Colorado passes Gun Control Laws

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

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.

---

The Hitler comparison, the "fundamentalist of the most extreme sort". This one has it all. I've made my intentions extremely clear here.

I support background checks for all sales (degree here is the question)
I support no small arms limit on the types of firearms that an individual who passes a background check can own.
I am in favor of "shall-issue" permit for carry handgun owners
I am amenable to "shall-issue" permitting for owners of more theoretically dangerous firearms (ie, selective-fire, high capacity semi-auto)
I am opposed to registration of firearms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

Background checks are a good idea, Period.

---

And yet you have aligned yourself with (and credulously repeat the talking points of) people who are dead set against those checks. Your behavior is interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

insult me personally - that I am a child-like, fume inhaling, hallucinating, idiot.

---

I said your "credulousnesss" was child-like; it is. The word idiot was in the context of Stalin's notion of a useful idiot—meaning someone who believes the surface rhetoric of a movement that has no morals, such as Stalinism or, say, the NRA. You claim to utterly and completely accept the surface rhetoric of the NRA, which makes you appear to be, yes, a "useful idiot."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

the balance of my allies on this issue

---

You have no "allies" on this issue; you're either the catamite or the pimp, and I don't see you pimping.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

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 is no villain, and references to Hitler are always boring, unless, you know, you're talking about 1930s–1940s Europe. Here's the thing about Hitler references: they're boring no matter who uses them.

ICSD is a true believer, relishing in the defeat of moderation. Paradoxically, declaring that that this compromise could have worked, but not in its current form. As if his "allies" will permit any other form.

True believers are many unpleasant things, but they aren't villains as such.

But I suppose for pragmatists and moderates, true believers are the real enemy, whether they be left, right, or loony. There's nothing like an idealist with the One Holy Truth (whatever its formulation) to do damage. And then pat themselves on the back for their wondrous accomplishment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

You have no "allies" on this issue; you're either the catamite or the pimp, and I don't see you pimping.

---

So, which one are you?

We're damned if we do or don't. Refuse to join the populist "anything must be done" horde trumpeted to arms by the news media and you are sheeple. Join them? sheeple. Join them here but not there? sheeple.

We have to create some solidarity, otherwise we are adrift and vulnerable to bigger lobby groups. My solidarity is with the gun rights groups, your is with the "extreme ideological moderates" who seek moderation as an ideological imperative, damned the issue.

The real summary is that our side benefits from status quo in the a hostile environment created by the tragedy. Your side didn't. Neither did the radical gun control side. If you feel like you've gained an electoral mandate for the mid-terms, we'll see how that plays our for you when the time comes. The gun lobby won this major battle because they were engaged and united.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

I've made my intentions extremely clear here.

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Compromise when you have the upper hand, refuse discussions when you don't.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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?

---

Quote:

---

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:

---

Registration is the enemy.

---

Quote:

---

Your opinions affect my rights

---

The Godwin was not at all frivolous. You have the very same attitude. Nor do I err in characterizing you as a "pit-dog".

You don't "want" background checks; you are merely willing to permit them so long as they don't hinder you in gun ownership.

With people like you, one must always be on guard: stand still, and you will take a mile; give an inch, and you will take everything.

Lemur, ICSD is indeed one of the "pimps". I warned you against taking him for a patsy: he's not. He's a canny zealot and he's well-aware of the strings available for him to pull. Such a one inevitably accrues an ever-greater amount of clout to himself.

For now, it's merely gun control - not honestly an issue whose outcome is crucial to society. Can you imagine the same antagonistic, ruthless, zero-sum perspective applied to the quest for political power itself? You don't have to - it's happened before. :brood:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

You don't "want" background checks; you are merely willing to permit them so long as they don't hinder you in gun ownership.

---

Correct. I wouldn't fight for them beyond for ffl's, because I don't believe the loophole is as big as people suggest or in any way important to preventing these things. I would use it as currency in the event that I was attempting to further gun rights as the gun control crowd suggests that it holds some value to them in negotiation. There was no sense in giving it to them now when there was no benefit to do so. We will offer it up in order to get something that we want. In this situation, the gun control crowd was greedy. They thought that they could ride the tragedy on popular opinion and succeed without concession on the issue. They failed and left with the consolation prize that they *might have a new issue to fight us with at the midterms...

This was a victory to us because it showed that this country has become highly skeptical of gun control. Even a Democratic Senate couldn't pass a bill after the most awful imaginable gun crime had taken place. This bodes well for us in future ideological combat. If we begin to suffer at the polls over this, voila, we put reform up for a vote on the House floor on our terms. If needed, we can offer expanded background checks to shift voter perception of our reasonability.

Edit: just to be clear, I wholeheartedly support some ability to determine whether someone is capable of safe and lawful firearms ownership, beyond merely tolerating it I encourage it. The NICS check is a great tool and I think it is run well. I also encourage tough penalties for straw purchases and fines or incarceration for those who knowingly or negligently sell or gift to individuals who threaten the public peace.

I think this idea is brilliant.

Federal background checks could be done by the buyer on their own computer's web connection. They would generate a keycode which would last in the system for 30 days. They could take a printout, like a boarding pass, to any seller who would double check it against their drivers license. The seller could confirm the keycode on his own web connection. If there were any problems within 30 days, a record would be available for confirmation.

This would extend the record keeping time period which would satisfy many on the left and it would eliminate the need for an ffl, buyer or seller to keep the physical record (which wont pass the house, didn't pass the democratic senate) which would satisfy us on the right. It would eliminate the debacle being experienced in NY where ffl's are refusing to transfer for the maximum $10 because of the record requirement and liability. Every single sale or gift would be required to have a key-code, unless in immediate family. I would support this.

Anyone who wants a NICS check to be done on EVERYONE to make unlawful buyers have a hard time will like this.
If you merely hate guns and want to make it harder on law abiding citizens, you might not like this - but you are unlikely to have success on this issue so take what you can get. We would have countless more background checks on EVERY sale and everyone could back it.

You say victory, I say quagmire.

The inability for a government of the people for the people to come up with a solution shows too much special interest groups and too little interest in the individual.

Just remember it a special interest group can swing it one way then another group can swing it back the other way. It can swing header and faster with a super PAC. Hardly equal votes on head count, just wallet. So if the money changes sides so will the votes.

