to use a firearm for its sake, they'll inevitably find a way, either legally, or not. Breivik did it, so can anyone else.

---

Has the accessabillity to copyrighted material on the net ever influenced if you downloaded that material or not? I can say yes on this personally, in case you wonder.

Yes, the really extreme hardcore ones will find a way (unless detected) and will be more dangerous by not using guns for self defense, but the vast majority of the criminals won't belong to that category.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

really? and it's hardly unique for the border region either. And even if you mean just the cops, so? doesn't change the fact that yes, cops do die there a lot (Mexican and American), and yes, it's largely related to the local cartel.

it's clear to me you didn't even bother to look this part up, or if you did, you misunderstood--otherwise, you wouldn't have said something this...wrong...and yes, it's wrong, sorry, but there's no other way of putting it.

---

Border regions in the US, not Mexico. The problems in Mexico has reached an entirely different scale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

and yes, Georgia is a "cop-killer"...and?

---

That was actually an honest question, no hidden motives outside curiousity, although hard to see it from context. Poor+transit cities might be enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

that alone could undercut the crime rate more than you realize--including violence by firearm. you know, considering that many or most crimes here are tied to the above?

Now, if the crime rate is enormously high even afterwards (considering that the effects will naturally take time to fully materialize, one way or another), then we an see about regulating guns in a manner as strict as some people are suggestion.

---

I'm well aware that the prime crime drivers aren't at all related to gun laws. I agree on some of your points, some are more complex compared how you framed them (like fix immigration) and it's legal to research into violent crimes, as long as it doesn't have anything to do with guns (it's because of some court case the NRA-side won).

We're talking about two different questions though.

Yours is: What would drive down crime in the US (among those are gun crimes)? That is most pragmatic and effective.

Mine is: Would a different view on guns for self defense in the US drive down gun violence and would the crime rate change? Which are a more idealistic question and given that it can give than more guns drives up gun violence, but reduces crime (crime reduction is a common gun proponent suggestion after all), has an idealistic answer rather than a pragmatic one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

In order to have state sanctioned violence

---

"Violence" can be a misleading term here. A prison sentence would be an example of state violence. It's not just about what one normally considers "violence", ie. actual fighting(which is something a civilized state really shouldn't be doing).

I approve of the 3 tiered safe communities act with the Manchin-Toomey amendment attached. I am in favor of background checks which assist sellers in determining whether they are selling to a felon or the seriously mentally I'll. Anyone selling or giving a gun to someone who doesn't know the person well should be required to run the check. I also like the state carry reciprocity component for permit holders who undergo background checks every 5 years.

I hope the bill skates by, as is with no further amendments. Eternal turd, Mike Bloomberg is probably also on board. We are ready for compromise, let's vote.

Background checks are an abridgement of our second amendment rights, the AWB and mag bans are an infringement. Guess which ones are not allowed?

I don't understand how it is an abridgement?

Surely mental health forms part of the security of a state.

I'd add a checky amendment to this law. Anyone who fails a mental health check gets free access to medical treatment... Along the lines of "if you can't afford a lawyer, one will be appointed to you".

Best to not only remove some of the tools but to treat the root cause.

Quote:

---

Surely mental health forms part of the security of a state.

---

Excellent: it is inevitable that states shall act successfully to modify the character of the "mental" to further their own security.

:smitten:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Excellent: it is inevitable that states shall act successfully to modify the character of the "mental" to further their own security.

:smitten:

---

The distribution of Valium and Prozac to the populace ought to be the first order of business then; guns are unnecessary.

Abridgements are not prohibited unless they become infringements. Since the purpose of the amendment is to preserve the right of the people to defend themselves from foreign and domestic threats or an abusive federal government and is implied to be related to the "militia", it would be an infringement to ban arms in the common use. This would extend to the magazines as well. It is merely an abridgement to regulate who is capable to keep and bear arms, and a necessary one in my opinion that should only exclude a small portion of prospective buyers for their inability to safely or lawfully use them.

A mentally ill person with a firearm is a threat to safety both general and their own.

It depends on how you describe mentally I'll. Some would like to consider Republicans and people who are religious as mentally I'll. Others would take the approach that people who are gay or liberal are mentally I'll. If you leave it to DSM only, people who at one time suffered from depression or have ocd have or had a mental illness.

Serious mental illness should be adjudicated and be able to be appealed prior to or shortly thereafter the elimination of a basic civil right.

I'm super excited by this result. Although I am a casualty in this war against bad laws as I live in NY, I feel like a 40/60 vote against assault weapon bans and a 46/54 vote against magazine bans is a real leap forward. I'm not happy that background checks for all commercial transactions failed, but the House will construct something short and sweet to cover themselves and bring this sensible evolution into law, I hope. One casualty of the cloture motion was the vote against reciprocity, but this was a compromise defeat.

Bloomberg can feel free to clobber democrats in swing states over this. They will lose their primaries to harder left democrats and than lose in the general to Republicans. I've heard some crazy vitriol from Democrats on this issue, wishing that the Senator's who vote against this bill have their own children killed in the next attack. That is horrible, not simply because these bills would not have done anything to eliminate the weapons used by the Sandy Hook shooter. His mother would have still been a lawful owner of the firearms, he still would have been able to kill her for them and run his insane rampage. To wish death on people who don't believe that without gun control all of our children our dead meat is insane.

So the Congress couldn't pass an expansion of background checks. Which 90% of the public supports.

And ICSD is "super excited by this result."

