Colorado passes Gun Control Laws

[drone]

My point:
If you allow semi-automatic weapons, I see no reason to ban fully automatic weapons. If the image of a loon walking around with a machine gun killing hundreds of people is what upsets you, wouldn't it be more productive to look at the type of weapon, rather than its mode of fire? Ie., propose a ban on "military weapons", and allow "civilian weapons"(though good luck defining those)? Or just scrap weapon differentiating all together and look for alternative solutions.

Oooooh, I could finally get that M2 I've been dreaming about.

I still think any restrictions they make should also apply to LEOs.

[Lemur]

Oooooh, I could finally get that M2 I've been dreaming about.

Why sell yourself short? Go for an M1.

[drone]

Why sell yourself short? Go for an M1.

It won't fit in the garage. And the mileage is atrocious.

[HoreTore]

I still think any restrictions they make should also apply to LEOs.

The police should also be unarmed.

[drone]

The police should also be unarmed.

If you are going to banhammer all guns, then yes, but that's not going to happen. There is no reason why the po-po gets to keep their ARs with 30 round mags if regular citizens cannot. LEOs are not military, they are not subject to the UCMJ, why should they get access to the cool toys.

[Husar]

If you are going to banhammer all guns, then yes, but that's not going to happen. There is no reason why the po-po gets to keep their ARs with 30 round mags if regular citizens cannot. LEOs are not military, they are not subject to the UCMJ, why should they get access to the cool toys.

They are not cool toys.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

[HoreTore]

Armed US citizens are not contradicting a state monopoly on violence. They do not have the right outside of the State, it's a right the State has decided to give its citizens. Thus, even in the US the State has a monopoly on violence. For such a monopoly to be broken, there would have to exist forces in US territory outside US state control. Like a huge private army the US army couldn't take on. The best historical example would be the KKK and affiliated groups on the second half of the 1800's. Those groups threathened US stste monopoly of violence, but they were defeated. Thus, the monopoly was upheld.

That discussion, however, is quite different to the current political meaning of the term used in my own and Husar's country. It's been expanded and refined, and when we euroweenies use the term, we refer to its political meaning, not the sociological meaning.

I know I'm rambling. It's late. I may have a better reply tomorrow.

Oh, and Weber was a German who came up with explanations(like the work ethic) which put German people and its morals above everyone else. How unusual for a German academic of his time.

[Husar]

Armed US citizens are not contradicting a state monopoly on violence. They do not have the right outside of the State, it's a right the State has decided to give its citizens. Thus, even in the US the State has a monopoly on violence. For such a monopoly to be broken, there would have to exist forces in US territory outside US state control. Like a huge private army the US army couldn't take on. The best historical example would be the KKK and affiliated groups on the second half of the 1800's. Those groups threathened US stste monopoly of violence, but they were defeated. Thus, the monopoly was upheld.

That discussion, however, is quite different to the current political meaning of the term used in my own and Husar's country. It's been expanded and refined, and when we euroweenies use the term, we refer to its political meaning, not the sociological meaning.

I know I'm rambling. It's late. I may have a better reply tomorrow.

Oh, and Weber was a German who came up with explanations(like the work ethic) which put German people and its morals above everyone else. How unusual for a German academic of his time.

Yes, I read the article and the parts that said the state can allow private people to have weapons. And even the german state allows private people to have weapons. If they have a good reason and can prove it. Wanting to kill the government or the need to shoot a guy who is carrying your TV in the back are not considered good reasons. In a more American way I think it can be interpreted against free gun sales and more background and other checks. The liberals and NRA still won't like it of course since they believe in the virtue and law of lynch mobs, avengers and people who shoot their girlfriend through the bathroom door because they thought there was an intruder sitting on their toilet.

The way we've been taught in school thougj is indeed that the state should not give away too much of the monopole on violence so that it can still effectively maintain order and the rule of law. This is still the case even in the USA because the police adapted to the violence-ability of the citizenry by using tasers the first time a citizen says "no" and sending SWAT teams even to small-time and suspected criminals because they're afraid to die otherwise. If the homeowner is too tired to get that the police is coming instead of gangsters or the police fail to identify (everybody can say "police", even a gangster), there are often armed confrontations where people die.

It may be silly to think the US could have considerably fewer guns in 20 years but even guns don't last forever so as a long-term policy, more restrictions on guns would indeed work. Couple it with an amnesty for people who turn in their guns and you can already take a few away. Also how do pro-gun people think about just these measures being used in Iraq? Were the iraqi citizens deprived of their right to self-defense or was it necessary to prevent violence against the US oppressors? Would you rather have your government hand out weapons to Iraqis and Afghanis so that the upstanding good guys with guns can stop the bad guys with guns?

[ICantSpellDawg]

You guys are a bunch of statists. The state gives us nothing, we allow the state to exist and give it everything that it has. This is a new world and our experiment is working reasonably well. We don't have 2000 years of state tyranny that we are coming out from underneath like in Europe. We came from lawlessness and are building a new type of state, where the government does as little as possible, leaving the majority to the decisions of the individual.