Who says victory? I'm still fighting. We take victories where we can get them. I'd love to re-litigate this right now. In fact, in 2 months I'd like the house to start a base bill including the Coburn NICs expansion, the ToomeyManchin compromise, and ccw reciprocity. Let's do it

How about the coburn plan plus concealed carry reciprocity. That would pass both houses. Let's do that. 3 page bill, it wouldnt trigger a filibuster by the GOP, done

I noticed this on the BBC, thought it might be of interest to the American orgahs.

Defence Distributed fire first gun made from 3D printer parts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I noticed this on the BBC, thought it might be of interest to the American orgahs.

Defence Distributed fire first gun made from 3D printer parts

---

What a clown that fella is "Oh nooooo it's about liberty" will ye go away with that will ye tis about cash in the claw an nothing more

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

What a clown that fella is "Oh nooooo it's about liberty" will ye go away with that will ye tis about cash in the claw an nothing more

---

Who knows, maybe it will mean different things to different people.

Speaking of money driving production... this is kind of off topic, but I wonder if technological developments like this could herald a revolution in materialism. 3D printers mean that material wealth can be created out of effectively nothing. Or, at least, a negligible production process that is infinitely repeatable at no extra cost, with a negligible amount of material.

When that's possible, it would surely mean that people could live in a world of material abundance?

When that happens, human nature being what it is I don't doubt value will still be assigned to things. But the emphasis will shift dramatically. Traditionally, things have generally been valued on their use value* - how far the product serves their needs.

If people can easily satisfy their material needs, then the value of products will be determined solely by their social value - and by that I mean not just things like status, but how people use products to express and relate themselves within society.

It will be a strange world, where people no longer identify through their work, family and community - in other words, their natural human relations. Instead, in a world where these things have been made redundant, they identify and relate through their material possessions.

For me, it is the ultimate expression of consumerism. Having been freed from material constraints, it reaches its terrifying conclusion. As natural relations like family and community are broken, natural boundaries like gender and culture are blurred. It is the ultimate form of alienation - with social structures having failed to express our humanity (our 'Gattungswesen' as one philosopher once termed it), instead they shape it artificially and transform it into something unnatural.

It is a strange and dystopian world. Where an individual is less a father, or brother, or farmer, or labourer, or Christian, or Muslim, or Scot, or a local - but rather an emo, a hipster, a Belieber, a 'gangsta', a punk, a chav, or whatever. A world where a large number of pictures from drunken nights out on your Facebook page is deemed a better indicator of your social success than a Master's Degree. Where your identification with mass-produced music labels is seen as an expression of your individuality - the triumph of mass, trash culture.

It is the replacement of work life, of family life, of community life, of national life, with just one new form of expression, of social existence - consumer life.

We're already half way there, but technology like the above could complete the leap.

*I'm not using that term in the Marxist sense here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Lovely sentiments Rhyf but it'll never happen. How do the currently empowered benefit over others from your scenario?

---

Just to check, by lovely sentiments, do you mean you like future I described, or do you agree with the issue that I took with it?

As for the currently empowered, how they feel about it is only relevant if they can actually control the technology. It would certainly be difficult - if all we needed for a product was to download the design and stick it on the home 3d printer, how do they control the downloads? The music industry never had much joy, it would take an unprecedented crackdown.

Facebook status is not a measure of success, it is a indicator of how much bread you got at the circus.

As for 3D printing it is about being self creators, ability to make things, ability to choose designs from around the world. You can fast prototype at home and then mass produce over the web. It is the new printing press.

I imagine that it will be extremely easy to regulate inputs...

:inquisitive:

To quote a physics text: "Ain't nothin' free baby"

From another perspective, if it can't be monetized its almost as if it will cease to exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Who knows, maybe it will mean different things to different people.

Speaking of money driving production... this is kind of off topic, but I wonder if technological developments like this could herald a revolution in materialism. 3D printers mean that material wealth can be created out of effectively nothing. Or, at least, a negligible production process that is infinitely repeatable at no extra cost, with a negligible amount of material.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

When that's possible, it would surely mean that people could live in a world of material abundance?

When that happens, human nature being what it is I don't doubt value will still be assigned to things. But the emphasis will shift dramatically. Traditionally, things have generally been valued on their use value* - how far the product serves their needs.

If people can easily satisfy their material needs, then the value of products will be determined solely by their social value - and by that I mean not just things like status, but how people use products to express and relate themselves within society.

It will be a strange world, where people no longer identify through their work, family and community - in other words, their natural human relations. Instead, in a world where these things have been made redundant, they identify and relate through their material possessions.

For me, it is the ultimate expression of consumerism. Having been freed from material constraints, it reaches its terrifying conclusion. As natural relations like family and community are broken, natural boundaries like gender and culture are blurred. It is the ultimate form of alienation - with social structures having failed to express our humanity (our 'Gattungswesen' as one philosopher once termed it), instead they shape it artificially and transform it into something unnatural.

It is a strange and dystopian world. Where an individual is less a father, or brother, or farmer, or labourer, or Christian, or Muslim, or Scot, or a local - but rather an emo, a hipster, a Belieber, a 'gangsta', a punk, a chav, or whatever. A world where a large number of pictures from drunken nights out on your Facebook page is deemed a better indicator of your social success than a Master's Degree. Where your identification with mass-produced music labels is seen as an expression of your individuality - the triumph of mass, trash culture.

It is the replacement of work life, of family life, of community life, of national life, with just one new form of expression, of social existence - consumer life.

We're already half way there, but technology like the above could complete the leap.

*I'm not using that term in the Marxist sense here

---

I'm guessing such a world might be more flat than pyramidal, and fads and fashions are as old as the hills so I wouldn't worry there.

Such a place would be more like some of our earliest neolithic societies possibly even hunter gatherer.

We differentiate ourselves within the group by putting a chicken bone through our nose or or we replicate a cool new handheld gaming system( we have seen all this before).

3D printers and other CNC devices already are montonized and used in mass production.

What is happening is the equivalent of home laser printers with commercial printing presses already in place.

On top of this you can order via the web commerical 3D printing to use in manufacturing.