And to think just a month ago there were people on this board who seemed to seriously believe that if we didn't fight super-duper-hard, massive gun control would occur. And freedom would perish, and Glenn Beck would take the chosen people to the promised land.

His mother was supplying him with weapons. Not something I would classify as smart when you are the nominated caregiver of someone who has a mental disorder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

So the Congress couldn't pass an expansion of background checks. Which 90% of the public supports.

And ICSD is "super excited by this result."

And to think just a month ago there were people on this board who seemed to seriously believe that if we didn't fight super-duper-hard, massive gun control would occur. And freedom would perish, and Glenn Beck would take the chosen people to the promised land.

---

Remember, I'm part of the 90% who supports background checks for ALL sales of firearms. I just don't want to be a felon if I lose the paperwork. The ToomeyManchin bill went down because people want short. That amendment was longer than the bill. I supported it, but warily

BTW, try buying a gun online. If it comes from anywhere out of your state it MUST first be transferred to an ffl and, while you've already paid, you must pass the NICs check. By all means, though, close any sales loopholes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

So the Congress couldn't pass an expansion of background checks. Which 90% of the public supports.

---

Not Congress, the (D)Senate. While the AWB deserved to die, universal background checks should have at least gotten to the House.

Once again, Democrats waste their political clout with gun control.

I love how towards the end there the argument against closing the gun show loophole suddenly became "criminals don't go to gun shows to by guns" which is practically unprovable if not patently false. If these morons would simply present simple, straightforward legislation things might get done. Instead we get these monstrosity bills with pet laws for every tom dick and harry.....

Coburn offered them a route to 60 votes, they refused. Most people would back background checks. If you are not related to someone by blood or in law - mandatory background check, sale or gift. They could advise you to keep the records, but no felony or misdemeanor conviction if you failed to keep the records. Spot checked in event of a report of illegal transfer. Throw in carry reciprocity (which received the most votes of any amendment) and it is a done deal.

This could have gotten through and failed due to entrenched democratic interests. Rand Paul would have voted for it and wed be in a better place than we are now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

This could have gotten through and failed due to entrenched democratic interests.

---

Yes, if there's one thing we have learned in the last four years, it's that the "entrenched democratic interests" prevent all forms of compromise. Damn those dirty Dems and their inability to meet anyone halfway! Damn them all to heck!

I bet the NRA was all, "We'd love to meet people halfway and do something sensible," and then the dirty hippie Dems slapped them across the face. I just BET that's what happened.

-edit-

Below is what Sen. Mitch McConnell posted on his FB page this morning. SO YOU SEE? He was all about compromise and common-sense improvement of gun law, and the Dems were all evil and nasty and inflexible. That's really what happened, no, for reals.

https://i.imgur.com/6FKKais.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Yes, if there's one thing we have learned in the last four years, it's that the "entrenched democratic interests" prevent all forms of compromise. Damn those dirty Dems and their inability to meet anyone halfway! Damn them all to heck!

---

If there's one thing we've learned in the last twelve years, it's that Democrats in Congress are spineless cowards more worried about keeping their seats than doing the right thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

If there's one thing we've learned in the last twelve years, it's that Democrats in Congress are spineless cowards more worried about keeping their seats than doing the right thing.

---

Sorry man, I don't see the logic of spinning this as the fault of the Dems. 90%+ of the Dems voted in favor of the background check expansion; 90%+ of the Repubs sided with the filibuster. So ... clearly it's the spineless Dems' fault? Explain, please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Sorry man, I don't see the logic of spinning this as the fault of the Dems. 90%+ of the Dems voted in favor of the background check expansion; 90%+ of the Repubs sided with the filibuster. So ... clearly it's the spineless Dems' fault? Explain, please.

---

The bills weren't going to pass the House anyway, so I'm not really placing specific "fault" here on the Senate. But once it became obvious that the GOP senators were going to block everything out of spite (and it should have been obvious by 2011), they should have gone nuclear and eliminated the silent filibuster. The spinelessness of the Dems in both houses goes back to the Bush years, and they still act as though they are the minority.

And GC is right about the Republican vote. You can't really blame them, it's just their nature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Sorry man, I don't see the logic of spinning this as the fault of the Dems. 90%+ of the Dems voted in favor of the background check expansion; 90%+ of the Repubs sided with the filibuster. So ... clearly it's the spineless Dems' fault? Explain, please.

---

And this is why Republicans should lose all their seats for timewasting. Either vote for the measure, vote against the measure, or abstain. Not hold up government till the end of time with filibusters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

And this is why Republicans should lose all their seats for timewasting.

---

I am reminded of an essay by a former Republican on the current state of the party:

We could argue, and should argue, over what the policies of conservative government should be today; that’s not my point in this blog entry. My point here is that there is no creative ferment on the Right, no breathing space, few places where new ideas can emerge. All the energy on the Right seems aimed at hunting down the heretics within. That, and making life as hard as possible for the opposition, not because they have something better in mind, but as an end in itself.

If you have a registered firearm you can:
Sell it as long as you provide the papers
Get house contents insurance for its loss or theft.
Get personal insurance for its misuse, misfire or other accident.

If you don't have it registered
No selling of it.
No fine for not registering it.
No house contents insurance on it
Higher premiums for its misuse
Print your own comes under this category unless it is a licensed manufacturer.

I'd also add an amnesty period for selling/ buying to register.

Stay in Australia where you belong.

