The alaskan one.
Printable View
The alaskan one.
Which Roman numeral?
Read I-VI. II is one of the specific ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
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.
It's a slippery slope thing (technically non causa pro causa, if anyone cares), which is what most NRA rhetoric is based upon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
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:
- chest-thumping and celebrating the undeomcratic filibuster of a bill supported by the vast majority of the population
- spinning a ban on a natioaal registry to mean OMG NATIONAL REGISTRY
- 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
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.
My harping is stylish and inspires envy in others.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
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.
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
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 ICantSpellDawg
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ocon/guns.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
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.
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 ICantSpellDawg
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
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
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."Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
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
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
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 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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
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
It's like installing democracy in the Middle East. The locals need to want it and have the ability to achieve it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Watch Husar's video.
Why?Quote:
The population difference alone makes it apples and oranges.
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?