Here is a link about bicycle parts and how it's reduced time to market, reduced costs and is far greener (less material wasted and energy used).

http://www.3d-printers.com.au/2013/0...d-printed-hub/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

By lovely sentiments I meant that I think your extreme extrapolation of the consequences was neat. I don't agree with them, though--in fact, I take the opposite approach: If every household can produce whatever it wants in small quantities (bound only by resources or cash flow) then the middle-class is transformed into something that once again makes things. Perhaps a return of cottage industry, with a modern format?

Ultimately though, 3-D printers are like weed, cars that run on water, or powering cities with exotic forms of natural energy. If you can't monopolize it, it ain't gonna get too big. :shrug:

---

you might not monetise it at present but that doesn't mean they cant be monetised eventually. (except 3d printers themselves are monetised)

the original steam engine couldn't be monetised until we figured it could drain water from coal mines, later we figured out it had other uses like trains, ships and so on and so on.

Also monetisation is not the primary driver IF all needs can be met

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Right. I'm talking about the notion of every household being able to make whatever they want. It won't happen the way Rhyf fears, for good or ill. Cash-flow will always influence what a family can or can't make, and even in a society where every home was making something there would still be a division of labor. Certain families would make certain things for certain people and so forth. It wouldn't even need to be organized, it would just happen.

And more importantly, the government will severely restrict what can be made at home sooner or later. The laws that do the restricting will probably be influenced by lobbyists from the industries being threatened, rather than by the minds of the people voting on the law. So.. here in the USA, at least, I don't see much changing any time soon.

---

Well we won't know for certain until we know more of the particulars about the technology, but I certainly think that you are underestimating the social and economic impact it could have.

Pape brought up the printing press and noted its revolutionary role - now, consider the impact that just a handful of these across Europe has, and then consider that we are talking about having such a revolutionary device in potentially every household! As technology grows, its social impact seems to have a exponential, rather than a linear relationship.

You say it will be like the cottage industry and that there will be a division of labour - but that really is dependent on these printers being quite limited. What if downloading a print plan takes moments? What if you can programme it to print all the pieces for one product in order, leaving them ready for you to assemble? For all I know they might already do that.

And like gaelic cowboy said, "monetisation is not the primary driver IF all needs can be met". For the technology to be financially exploited, it would have to be rigidly controlled, and what would be the point anyway if it provides endless material wealth? All anybody would need is their little printer and that can have all the material goods they desire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

[/SPOIL]

I'm guessing such a world might be more flat than pyramidal, and fads and fashions are as old as the hills so I wouldn't worry there.

Such a place would be more like some of our earliest neolithic societies possibly even hunter gatherer.

We differentiate ourselves within the group by putting a chicken bone through our nose or or we replicate a cool new handheld gaming system( we have seen all this before).

---

It's nice when somebody can engage with my ramblings! :laugh4:

I see where you are coming from, but I think there would be some important differences in my case from your comparison. What you described is a pre-materialist society - where the production of material goods was so small that these goods remained expressions of natural human relations (eg, I'm from x family so I have a chicken bone through my face, or whatever).

In my dystopia, it's a post-materialist world - it is post-materialist in the sense that in the absence of any other social relations, materialism and material goods are no longer something distinct from the society that they exist in - materialism ceases to be the phenomena it once was. Material wealth is so abundant that it has no value as material wealth - it is just a form of social expression. But rather than expressing natural social relations as in the pre-materialist society, material goods form the actual basis of social relations. Like I said earlier, people will not identify by community or faith etc, but by the mass culture that they buy and reflect in their material possessions. Whether it's their clothes, or their CD's, what they collect, or whatever.

A strange and scary world...

Also, I should note that I came up with the terms pre or post materialism by myself, maybe other people use them for what might be other meanings, but that is coincidental. I'm not meaning to identify with them.

Quote:

---

All anybody would need is their little printer and that can have all the material goods they desire.

---

As I said, you can't just make stuff out of thin air.

Material inputs can be controlled at every stage. You don't even need to emplace any new systems, just extend whatever exists today for the raw-material supply-chain.

Also, these devices are inherently more complex than either paper-printers or printing presses. I doubt a large proportion of the population will quickly learn how to maintain the devices. And replacement surely can't be as easy as with, say, a $50 inkjet. If a commercial model is developed that is both large enough to print a wide variety of whole objects or modules, and small enough to fit within a typical garage or shack, it likely will never cost less than whatever the equivalent worth of your average car today is.

Let's be honest: outside of large-scale manufacturing, 3D-printing will have little direct impact besides permitting hobbyists to print plastic trinkets. A very few will be using them to build up customized vehicles for fun. No one will printing advanced electronics in their homes. No one will be printing organs or animals outside specialized institutions.

If we're looking out for socially revolutionary technologies, then neurocosmetic surgery and omnipresent surveillance systems backed by powerful computer algorithms are better candidates.

You can right now order online mass produced versions of home made fast prototypes.

For sure, most people will end up using it for replacing missing monopoly pieces. The raw material is expensive... Still less per gram then printer ink.

Materials aren't limited to plastic, you can order items in wood and metal or use a CNC quilt maker for a wool made item.

The home maker versions have dropped rapidly in cost and are getting much easier to assemble... some require as much assembly as an inkjet. Most are priced in the $2k to $4k range for home users.

The big thing is the ability to take a home CAD drawing and then put that into a commerical operation.

Sure a country can decide to stop the home maker revolution. It happens all the time... But the competive advantage will be with the countries that embrace this... Some country will get the new Silicon Valley another will be North Korea with the rest somewhere in the middle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

In my dystopia, it's a post-materialist world - it is post-materialist in the sense that in the absence of any other social relations, materialism and material goods are no longer something distinct from the society that they exist in - materialism ceases to be the phenomena it once was. Material wealth is so abundant that it has no value as material wealth - it is just a form of social expression. But rather than expressing natural social relations as in the pre-materialist society, material goods form the actual basis of social relations. Like I said earlier, people will not identify by community or faith etc, but by the mass culture that they buy and reflect in their material possessions. Whether it's their clothes, or their CD's, what they collect, or whatever.

A strange and scary world...

Also, I should note that I came up with the terms pre or post materialism by myself, maybe other people use them for what might be other meanings, but that is coincidental. I'm not meaning to identify with them.

---

I'm curious on how you come to that conclusion. The abundance of material goods will increase the value of non-printed products and non-material things, aka much as it is today. Retail will be hit hard in the west, but most consumer items are already produced in another country (like China).