Constitutional issues should get a filibuster every time. 60 votes to take away peoples rights isn't too much to ask.
Hey, they had the opportunity to get rid of the filibuster in January. They didn't. The Democrats hold the Senate because of tacit agreements that they made by supporting guys like Tester, Donnelly, Heidtkamp, Pryor, Begich, Manchin, etc. Obama never has to run again and just won the 2012 so he decided that the coalition was no longer necessary. Great. If you think that 2A supporters are going to fall for the truce again, you are mistaken.

You guys can gnash your teeth at this. I feel like this was hard fought. I've sent hundreds and hundreds of letters over the past 5 months, did you? Call and speak with your state and house reps? Never stopped engaging friends and family? Reading the bills?

You all knew that the small segment of sales that take place without a background check had nothing to do with the excuse for the entire push, right? Constituents asked themselves - "what does this bill and all of this sanctimony have to do with the reason that this issue is in front of us in the first place?". the answer clear to everyone is - nothing

Almost everyone likes the idea of background checks for all sales, but the simple question was; if I don't have the paperwork for some reason, even in the event that I did the NICS - am I a felon? Is that a misdemeanor, violation? Am I legally responsible if the gun is used in a crime? It may not mean anything to you guys, if you don't buy or sell guns, but it means alot to people who do.

The NRA is me. I am a part of it. They tell us not to compromise, we think that might not be successful and want to compromise like normal humans. They prevent us - we win. They knew better.
The idea is not to do gun reform while the Democrats control more than 1 area of government or when the nation is reeling and grasping at action due to tragedy. Only pass laws when the ground is favorable, shoot them down when it is not. Compromise when you have the upper hand, refuse discussions when you don't.

Tough negotiators do that. The proof is in the pudding and we had a victory because our particular lobby is strong. The NRA and gun lobby has proved that it is a core interest of the GOP and that they are not to be ignored in the Democratic party. Time to regroup and plan the next battle in the courts. As long as the 2A is in the Constitution, courts will almost never overturn the laws we write and often overturn the laws you write. We can lobby for positive reforms, the American people are on board with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

Stay in Australia where you belong.

---

Internatonal Forum :). So expect international commentary. When American bullets don't kill overseas tourists who are visiting the US I will happily shut up :smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

Almost everyone likes the idea of background checks for all sales, but the simple question was; if I don't have the paperwork for some reason, even in the event that I did the NICS - am I a felon? Is that a misdemeanor, violation? Am I legally responsible if the gun is used in a crime? It may not mean anything to you guys, if you don't buy or sell guns, but it means alot to people who do.

---

My international response was it should not effect ownership. It should effect commerical selling. So print your own, inheritance and what you have shouldn't be a felony it should be a right.

The state should only be involved in transfer of firearms and where possible it should be more to see that criminals aren't procuring them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Why do you support the NRA? I'm a responsible gun-owner and I still think they're the devil incarnate (okay, maybe not that bad.. but close). Like any special interest group of that caliber, they are motivated by money more than anything else. Part of the reason we can't have rational discussions on gun control is because the NRA pushed for legislation that prevented proper research into the issue (not unlike what Big Tobacco used to do...) while simultaneously urging their members to jerk their knees every time someone even suggests it. I would happily support an interest group (because they're not all bad) that wanted to preserve gun rights in a more rational way, but the NRA are just ignorance peddlers. They laugh all the way to the bank about this stuff.

---

You have no idea what you are talking about. The NRA gets results. Every special interest should be so lucky. If you measure an interest by the results and give credit accordingly, credit is due to the NRA.
You have bought into Obama's America narrative hook, line, sinker and should be better than that. What makes them any more money hungry than the people who work at the DNC? The RNC? Major corporations?

This debate has radicalized me further. I started out by wanting to compromise, saw the bad faith of the opposition first hand in NY and decided that they were too clever to work with and that we had to defeat them here. I like reasonable ideas. I want background checks on all transfers of firearms, but I don't want to be prosecuted on technicality or for the government to have any more information about our guns. In NY, you don't own your guns. The government has the right to confiscate any guns it finds if it believes that you are questionable - without warrant or any adjudication. Trust us in NY that see the political whims of government up-close. You should know that they don't believe that anyone should own guns. They are just biding their time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Internatonal Forum :). So expect international commentary. When American bullets don't kill overseas tourists who are visiting the US I will happily shut up :smoking:



My international response was it should not effect ownership. It should effect commerical selling. So print your own, inheritance and what you have shouldn't be a felony it should be a right.

The state should only be involved in transfer of firearms and where possible it should be more to see that criminals aren't procuring them.

---

You want to see gun ownership responsibly wound down, even among otherwise law abiding citizens because you never know. I don't. I believe that it is inevitable that we print our guns and that the world is about to see an explosion in proliferation of weapons over the next 20 years. Background checks are part of the future, but must be done correctly. Registration is the enemy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Well its never a sign that this is going to end with both of us coming to an understanding when you start your post off with 'You have no idea what you are talking about.' Athough.. I suppose it may be a sign that I hit a nerve. Nobody likes to hear they've been duped, and I say you've been duped.

What makes you think I'm a big fan of Obama? He hasn't done half the things I wanted him to do, and he's wasted his political capital doing things I really don't care about. As for the people who work at the DNC, RNC, and major Corporations? Most of them suffer from a serious lack of ethics too.