The big expenses are housing and eating. Those doesn't disappear do they? So the need for work will stay, the excess money will be expressed in exclusive items, travels and "experiences" (like today). I can see it driving towards "worker redundancy" where normal employment will be less than the number of workers, but there's a lot of factors involved there.

It's not going to get rid of economies of scale or mass production.

It is going to open up mass production to more people. Shorten the speed to market.

Essentially as think of the ease with which a web page can be updated, so can 3D printing and its ilk.

However do not mistake 3D printing from removing factories anymore then home printers removed industrial printers. Nor think that everyone will become an artisan maker anymore then laser printers made everyone a published author.

It will level the playing field and allow smaller more dynamic outfits to get their designs out there. They still will use mass manufacturing... But it won't rely on their direct capital, it will be a pay per item model.

Pffft! why not just scan your trinkets?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/st...atterform.html

The death of Freedom?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/st...crackdown.html

ITAR rears it's ugly head. Pretty ridiculous, but them's the rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITAR" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">ITAR</a> rears it's ugly head. Pretty ridiculous, but them's the rules.

---

We are being blocked from accessing information that we are legally entitled to because people around the world are not free. This is a bad omen, but we will begin fighting back harder. The government has decided to make their response a clumsy and rights abusing one. Our position will gain more traction than it had before.

International Isps who don't believe in freedom should block access to these sites, our government should not block American Citizens access to information which we are legally entitled to ESPECIALLY for the crappy rationale that "other people arent free to access, so our freedom should be curtailed"

Imagine how else this line of reasoning could be used against us. In the end, the files have been downloaded hundreds of thousands of times in a matter of days and have now entered into the realm of the indominable common use around the world. They have been endlessly torrent seeded and will now exist on the global black market. Americans can still access the files legally, but new development will be curtailed, at least by defense distributed. And as 3d printers become diffuse we will see these guns pop up left and right

ICSD, it would be a lot easier to take your arguments seriously if you hadn't been celebrating the filibuster of the background check bill.

Your credibility on this subject, outside of the self-selecting circle of NRA true believers, took a major hit from that.

On the face of it, sounds like the government was faced with a weird new situation and responded stupidly. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT HAS EVAR HAPPENED.

You might want to look at the case law surrounding cell cameras and police, as a parallel example. The guvmint always responds stupidly to a new technology that potentially threatens or limits their power. Then the courts come in and knock the executive back a bit. It's a process. It takes a while. Your NRA-style panic-hyperventilation does absolutely nothing to move the process along.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

We are being blocked from accessing information that we are legally entitled to because people around the world are not free. This is a bad omen, but we will begin fighting back harder. The government has decided to make their response a clumsy and rights abusing one. Our position will gain more traction than it had before.

---

Not really sure you understand how ITAR works. These are firearms (cheap POS's but still), which fall under the US Munitions List section of ITAR. If Defense Distributed wants to legally publish the printer files, they need to make sure downloads are limited to US IPs. If they want to publish to the rest of the world, they need to open a site in another country, and maybe form a non-US corporation to run it. Or, just maybe, get State Department approval before putting it out there.

ITAR is not about treaties or appeasing the commie pinko Euro gun-grabbers. ITAR is all about keeping weapons tech inside the US. Giving or selling military tech to other countries is controlled by the State Dept.

Now nobody will ever be able to get those plans! Oh, wait, this is the internet we're talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Not Monetized, Monopolized.

---

is monopoly not inherently all about monetisation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

ICSD, it would be a lot easier to take your arguments seriously if you hadn't been celebrating the filibuster of the background check bill.

Your credibility on this subject, outside of the self-selecting circle of NRA true believers, took a major hit from that.

---

Try attacking the idea rather than the man. My credibility as a human being on every issue is now in question because I successfully opposed something you thought was an ok idea? Why don't you just marry expanded background checks if you love them so much?

You are better than ad hominem attacks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Not really sure you understand how ITAR works. These are firearms (cheap POS's but still), which fall under the US Munitions List section of ITAR. If Defense Distributed wants to legally publish the printer files, they need to make sure downloads are limited to US IPs. If they want to publish to the rest of the world, they need to open a site in another country, and maybe form a non-US corporation to run it. Or, just maybe, get State Department approval before putting it out there.

ITAR is not about treaties or appeasing the commie pinko Euro gun-grabbers. ITAR is all about keeping weapons tech inside the US. Giving or selling military tech to other countries is controlled by the State Dept.

---

The law may say those things, I get that the government may be legally entitled to do this, but I disagree that this line of thinking has a future in the modern world that is digitally interconnected. Proof Pudding is the fact that their review will not stop rapid dissemination of the files around the globe.

Let me get this straight - you guys are defending a dated, speech hampering, ITAR, that has been proven to be ineffective due to the technical realities of the day - just so you can tell yourselves that supporters of the technology have egg on their faces?

Good job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Your credibility on this subject

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

My credibility as a human being on every issue

---

Misquoting to achieve an aggrieved (but false) cry of ad hominem is beneath you.

Your credibility on this subject is shot, in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Misquoting to achieve an aggrieved (but false) cry of ad hominem is beneath you.

Your credibility on this subject is shot, in my opinion.

---

Have I ever lied to you about something on this issue?
Did I not correct my assertions on 2 separate occasions when proven incorrect? (refresher -my post about Obama's statement that he never made, and my expectation that the AWB/mag ban would pass this Senate)
Do I support the basic idea of expanding background checks to all sales?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

Do I support the basic idea of expanding background checks to all sales?

---

And yet you gloated and chest-thumped when it was defeated. Revealing, no? Tell me again how "your" side will "reintroduce" the bill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Misquoting to achieve an aggrieved (but false) cry of ad hominem is beneath you.

---

It is also very confusing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

And yet you gloated and chest-thumped when it was defeated. Revealing, no? Tell me again how "your" side will "reintroduce" the bill.

---

I challenge you to find an issue that I had credibility on in the first place before I get upset about losing the respect people never had for my political opinions.

The reality is that you value moderation. Because you feel that no moderation was had, you feel that an injustice has been done. Even though the checks had nothing to do with New town, even though violence has decreased dramatically in at least a correlative relationship with a dramatic increase in guns owned.

As we have stated, I don't live in the Midwest or have the luxury of not knowing what life is like in the enlightened northeast these days. There is no moderation in forcing me to have 7 rounds in my previously mandated 10 round mags. Or in requiring me to drive 50 miles and take time out of work over a period of 3 days in order to buy a handgun... Every time you buy one - after already going through a face to face background check which renews every 5 years. Or in forcing you to take the most modular modern rifle and butcher it in order to make it state legal.

BTW, this isn't the end. The Democrats in NY wanted 5 round mag limits. The "compromise" was 7.... Last time the compromise was 10. They'll keep pushing until it is one. One round, one gun. Then it will be none. These laws are stupid and have become dangerous. I don't believe that they help the issue at hand, but I do believe that they help democrats whittle away at our second amendment rights. Nipple-twists just to hurt their enemies. This is how people work when they hate each other, and they hate us. Especially because we have been beating them on this issue, both numerically and logically. They will use their laws to persecute us, to harass us and to make our lives more difficult if we let them. That's what they do where I live. That's probably what Republicans do to democrats where they are in the majority. How much "moderation" should I have to accept in NY? We've got background checks for all sales in NY already.

Should the background bill have failed? probably not, because background checks are not infringements, but if it ends up helping democrats at the midterms I wont be surprised that it failed. They had the opportunity to make it work and didn't want to because they thought they'd get more currency out of letting it fail as it was then coming to an agreement and having it affect crime in no way.

BTW, I celebrated the defeat of the democrats on that bill, I thought that the 3 parts that I could live with would pass. I would like to see checks expanded to all sales. The only reason that they wont pass is because you won't go the extra length to get the agreement. Remember, this is what you guys think will work to cut down crime. We think it's short-sighted but might not hurt if done correctly. You come to us on the re-hash of this issue or don't be surprised if it fails again

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

ITAR is obviously being used to prohibit something for political reasons, which is a double-dose of insulting because 1.) Its never cool to take a law out of context because you need a knee-jerk reaction to something, and 2.) The domestic problems of other nations are their own problems. The way ITAR has been used here can only be considered a restriction of the American citizen's ability to buy and sell an American product on the behalf of... people who aren't American. That's not cool either.

---

This is a good read of the situation. It carries over for other speech/property issues, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

The government can't even balance its checkbook, so what is it doing by wasting energy playing dirty politics?

---

I thought the whole austerity thing was proven wrong due to an Excel sheet error.
Look how Europe is turning into a post-apocalyptic wasteland by trying to balance the checkbooks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Who said anything about Austerity? That's just a political shakedown scheme. Really fixing the economy would require a measured discussion, not scaremongering.

---

The whole point of austerity is to balance the checkbooks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In economics, austerity describes policies used by governments to reduce budget deficits during adverse economic conditions. These policies can include spending cuts, tax increases, or a mixture of the two.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austerity

You cannot balance the checkbook by only talking about it, you have to adjust income and spending. The whole scaremongering part is usually performed by the investors who run away screaming once a country can't pay back its debt anymore. A measured discussion is also a pipe dream when you have hundreds of special interest groups who will fire torpedoes at any discussion regarding their special interest. It always ends up in torpedo valley.

As for the whole gun thing, there's fewer special interest groups but it's already just as hopeless. And even the winning side isn't happy as long as they haven't shot their opposition so deep into the ground that they can even arm toddlers and dogs it seems. Because you know it's a slippery slope, today you allow gays to carry guns and tomorrow they'll want guns for their dogs and goats. :stare:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

As for the whole gun thing, there's fewer special interest groups but it's already just as hopeless. And even the winning side isn't happy as long as they haven't shot their opposition so deep into the ground that they can even arm toddlers and dogs it seems. Because you know it's a slippery slope, today you allow gays to carry guns and tomorrow they'll want guns for their dogs and goats. :stare:

---

This is a problem. We've forgotten how to compromise. Today, it sounds like compromise when you get 5 opposition Senators to sign on to your bill. That is a vote, not a compromise. A compromise entails one group winning some, losing some for their idea of what will sove a percieved problem. Then, the other side wins some and loses some for their idea of what will solve a related percieved problem. This is required in todays government and that is a good thing.

To me, a flat bill would include a requirement that all sales undergo an easy to obtain federal background check. The end. This could be spot checked and you can be slapped with jail time or a fine if you are caught breaking this law. This is not an infringement. Instead, Democrats wanted to increase record keeping requirements and create an early draft of a gun registry which would include every gun sold on a 40 year delay (when FFL's retire or close down they must submit all records to the ATF). Equally intense, Republicans were pushing for concealled carry reciprocity on top of it.

If we keep it simple, without a record keeping requirement we will most likely pass it. This will be good for everyone - it is litterally a win/win. This is a compromise, and only Tom Coburn could see it. We should all be ashamed, if there is shame going around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

Trecord keeping requirements and create an early draft of a gun registry which would include every gun sold

---

Factually untrue, unprovable, without documentation of any sort, slippery slope fallacy, and (not surprisingly) take straight from the NRA talking points.

But hey, don't let that stop you.

Gun store owners claim that ATF agents will occasionally copy their records on inspection. Additionally, if the ATF is collecting ALL personal records upon store closure or license revocation, what do they do with our records?

Also - you are going to give us a promise that no Registry will be made? Didn't we already have that in the 1986 bill?

What about "out of business records"? where do those go? If FFL's are required to record ALL sales, professional or private; personal records will exist for ALL sales. There will be a record of every sale with personal information to EVERY owner of a firearm that the ATF has access to at all times and regularly makes copies of improperly.

The reality is that we supposedly have a ban on a registry already (which is ignored with impunity), offering us what we already have is a BS compromise and is meant to fool those who are not aware of it.

Based on my understanding, you are either knowingly or unknowingly mis-representing truth on this issue.

Quote:

---

Gun store owners claim that ATF agents will occasionally copy their records on inspection. Additionally, if the ATF is collecting ALL personal records upon store closure or license revocation, what do they do with our records?

---

Going to need a source

Wait, has the ATF been revived? Because last I heard the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms was so declawed they didn't even have a director. If so I doubt they do anything with your records more than use them to collect dust.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Going to need a source

---

http://twg2a.wordpress.com/2013/02/2...of-4473-forms/

check appendix

The main concern beyond dated record collection is 4473 record copies outside of specific criminal investigation with subpoena. Could it be overstated? absolutely. Could it be an outright lie on the part of gun groups? I hope so.