---

I've just signed up with the NRA, GOA and NYSRPA. I wasn't convinced, now I'm convinced. It's $25 bucks a year, you get a little buck-knife a magazine subscription and they initiate legal proceedings against the opposition and win. what more do you want? I say "you have no idea what you are talking about" because you don't understand that effective workers don't have to agree with you or care about anything more than the money you are paying them to be talented and get results. We pay, they get results. Stop criticizing everything and stand for something. I don't know if I've ever read that you support anything, just criticism. I don't find the GOP or NRA to be worthless idiots. I see value in them. I would like to see them reform in certain areas to make them more effective at getting what I want, but they are the good guys on the things that I care about and work towards.

Do I think filling in the NICS requirement loopholes is a bad idea? No, it sounds like a decent idea. do I think it will do anything to reduce the gun homicide rate or reduce the likelihood and body count of the next mass shooting? No, because it didnt have anything to do with the last 4 that I can think of.

Idealism often clouds judgement. I'm an idealist and spiteful enough to do the wrong thing when my agenda is under fire. Cold, calculating, talent is sometimes needed, particularly when the opposition is passionate and spraying emotions all over themselves.

I care very little about money. I don't make much of it, I don't have expensive hobbies and I never want to own a house or an expensive car. I do like guns, politics, principles, and many other theoretical concepts. If I can give what little money that I have to someone who cares about money and gets me real results, I'm in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Idealism is bad when it turns into Dogma, yes. But so is Pragmatism when it turns into a cover for outright selfishness. You edited it out, but you had a great little blurb up there a few minutes ago about me never supporting anything and always criticizing. Well, here's what I support: People being better than they are. All of them. Always. Nobody's perfect, but we're a hell of a lot better than this. :shrug:

---

I didn't edit it out! Those are empty platitudes, btw. So, maybe you support empty platitudes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

You want to see gun ownership responsibly wound down, even among otherwise law abiding citizens because you never know. I don't. I believe that it is inevitable that we print our guns and that the world is about to see an explosion in proliferation of weapons over the next 20 years. Background checks are part of the future, but must be done correctly.

---

Not quite. I want locally in Aus stricter gun laws. For the US I want better access for responsible owners, ability to print their own etc. For irresponsible operators I would like to see higher barriers to access, training and mental health checks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Not quite. I want locally in Aus stricter gun laws. For the US I want better access for responsible owners, ability to print their own etc. For irresponsible operators I would like to see higher barriers to access, training and mental health checks.

---

I want select fire, unregistered guns in every home in Australia. But, you know, you can have background checks to buy them, if you aren't printing them yourself. Your opinions affect my rights, so lets bring that idea home to you. The issue is - who decides who is irresponsible? I don't want irresponsible people to own guns either, but I wont give the authorization button to a guy like Bloomberg, who doesn't believe anyone should carry a knife over 3 inches.
"over 50? you could go senile!"
"Diabetes? What if your sugars go too high!?"
"18-21? arn't you a bit too young to own a firearm?"
"neighbors don't feel safe? gun free neighborhood"

Just, fair, and common sense oppression

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Empty Platitudes? Not really. I want a just and fair system, not a plutocracy.

---

Platitudes. Anyway, I'm begin to troll people, so I will bow out. for now...

Show me the mass-shooting where the firearm wasn't purchased by the perp using a NICS check. Show me one instance of mass death that would have been prevented by one of the laws proposed. Maybe I'm missing it. Then we can resume the gnashing and criticizing. Doesn't mean filling the loopholes isn't a good idea, but the overreaction is priceless. None of these people procured using the loopholes.

Psychiatric Dr's are not prohibited from alerting authorities if they believe that a patient is an immediate threat. This is the current law everywhere.
I cannot buy a gun online from anyone outside of the State of NY without undergoing a NICS background check at a local FFL. This is the current law everywhere.
Any individual or store who is in the business of selling firearms at a gun-show must provide a background check. If you regularly sell firearms, you must run the check. This is the current law everywhere.
If you are a violent felon, a regular user of a controlled substance or have been adjudicated mentally defective or were recently committed- you have committed a felony by handling a firearm. This is the current law everywhere.

If the Toomey-Manchin law was passed, would there still be loopholes? Yep. How about the Reid bill unammended. Still loopholes? Yep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

I want select fire, unregistered guns in every home in Australia. But, you know, you can have background checks to buy them, if you aren't printing them yourself. Your opinions affect my rights, so lets bring that idea home to you. The issue is - who decides who is irresponsible? I don't want irresponsible people to own guns either, but instead of give the authorization button to a guy like Bloomberg, who doesn't believe anyone should carry a knife over 3 inches.

---

True. We can all wish for things. There are foreign lobbyists in Washington and Canberra.

My wish for registration would end at resale and insurance. For the US which is cultural similar in some areas but drastically different in others I believe individuals should have the right to self arm, manufacture, print and bear arms to their hearts content. Frankly it isn't the firearm that needs to be checked, its the person. My reasoning for registration on selling firearms is not to limit their sale but to limit faulty weapon sales and selling to criminals. I start from the position that everyone is innocent and responsible. The grey/gray area is keeping full access for responsible operators vs not responsible ones (lack of training, mentally ill or felons).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

True. We can all wish for things. There are foreign lobbyists in Washington and Canberra.

My wish for registration would end at resale and insurance. For the US which is cultural similar in some areas but drastically different in others I believe individuals should have the right to self arm, manufacture, print and bear arms to their hearts content. Frankly it isn't the firearm that needs to be checked, its the person. My reasoning for registration on selling firearms is not to limit their sale but to limit faulty weapon sales and selling to criminals. I start from the position that everyone is innocent and responsible. The grey/gray area is keeping full access for responsible operators vs not responsible ones (lack of training, mentally ill or felons).