Also, I'm pretty sure that many States keep gun records. Handgun permits in my state require addition to your file of the specifics of each handgun (and now "assault rifle") that you own. I don't know what you think that they dio with them.

Which one Tuff?

The alaskan one.

Which Roman numeral?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Which Roman numeral?

---

Read I-VI. II is one of the specific ones.

Also and again: Concern over defacto registration of firearms is not sufficient in my mind to block "background checks" on all sales. Again, I am in favor of background checks on all sales, even though I don't believe it will do much to reduce crime (but because it will have some positive effect on crime with only a minimal and even positive effect on sellers and buyers, I am for it). It does not mean that I'm an idiot that I am reticent about the reality that BATFE wants these records and has regular access to them. Do I believe that warrantless abuses have happened at certain times? Yes. Do I want to believe that this is an exception? Yes. Either way, they want the info and I don't want them to have it, so any agreement on background checks should do the most to make sure that they don't have access, IMO while at the same time requiring that anyone selling a firearm anywhere does not do so without running a background check

Why is a gun registry a huge problem? What happens when you get a license plate for your car? Do they give you a random plate so you can't be traced? What about the serial number engraved in the chassis of your car? The serial number of your computer parts? Why is it okay these things are on record but oh noes, god beware someone knows you own a gun? 90% are probably going to post about their nice new "toy" somewhere on the internet anyway. ~;)

The Ammoland source offered no proof. The article offered no proof. Not an interview, not nothing.

Then I saw these buzzwords

"footsolider in the Reagan revolution"
"Martin Christian Minstires"
"Americas dark hour"

Another self absorbed baby boomer bloging on word press

There is enough terrible stuff going on that we don't need to make up demons.

Mass literacy will be the death of discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Why is a gun registry a huge problem?

---

It's a slippery slope thing (technically non causa pro causa, if anyone cares), which is what most NRA rhetoric is based upon.

There is nothing unconstitutional about a gun registry; indeed, of the first three words of the Second Amendment, two are "well-ordered," which would seem to cover things like registries and drills and so forth. However, Second Amendment absolutists believe that a registry could lead to confiscation some day. Based on this hypothetical, they're rabidly anti-registry, and nobody in the mainstream is much inclined to challenge this non sequitur (literally "it does not follow").

What ICSD is painting as an inevitable reality is in fact a slippery slope leading to a different slippery slope. Background checks could (in theory) lead to a registry, which could (in theory) lead to confiscation. So you need not one but two hypothetical acts of dictatorship to make the Barackalypse occur.

What's particularly deceitful about this NRA talking point is that the background check bill, as initially written, made it a Federal crime to create a registry. So ICSD and the other NRA hysterics are objecting to a hypothetical of a hypothetical that would require breaking the law they object to.

Does this seem irrational and insane? That's because it is. Toss moderation, reason, game theory, and common sense out the window. Also toss evidence, history, and empiricism. Just take a long, deep bath in paranoid hypotheticals, watch a little Glenn Beck, and suddenly it all makes sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

It's a slippery slope thing (technically non causa pro causa, if anyone cares), which is what most NRA rhetoric is based upon.

There is nothing unconstitutional about a gun registry; indeed, of the first three words of the Second Amendment, two are "well-ordered," which would seem to cover things like registries and drills and so forth. However, Second Amendment absolutists believe that a registry could lead to confiscation some day. Based on this hypothetical, they're rabidly anti-registry, and nobody in the mainstream is much inclined to challenge this non sequitur (literally "it does not follow").

What ICSD is painting as an inevitable reality is in fact a slippery slope leading to a different slippery slope. Background checks could (in theory) lead to a registry, which could (in theory) lead to confiscation. So you need not one but two hypothetical acts of dictatorship to make the Barackalypse occur.

What's particularly deceitful about this NRA talking point is that the background check bill, as initially written, made it a Federal crime to create a registry. So ICSD and the other NRA hysterics are objecting to a hypothetical of a hypothetical that would require breaking the law they object to.

Does this seem irrational and insane? That's because it is. Toss moderation, reason, game theory, and common sense out the window. Also toss evidence, history, and empiricism. Just take a long, deep bath in paranoid hypotheticals, watch a little Glenn Beck, and suddenly it all makes sense.

---

You guys are guilty of the "'slippery slope fallacy' fallacy" on a regular basis. You maintain that if an argument sounds like an "if A therefore, eventually b", then it is a slippery slope fallacy.

Take Point 1 - many people want a gun registry.
Point 2 - creating a record of every sale to be kept for 20 years CREATES A RECORD OF EVERY SALE over time.
Point 3 - add easily and centrally accessible records to the sometimes popular desire to create a Federal registry and the likelihood of that registry increases. You fallacy comes from the mistaken belief that every analysis which determines that certain outcomes are made more likely is a slippery slop "logical fallacy". This is not the case. The public tends to balk at radical or major changes. They tend to tacitly accept changes that they perceive to be gradual and non-threatening.

Nearly every law ever passed has had the effect of preparing for further expansion or restriction of some agenda. The concept of term limits has this in mind, the concept of balance of power as well. What you call "logical fallacy" many would call cautious foresight with respect to retention of rights. Sometimes I support it (because it works), other times I reject it because I see what they are trying to do. Normalization with the intention of getting past the tendency of an electorate to reject revolutionary change - when you pre-heat an oven most people assume you are going to cook something. ESPECIALLY when you are constantly talking about cooking something

Your over use of this term for emotional effect (nobody likes to be considered illogical) is insulting to your own intellect.

"If A occurs, it therefore makes Z more likely occur, sooner" is not illogical. If I'm not interested in the benefits of A and there is a way to exclude it from legislation while retaining what I do want, I am for that option.

"If I go to college And I get a college degree, Then I will get a good job" - is a slippery slope logical fallacy
"If I go to college And I get a college degree, Then I will most likely increase my chances of getting a good job" - is basic human foresight, used by most on a regular basis.

It sounds like the U.S. administration is just stalling for time. ITAR is apparently not a problem.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22478310

double post

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

"If I go to college And I get a college degree, Then I will get a good job" - is a slippery slope logical fallacy
"If I go to college And I get a college degree, Then I will most likely increase my chances of getting a good job" - is basic human foresight, used by most on a regular basis.

---

Actually, none of these are slippery slope fallacies. A degree is a predictable and logical progression from attending college. A job is a predictable and logical progression after school. These things do, in fact, follow one another without any insult to reason.

The amusing thing about your paranoid fantasies about the background check bill is that you declare a national registry, which is explicitly made illegal, to be the logical conclusion/fear/dread progressing from background checks. Or rather, record-keeping. And you conveniently ignore that a bill passed in the Senate can then be negotiated with the House, and things tend to change a lot. By doing the following:

1. chest-thumping and celebrating the undeomcratic filibuster of a bill supported by the vast majority of the population
2. spinning a ban on a natioaal registry to mean OMG NATIONAL REGISTRY
3. ignoring the normal process of passing a bill in two houses

You demonstrate your fanaticism and extremism on this issue.

Well over 2 million gun sales have been blocked since 1994 due to background checks. That means that some of those 2+ million not only were insane and/or criminal, they were too effing stupid to use one of the obvious loopholes in the background check system. But you airily assert that background checks won't help anyone.

What a load of steaming manure. Hey, you know what? We have laws against murder, and people still get murdered! Let's get rid of those laws too! They only hurt law-abiding citizens who kill people in self-defense. Bad guys will still murder anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Actually, none of these are slippery slope fallacies. A degree is a predictable and logical progression from attending college. A job is a predictable and logical progression after school. These things do, in fact, follow one another without any insult to reason.

The amusing thing about your paranoid fantasies about the background check bill is that you declare a national registry, which is explicitly made illegal, to be the logical conclusion/fear/dread progressing from background checks. Or rather, record-keeping. And you conveniently ignore that a bill passed in the Senate can then be negotiated with the House, and things tend to change a lot. By doing the following:

1. chest-thumping and celebrating the undeomcratic filibuster of a bill supported by the vast majority of the population
2. spinning a ban on a natioaal registry to mean OMG NATIONAL REGISTRY
3. ignoring the normal process of passing a bill in two houses

You demonstrate your fanaticism and extremism on this issue.

Well over 2 million gun sales have been blocked since 1994 due to background checks. That means that some of those 2+ million not only were insane and/or criminal, they were too effing stupid to use one of the obvious loopholes in the background check system. But you airily assert that background checks won't help anyone.

What a load of steaming manure. Hey, you know what? We have laws against murder, and people still get murdered! Let's get rid of those laws too! They only hurt law-abiding citizens who kill people in self-defense. Bad guys will still murder anyway.

---

You call me a fanatic, I agree that I am on the larger gun issue. BUT You consistently tell me that I am against something that I am for. I advised that I backed Manchin-Toomey, even though I still had concerns about the record keeping provisions. When it was defeated, I was celebrating the larger defeat of the AWB and the fact that this current Senate made it look like the crappy idea that it is. I'm not sure of the response that you are demanding of me that is the only "credible" response that I could have. I don't like gun control, I don't think that it particularly well (crazy and terrible people still get they, so the check just stops it from being easy) or that there is any good evidence of it working vs the irritation that it creates for gun owners. This type of gun control ins't that irritating, so I could conceivably support it, not merely abstain from the argument. I have merely been advising that I would like to whittle down the proposal that I reluctantly agreed with to make it a proposal that I could say, "hey, that's not a bad idea" about.

Give me a break with the sanctimonious character attacks. Your harping on my opposition to most gun control is not as reasonable as you think it is. Making emotional character attacks is not appropriate here as I have suggested nor supported anything unethical on this issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

Your harping on my opposition to most gun control is not as reasonable as you think it is.

---

My harping is stylish and inspires envy in others.

Meh, you're a good guy, but on this particular issue your moral compass is not broken; it's absent. And your perspective is warped by living in Bloomberg's fiefdom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

My harping is stylish and inspires envy in others.

Meh, you're a good guy, but on this particular issue your moral compass is not broken; it's absent. And your perspective is warped by living in Bloomberg's fiefdom.

---

Oh, it most certainly is "warped". My point is that this is what he wants for everyone - warped? maybe. your future? maybe. Be careful who you think is being reasonable. I'm the guy who is for background checks on all sales, Bloomberg is the guy who thinks that if you own a knife that's over 4 inches you are a war criminal.

I still don't know why you are bringing ethics into this. Your ethics on this subject are different from mine, that doesn't mean that mine are absent. I feel like I'm fighting for something that I believe in and not backing down in the face of difficulty. I'm going to marches and not starting physical altercations at any point during my day. I'm correcting my errors publicly when called out and backing up those who back me up. I'm also giving credit to the opposition where it is due.

I support ethical the ethical use of firearms. I believe that banning them, confiscating lawfully used firearms, or limiting them beneath common use is unethical. Likewise, stealing or killing with them is unethical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

crazy and terrible people still get [guns], so the check just stops it from being easy

---

This is your response to 2+ million gun purchases prevented by background checks. You obviously have no experience of law enforcement, no friends in law enforcement, no relatives in law enforcement, and no real interest in law enforcement. The willful ignorance of glassing over the prevention of criminals and madmen from easily obtaining guns is ... jaw-dropping. Hence this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

I still don't know why you are bringing ethics into this.

---

Because taking rational steps to make it harder for criminals and the insane to easily lay hands on weapons is ethical, in every sense of the word. Ignoring the real-world effects of your actions is unethical, in every sense of the word. Not sure how to make that any plainer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

This is your response to 2+ million gun purchases prevented by background checks. You obviously have no experience of law enforcement, no friends in law enforcement, no relatives in law enforcement, and no real interest in law enforcement. The willful ignorance of glassing over the prevention of criminals and madmen from easily obtaining guns is ... jaw-dropping. Hence this:


Because taking rational steps to make it harder for criminals and the insane to easily lay hands on weapons is ethical, in every sense of the word. Ignoring the real-world effects of your actions is unethical, in every sense of the word. Not sure how to make that any plainer.

---

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ocon/guns.html

It would be one thing if background checks registered in a breakdown of how criminals acquire firearms. They come into possession of firearms not by buying them legally, but through illegal means. Straw purchases (using background checks) are already illegal, but are the number 1 way criminals come into possession of firearms. FFL's selling guns without a background check is already illegal, yet these are the most common ways criminals come into the possession of firearms. These are followed by direct acquisition through theft or sales of firearms acquired from theft. Then, a little-bitty wedge, though legitimate sales without background checks via private seller. I realize that background checks for all sales are a good thing, again enough to support Manchin-Toomey. Your insistence that because this bill failed the sky is falling and lives are disappearing and the blood is on our hands is nonsense. We will try again when more that between 4-6% of Americans believe that this is a more important problem than Cablevision charging too much money for the channels that we don't want.