---

Well, then I like your starting point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I just wanted to point out that the NRA is one of the unhealthiest examples of lobbying gone horribly wrong. Gun Control? Seriously? That's not even important. Lets talk about Citizens United v. FEC, Super PACs, and the triumph of 'pragmatism' over 'idealism' in American politics.

---

Your problem with the gun lobby special interest group is that they are not a different special interest? I don't follow. They do a good job defending and expanding the right to keep and bear arms - this is their mission. It isnt their job to reduce crime, or enact gay marriage, or de-salinize the middle east. They need to make sure that I can access whatever firearm I can, wherever I am without the government interfering. The brady campaign, citizens for responsible gun rights, mayors against illegal firearms can worry the limits. NRA, GOA - they are the defense and offense of the right and their job is the blast down impediments that even threaten to threaten threatening the right of the people to keep an bear arms.

AND THEY ARE DOING A FANTASTIC JOB! they deserve your credit as someone who doesn't get harassed by governmentfor owning your guns. Without the NRA, GOA, imagine where your rights would be every-time progressives get the bright idea to ignore your rights on this issue.

MAIG, CRGL, Brdy - they are all anti-gun organizations. They aren't for responsible gun laws. they want to ban 10 round AR-15's because they look scary and will come for your glocks for being functionally equivalent if they think that they can get away with it. Take it from me - we have a 7 round magazine limit in NY now which is the "compromise" amount. They wanted (and will eventually probably get) 5 rounds. And after that? You don't really need 5, right? You can reload, and semi-automatics are used on the battlefield, right?

the Anti-gun lobby will use anything to hammer gun owners/manufacturers with lawsuits. The gun lobby has learned a number of things from the tobacco lobby - what not to let happen. I'm not part of the tobacco loby because it is chemically addictive and makes people ill. The gun lobby is not equivalent. no ciggarete has ever saved a life, they don't win wars, help arrest criminals, protect your home and property and loved ones. False equivalence.

Yes, of course. A lobby is a group of people with a common interest. I don't "oppose" the tobacco industry, I support individuals rights to make their own decision. I am skeptical about a product that stacks the deck and creates a chemical dependence, hence I don't "support" the tobacco lobby, I take a more neutral approach. I do support the firearms lobby because they support the citizens rights lobby. We have a mutual interest.

I oppose the gay marriage lobby but support the "keep the government out of my bedroom" lobby. You can decide strategically what you support in order to effect the changes you want.

I'm glad that they make so much money, it keeps them in the game. The reality is that if Google didn't make so much money from content creation arising from questionable online copyright issues, they probably wouldn't be fighting for our rights as hard and SOPA/PIPA would be the law of the land. We are merely pawns in the game. nobody cares about us. We form groups because there is strength in number. Emotions get carried away, creating a sense of cameraderie, but the reality is that everyone is in it for themselves. Sometimes, in order to look just and fair and thus show potential allies that you are willing to put skin in the game, you do things that don't directly benefit you. But, boy-oh-boy, does that benefit you later when people give you credit for being so principled and selfless. Smart politicians invest in the short term and long term.

I think that you are naive about why anyone does anything. Or maybe I am. And I think that you should probably stop smoking or cut back, because it is a stupid idea. But I would defend your right to do it, just not with everything I've got because you have a chemical dependence.

I think that the idea that everybody just wants to harmonize is a bunch of bunk. As I regularly say, this is a total war forum. Harmony and Chaos are human natures. I would hate a world where everyone is just blowing each other and dancing around in hemp underwear. Strife and fighting make the world interesting. So does vegetable gardening, but I digress.

people are 90% selfish and 10% dumb and confused enough to do altruistic things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I would hazard a guess that that's partly because you have a lot more invested in the status quo than I do. I gain nothing from rich people getting richer. I gain nothing from a spineless government that is happy to be manipulated by those who don't need the help. My interest is in a better system.

---

It really is selfless that all of these poor and disenfranchised people want to do "the right thing" and take wealthy peoples stuff for their own gain. It's all a bunch of hoey. Poor peopel are just trying to get richer and rich people are trying to stay rich. I'm just a monkey wrench launcher who likes to disrupt populist impulses. I derive pleasure from attacking the majority opinion and making sanctimonious liberals and their idea of "inevitability" frustrated.

I used to be very anti gun.

To be honest my policy has completely changed, for America at the very least.

The genie is out of the bottle and with organisations like the NRA it is not going back in, even without them you probably couldn't do it the way modern America is.

Arm everyone, train everyone (everyone does exclude those proven to be mentally unstable or a criminal, children probably require it just as much, if not more than everyone else) make sure everyone knows how to use their gun quickly and effectively.

I imagine the average criminal for various reasons (element of surprise, probably better physical shape, more likely at peak physical ages) would have the advantage over regular people but if you have enough people shooting back at the guy even a few bad shots might have one get lucky.

Yes I imagine there will be innocents that get shot by people trying to shoot at bad guys but in the case of the school shooters it would be worth one or two innocents dying at the start to kill the shooter for the lives he would have taken later on....

Background checks for all guns does seem sensible (as to stop the mentally ill and criminals) but to me most things outside of that are pretty much window dressing.

If I am shooting at a bunch of unarmed school children the size of the clip doesn't really matter too much if it is a reduction from say 10 to 5. If I as a shooter cared that much I would practice my reloading and I am sure with repetition I could get it down to a pretty low time...

As a numbers game I think it only really works for school shooters and the like, in terms of going into a shop and demanding the money is handed over there is probably much more risk of innocents getting hurt in the gunned up society but as the guns are not going anywhere why punish the shop keeper?