You make it sound like we are attempting to undo the background checks that govern nearly all sales. This is not true. I have never purchased a firearm without a background check and I support them. You're insistence on the point that I am an ignorant follower with absent ethics sounds absurd to me more and more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ocon/guns.html

---

Looks like the studies cited are from 1994. You know, when it was legal to do Federally funded gun studies. The good old days. The yesteryear time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Looks like the studies cited are from 1994. You know, when it was legal to do Federally funded gun studies. The good old days. The yesteryear time.

---

That's how criminals got guns back then. Would you imagine that it has shifted dramatically since then? I would imagine that, by now, every criminal has a gun who needs a gun. I operate under the this notion that every criminal has a gun and that it's effectively irrelevant whether they get more of them or not. Violent crime has gone down in spite of the reality that criminals have guns, lots of them, and there is nothing that we can do to stop that barring confiscate them and charge them if we find them, prosecute fraudulent dealers, etc. But sure, criminals should be stopped from walking into a gun store or gun shop or private sale and getting yet another gun as easily as possible. At least we could make them dig deeper to get them. But, in the end, they will and probably already do have them.

In a nutshell, these laws are not going to save us from a criminal with a gun. Neither are the police.

The key is to be good to people, educate them so that they can earn money and have self respect and respect for others, and to defend yourself. Also, have a police force who responds to larger threats.

Someone did a show special lately on how gun control can never work once guns have been in a country. (it's three parts in a row)

I know you're gonna hate it anyway, just wanted to let you know.

I don't have flash. I'm not saying that governments couldn't ban firearm sales without longterm success at reducing gun ownership and, indirectly, criminal possession of firearms. What I am saying is that it will not have success so long as American citizens have the inalienable right to keep and bear common use firearms, including handguns. Further, I am against amending or overturning that right. It will not reduce violent crime, but merely reduce our ability to defend ourselves from it and leave us more vulnerable to an ever expanding government of excess.

Some governments who have had success have not recognized the right; some don't have a written constitution, and some are still monarchies

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

[C]riminals have guns, lots of them, and there is nothing that we can do to stop that barring confiscate them and charge them if we find them, prosecute fraudulent dealers, etc. But sure, criminals should be stopped from walking into a gun store or gun shop or private sale and getting yet another gun as easily as possible. At least we could make them dig deeper to get them. But, in the end, they will and probably already do have them.

---

What's weird is that when it comes to preserving the 2nd Amendment in its broadest possible interpretation, you're all about free will and doing your utmost. But when it comes to law enforcement and taking simple steps to make gun acquisition more difficult for criminals and the insane, you're all fatalism and "oh well they'll just arm themselves no matter what."

A striking contrast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

What's weird is that when it comes to preserving the 2nd Amendment in its broadest possible interpretation, you're all about free will and doing your utmost. But when it comes to law enforcement and taking simple steps to make gun acquisition more difficult for criminals and the insane, you're all fatalism and "oh well they'll just arm themselves no matter what."

A striking contrast.

---

Except that I'm for background checks on all sales. Your belligerence and demonization of opposition seems to be your objective here. That is not moderation. We will try again in the near future and we'd be well advised to settle on where common ground exists, unless you just want this want this to be a midterm poll issue.

I'm starting to think that the Coburn Nics webkey idea should be quickly adopted as an optional tool for gun sellers. I don't that legislation would be needed to get started. I would use it for any sale that I did and it would allow for kinks to be worked out before it was mandated for all sales

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

Except that I'm for background checks on all sales.

---

Except for when such a bill is actually put forward. Then you're against it. Because criminals will all arm themselves no matter what, or so your rhetoric would lead us to believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

It will not reduce violent crime, but merely reduce our ability to defend ourselves from it and leave us more vulnerable to an ever expanding government of excess.

---

That's one of the notions challenged with the Australia example. And please show me any proof that a lack of guns leads to government becoming more absolutist/scary/whatever, because from what I can see, America has turned into more of a surveillance state than most european countries despite all the guns.

Mmm. And before anyone goes committing a Godwin, please note that the Third Reich's gun control laws, while more restrictive than the USA's, were actually much more pro-gun-ownership than the Weimar laws they replaced. So let's not go there; you won't like what you find.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Except for when such a bill is actually put forward. Then you're against it. Because criminals will all arm themselves no matter what, or so your rhetoric would lead us to believe.

---

...Except that I was for it. Evidence is in these forums. I'm merely advising of how to pass it on a second attempt since it didn't go through the first time and the Senate contains the same people as it did a month ago. And the House hasn't discussed it yet. You can keep putting a square peg into a round hole, but I think it sounds foolish

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

Except that [I] was for it. Evidence is in these forums.

---

That's a fair point; I guess what I'm responding to was your triumphalist rhetoric after the bill was defeated, your string of NRA-supplied rationalizations for why it deserved to be defeated; your patently false assertions that the bipartisan bill was an overreach by the Dems and gun-grabbing pinko socialists; and so forth.

Yes, correct, you were in favor of the bill until the moment it was filibustered. Ever since you'v been quoting the NRA chapter and verse. Hence my reaction.

That's a fairer read of my position

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I wish people would stop using Australia as an example. Apples and Oranges.

---

It's like installing democracy in the Middle East. The locals need to want it and have the ability to achieve it.

We do have hunters and the like in Australia. But culturally they are really low on the totem pole compared with doctors, lifesavers, surfers and zoo keepers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I wish people would stop using Australia as an example. Apples and Oranges.

---

Right, there's no similarities with Australia, Australia is a former British colony with a wild frontier that was tamed by brave men who also wiped out almost an entire indigenous population, and you are... not similar to that. Right.

Watch Husar's video.

Quote:

---

The population difference alone makes it apples and oranges.

---

Why?

Last I checked americans were humans. Is there something you're not telling us? Is there something inherent about the american people that makes them drop dead if the arms to person ratio drops too low? Do you turn into globs of ectoplasm when you are witheld gunpowder? Are arms so incorporated in your national psyche that your brains slow down when the number of guns are reduced in the same way computers run slower when you take away RAM?