The criminal has a nice selection with the only limitations being what can be stolen/imported (or bought legally) whilst the shopkeeper is confounded by all sorts of rules...

Sorry for not being more specific on the topic but I guess that is my take on guns in the USA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Spoken like someone who hasn't seen very much strife and fighting.

---

Edit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

Background checks for all guns does seem sensible (as to stop the mentally ill and criminals) but to me most things outside of that are pretty much window dressing.
.

---

I think that this post shows a good understanding of the issue.

You want to know what is an actual affront to peoples liberty and freedoms which did get passed and wasn't filibustered, and even Obama got jeered at but will hopefully going to Veto it.

Cispa.

Talk about screwed up priorities.

It is okay, you can march on the federal buildings brandishing your 2nd amendment protected weaponry (my spell check and google both agree on this spelling but it just doesn't look right to me) to stop the government turning your country into big brother!

That is the point of them after all.

~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

You want to know what is an actual affront to peoples liberty and freedoms which did get passed and wasn't filibustered, and even Obama got jeered at but will hopefully going to Veto it.

Cispa.

Talk about screwed up priorities.

---

CISPA passed the House, which doesn't have a filibuster. It now has to pass the Senate before Obama pulls a psych on his veto like he has done before. ~:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

It is okay, you can march on the federal buildings brandishing your 2nd amendment protected weaponry (my spell check and google both agree on this spelling but it just doesn't look right to me) to stop the government turning your country into big brother!

That is the point of them after all.

~;)

---

I realize. Look at government reaction to the guy in Cali. Do you think that the Federal government as it currently exists could withstand a few thousand Dorners? Small arms ARE an effective hedge against tyranny. Of course, I believe that government is going in the right-ish direction and becoming more transparent, with the help of the droves of people who urge them to open up. This evolution is not certain, and while we have the right to hedge by owning small arms, I believe that we should push the right to the limit. Entrenched interests seek to increase Federal opacity and power and we have to stop them through all available legal channels

I'm not anti government, I believe in government. Living in a world governed by far right extremists or theocrats would be a nightmare. I want the Federal system to work and people to get off of each others backs more often. I want to know where money goes and which politicians are bought and sold on which issues and by whom. Things are better than they've ever been, but we are more aware of how bad they were and could be, so the fever has hit to make sure that we still move in a more open direction. Guns are the great equalizer and powerful guns give otherwise helpless citizens a bargaining chip for when their elected officials give up on the theater of democracy. We must be considered by the elite who govern us. They must know that we have the power to lobby, vote and, if necessary, take the reins back. This sounds radical, but this nation was founded in that way. This is a radical experiment.

The NRA gets the vast majority of its money from manufacturers, not members. Hence its ability to sell cut-rate memberships for months on end. Hence its willingness to go against the will of its members, 74% of whom are in favor of universal background checks.

ICSD, if you think the NRA is working for you, you are deluded. You are one of the 90% of Americans and 74% of NRA members in favor of universal background checks. The fact that you're now reversing yourself on a slim talking point is ... revealing.

On the interesting side, I do believe the NRA and its boot-licking minions in the Republican party have overreached. This will have consequences.

-edit-

Doing a little more reading, looks like the relationship between the NRA and manufacturers is more complicated than I'm making it out to be. Nevertheless, the central point stands: The NRA does not represent its members, but rather a fringe-right extremist policy underwritten by manufacturers, not dues-paying members. Like Republican congressmen in gerrymandered states, the NRA only fears challenges from the right. The 90% of Americans who favor universal background checks are just background noise to these extremists. And talking-point parroting drama enthusiasts like ICSD are what Stalin would call "useful idiots."

The companies that make and market firearms might prefer a softer tone, but they rarely complain publicly about NRA fear mongering because it’s been so good for business. Corporate donations to the NRA, which together with its affiliates has annual revenue of $250 million, have risen during the past decade, a period when the organization has taken increasingly absolutist positions. Still, it’s not the industry that muscles the NRA.

“NRA leadership worries about two things above all else: perpetuating controversy to stimulate fundraising from individual members and protecting its right flank from the real crazies,” says Richard Feldman, author of a feisty 2007 memoir, Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist. Feldman has worked in various capacities for both the NRA and the industry. “The idea that the NRA follows orders from the gun companies is a joke,” he says. “If anything, it’s the other way around.” [...]

Gun companies defer to the NRA for two main reasons: First, there’s intimidation. The lobby group has incited potentially ruinous consumer boycotts against firearm makers that fail to follow the NRA line with sufficient zeal. Second, regardless of some executives’ concerns about civil discourse, gun companies benefit financially from the NRA’s hype. Alarms about imminent gun confiscation—an NRA staple, despite its implausibility—reliably send firearm owners back to retail counters. Sales are booming. Mossberg is running three shifts a day. “Demand,” Bartozzi says, “is very strong.”

Double post

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

The NRA gets the vast majority of its money from manufacturers, not members. Hence its ability to sell cut-rate memberships for months on end. Hence its willingness to go against the will of its members, 74% of whom are in favor of universal background checks.

ICSD, if you think the NRA is working for you, you are deluded. You are one of the 90% of Americans and 74% of NRA members in favor of universal background checks. The fact that you're now reversing yourself on a slim talking point is ... revealing.

On the interesting side, I do believe the NRA and its boot-licking minions in the Republican party have overreached. This will have consequences.

-edit-

Doing a little more reading, looks like the relationship between the NRA and manufacturers is more complicated than I'm making it out to be. Nevertheless, the central point stands: The NRA does not represent its members, but rather a fringe-right extremist policy underwritten by manufacturers, not dues-paying members. Like Republican congressmen in gerrymandered states, the NRA only fears challenges from the right. The 90% of Americans who favor universal background checks are just background noise to these extremists. And talking-point parroting drama enthusiasts like ICSD are what Stalin would call "useful idiot"

---

Yea, I'm a useful idiot because I don't think that background checks are the be all end all of our children's security. Not a bad idea, mind you, but your stat is bogus. People like the idea of background checks, that doesn't mean 90% liked the Senate bill or even the compromise. There is false equivalence being peddled by your side.

I like expansive gun rights. I want to own the firearms that are banned in multiple states. There is strength in numbers and I would prefer to side with people who like guns than people who don't. People who forge their own way on everything and can't keep to the common goal lose. The gun control lobby did that in this instance, attacking each others proposals, and they paid for it. BTW, confessions by Feldman is an attack piece against the NRA. He wants to start his own gun organization, presumably so that he can cash into the overflow. If an organization were to exist that opposed the mag limits and awb, but supported universal background checks, I'd join them too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Oh, I get it. This is like that moment in the Marijuana thread when rvg's viewpoint also made sense. Yours might actually be worse than his though. You do know you're a Neo-Con right?

---

What does being a neo-con actually mean to you? Also, what does it have to do with anything in this context?

What are you talking about? None of what you've said follows a rational read of what we are discussing here. Some of what I'm saying makes it sound like I support the Patriot Act?

Are you drunk?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

There is false equivalence being peddled by your side.

---

I don't think that phrase means what you think it means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

If an organization were to exist that opposed the mag limits and awb, but supported universal background checks, I'd join them too.

---

But instead you throw in your lot with the extremists, drama queens, and hysterical sky-is-falling panic merchants at the NRA. Bully for you. You are their servant, and you will never be their master. You don't even seem to be clear on who you're really serving. Enjoy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I don't think that phrase means what you think it means.


But instead you throw in your lot with the extremists, drama queens, and hysterical sky-is-falling panic merchants at the NRA. Bully for you. You are their servant, and you will never be their master. You don't even seem to be clear on who you're really serving. Enjoy.

---

It means what I think it means. You think support for background checks means support for the Senate Democrats bill. You, and many others, have suggested that support for universal background checks implies a certain way to do them. I disagree, while supporting the idea of universal background checks, I wanted less potential negative outcomes for people who lose the paperwork or were gifting guns to friends and family. I was willing to compromise, democrats wouldn't come the extra few steps and make the deal. They could have had the votes. They only missed it by 2 or 3. They decided not to finish the negotiations. I can't blame them

Its just that the gun lobby and myself might not hate the idea but we don't think it will do much. It was the Senate democrats baby. By not getting background checks we didn't feel like we've lost anything. We are in the same place that we were before. None of the provisions would have prevented the past shootings.

We can start over in the House and push for new gun laws on our terms. Maybe for certain concessions we will add another background checks bill and a trafficking provision in there. Remember, we werent the ones who wanted to rush into this for emotional reasons or hysteria. You guys did. Its a bit disingenuous to suggest that our side is the only wailing, mob mentality, emotional horde on this one

How is it on your high horse, mastering others and getting countless reasonable things done, btw? I do appreciate that blaming the NRA has fit into your busy schedule of blaming the GOP for bad weather and tooth decay.

On the flip side, you were right about how little support the awb and mag limits had in the Senate. I gradually did the count and agreed with you, if you recall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

There certainly is something to be said for politicians playing on peoples' heart-strings too much. The tactic is disingenuous, and people shouldn't put up with it in the political arena where these things are freaking serious. Emotions have no place in logical proceedings.

I blame the media for opening the door on that one. People offer up the parents of victims like they're some kind of evidence. They're not. They're evidence only of the fact that someone got shot, so why the heck is that person on my TV, talking like some kind of freaking expert? We'll never get anywhere as a culture if we think tear-jerking is useful in serious discourse. Or any other kind of emotional manipulation. This is as true for Obama's push on guns as it was for the flag-waving hysteria that led up to the Bush Administration's Patriot Act (which nobody bothered to freaking read anyway). Not trying to equate the two situations, but I'm really freaking tired of people using any excuse to avoid talking about actual, logical, rational facts on the news or in congress.

---

Here here. The buzz wore off I see. Time to start drinking again. Its too late on a Friday night to be sober

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

I was willing to compromise, democrats wouldn't come the extra few steps and make the deal. They could have had the votes. They only missed it by 2 or 3.

---

Needs citation, as the Wiki folks say. Claiming you "just need a few more concessions" is an age-old Senatorial way of saying "no." Your aw-shucks wide-eyed credulity at every statement made by the NRA is numbing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

None of the provisions would have prevented the past shootings.

---

Ah, the unknowable assertion that proves everything. This sort of loops back to the "criminals won't abide by laws, so why have laws?" train of nihilistic thought. Background checks make it harder for people with a record to get a gun, in much the same way that having a lock on your car door and a key for the ignition makes it harder for thieves to take your car. If your response to that is, "LOCKS DON'T STOP ALL CAR THEFTS," then all I can say is that you are blissfully disconnected from reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

We can start over in the House

---

Oh, right, I'm sure that's going to happen any minute now. The House is really interested in streamlining and cleaning up gun law, that's obvious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

I do appreciate that blaming the NRA has fit into your busy schedule of blaming the GOP for bad weather and tooth decay.

---

And I appreciate your child-like credulity whenever the NRA opens its mouth. You want to know the sad thing? I'm old enough to remember when the NRA was a respectable organization. Now, frankly, they make the Muslim Brotherhood look like a model of Jeffersonian democracy and compromise.

Jump through whatever rationalizations you need to justify aligning yourself with fundamentalism. For some people, that kind of dualism and daily drama really gets them through the mundane day-to-day. It certainly seems to be working for you; cries of "your side" and "my side" spill trippingly off your lips. You want to know what "my" side is? Pragmatism. Gradualism. Moderation. A recognition that nobody has the magic ideology, the perfect formula, the silver bullet of freedom that makes everything sing with joy.

Universal background checks were politically and practically feasible, unlike the AWB ban, unlike LaPierre's fantasy of armed guards in every school. It was solid middle ground, broadly supported by the public and NRA members. The politicians you support aren't even able to articulate why they shot it down—your froth about how the Senate bill wasn't quite perfect, could not possibly be fixed, and therefore had to be killed (or was forced to die by the wicked, inflexible GUN GRABBERS), man, I'm only hearing that from you. Maybe I need to spend more time trolling the Freeper forums to hear this rhetoric.

The House is not going to introduce a UBC bill, and you know it. The only challenge House Repubs fear is from the right in their gerrymandered districts. They have ZERO reason to introduce a moderate, practical bill. And you appear to be hallucinating from the fumes of talking points you inhaled too quickly.

And while we're all clawing our throats out over guns the spawn-of-sopa: CISPA is sailing through under the radar. The Bawling over a small bruise to the second amendment is drowning out the screams of the first's murder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

This sort of loops back to the "criminals won't abide by laws, so why have laws?" train of nihilistic thought. Background checks make it harder for people with a record to get a gun, in much the same way that having a lock on your car door and a key for the ignition makes it harder for thieves to take your car. If your response to that is, "LOCKS DON'T STOP ALL CAR THEFTS," then all I can say is that you are blissfully disconnected from reality..

---

I reject the line of thought that background checks are unnecessary because criminals won't abide them. You are swinging at windmills on this assertion as far as I am concerned. Background checks are a good idea, Period. I accept many NRA suggestions, but on the balance this one doesnt hold up and I am on the side that Background checks are a helpful abridgement of our rights that are permissable because they don't restrict law abiding citizens from owning firearms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

And I appreciate your child-like credulity whenever the NRA opens its mouth. You want to know what "my" side is? Pragmatism. Gradualism. Moderation. A recognition that nobody has the magic ideology, the perfect formula, the silver bullet of freedom that makes everything sing with joy.

Universal background checks were politically and practically feasible, unlike the AWB ban, unlike LaPierre's fantasy of armed guards in every school. It was solid middle ground, broadly supported by the public and NRA members. The politicians you support aren't even able to articulate why they shot it down—your froth about how the Senate bill wasn't quite perfect, could not possibly be fixed, and therefore had to be killed (or was forced to die by the wicked, inflexible GUN GRABBERS), man, I'm only hearing that from you. Maybe I need to spend more time trolling the Freeper forums to hear this rhetoric.

The House is not going to introduce a UBC bill, and you know it. The only challenge House Repubs fear is from the right in their gerrymandered districts. They have ZERO reason to introduce a moderate, practical bill. And you appear to be hallucinating from the fumes of talking points you inhaled too quickly.

---

On your second attempt to insult me personally - that I am a child-like, fume inhaling, hallucinating, idiot. All words which you have used to describe me directly here. I have not used these types of words with you, instead using words like "sanctimonious".
Also.
You imply that I was personally against the Toomy-Manchin compromise. False. I've posted my support of it on this very forum in this very thread days before the vote. I challenge you to find evidence to the contrary.
You imply that I am against background checks. False. I am in favor of them and have said so multiple times in multiple venues to which you have access for months now.

My disagreements with the Manchin-Toomey bill were not sufficient to end my support of the compromise or the bill including the compromise. I supported the bill in this very thread days prior to the vote.

In the end, the balance of my allies on this issue did not feel as though it adequately protected the rights of citizens (Not all of my allies rejected it; ie Collins, King, Donelly, McCain, Manchin, Toomey, etc) I can see the logic in this suggestion after reading the bill language, although I disagreed and would have prefered passage.

I am sure that I've personally insulted you in the past, but not in this thread. My position on these issues is unashamedly extreme, but more often than not "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice". My type of extremism accepts compromise and discusses issues with opponents.
Do I mourn the failure of this bill? No. Did I cheerlead its total failure? No.

You make me sound like al-qaeda.

What you don't seem to realize is that ICSD is himself a fundamentalist of the most extreme and fanatical sort, so of course he will support moderate measures only grudgingly and with a sneer, of course he'll shake your hand over compromise even as he watches like a leering wolf for any opportunity to pull his snub-nosed revolver out of its back-holster and aim...

Are you honestly surprised that, in victory, the villain reveals his true colors, Lemur?

Hitler widely proclaimed that his intention was to destroy democracy - he accomplished his goal.

ICSD has widely proclaimed that his desire is to see gun-control legislation rolled back to the point where buying a weapon is easier than buying candy, and the entire world is utterly awash with firearms (perhaps to an even greater extent than Syria?). It is your job to fight him at every step, Lemur. Complacency and forbearance are just the traits this pit-dog has got his eye out for. Be prepared to defend yourself and your ideals, or he'll tear you apart.