Laws have no moral authority, merely the authority of force. Democracy with local decentralized systems have no moral authority over us as individuals, either. No state has any authority over you in any other way but force. We do well to create restrictions on that force to ensure that it stays on mission and not creep into much of our daily life. We do best to give it just enough oxygen to survive and serve lest it conquer us.

Of course, this requires an informed and responsible electorate

[Husar]

You guys are a bunch of statists. The state gives us nothing, we allow the state to exist and give it everything that it has.

This is no different from Europe. The state here is legitimized by the people, not the other way around. The only advantage you have is that you promote responsible citizenship a bit more, however, I don't see it working much better in practice given that you have a two party system.

[Raz]

So is it only USA that kicks up a fit if their guns get the banhammer?

Living in Australia, I can't really grasp the concept of such freely available guns - what's the point? Can someone fill me in on the details?
TBH I don't actually understand why so many Americans kick and scream with this sort of legislation: something to do with ancient rights for militia, back when standing armies were scifi.

[HoreTore]

The State is the People, and the People is the State.

The State isn't a concept seperate from its citizens, rather it is the collective will of the people.

(I am of course only speaking of the modern western democratic state)

[Papewaio]

You do not need a semi automatic to go pig hunting.

I've seen myself hunters in NZ take down wild boars with dogs to flush and knives to kill the boar.

=][=

Given the current premise that the second amendment is to defend against state tyranny then one thinks that it shouldn't be restricted to civilian weapons. It should be equivalent ones so that civilians have an equal footing vs the state.

Personally I think you should change the amendment to reflect modern society. Either make it regulated in the checked and licensed sense OR remove all regulation and explicitly make it an individuals right. It is an amendment, amend it as you will. Just make it make sense in a modern context, one where professional armies exist as the norm.

[drone]

They are not cool toys.

You obviously don't have access to a lot of gun porn. Magazines targeted to both LEOs and gun nuts portray them as such.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The State is the People, and the People is the State.

The State isn't a concept seperate from its citizens, rather it is the collective will of the people.

(I am of course only speaking of the modern western democratic state)

Horetore:

ICSD may have expressed himself in a fashion that didn't help his point, but his point is a good one. We yanks have always conceived of our rights differently than you have framed them in your comment above.

We have, traditionally, viewed our rights (freedom of speech, worship, to bear arms, etc.) as natural (some say God-given) rights and not as the collective will of the people. Our Bill of Rights does not GRANT rights, but articulates and confirms the government's inability to restrict those rights that we conceive as being an integral part of any individual.

Thus, the concept is not: State = the collected wit/wisdom/history of the people who comprise it, who in turn choose to accord certain rights to one another.

Instead, is is: People possess innate rights, establishing a collective state only as a means of protecting these rights (involved some minor restriction of those rights so that all may enjoy them without harming others) and accomplishing those things which are wholly impractical for the individual to provide for themselves.


I would also note, however, that I sense an increasing shift toward a definition of rights analogous to that you defined above among some of my fellow citizens. As a Lockean civil-contract type myself, I prefer the traditional definition.

[Major Robert Dump]

Whats happening in Greece is a pretty good argument against gun prohibition

[Papewaio]

It is because the US law system is based on a synthesis of UK law tradition with inspiration from the European Enlightenment. As such most US laws are based on stating what you can't do, not what you can.

Liberty is freedom within the law. Society does not equal individual freedom it equals liberty. A fair society makes those laws as fair as possible across all varieties of people (race, sex or creed).

=][=

IMDHO Gun access should be about maximizing liberty. It's a responsibility not vigilantism. It's a tool not for tooling around with.

As such I fall on the side that says anyone of sound mind who can govern their own affairs should be able to buy, store, manufacturer and train with any weapon. The licensing would be similar to a car license for the individual to show sufficient ability, alertness and no mental health issues.

However the responsibilty that comes with that would be hefty. I'd make it that you cannot weaponise any household with mentally ill yet physically capable members reside (so a mentally ill quadriplegic wouldn't trigger a result). I'd also make it that registered gun owners can be called up by the state for emergencies from natural disaster to man made. Not for their weapons, just for man power... As they should all be able bodied and sound of mind and helpful in a bush fire or hurricane cleanup.

[HoreTore]

Horetore:

ICSD may have expressed himself in a fashion that didn't help his point, but his point is a good one. We yanks have always conceived of our rights differently than you have framed them in your comment above.

We have, traditionally, viewed our rights (freedom of speech, worship, to bear arms, etc.) as natural (some say God-given) rights and not as the collective will of the people. Our Bill of Rights does not GRANT rights, but articulates and confirms the government's inability to restrict those rights that we conceive as being an integral part of any individual.

Thus, the concept is not: State = the collected wit/wisdom/history of the people who comprise it, who in turn choose to accord certain rights to one another.

Instead, is is: People possess innate rights, establishing a collective state only as a means of protecting these rights (involved some minor restriction of those rights so that all may enjoy them without harming others) and accomplishing those things which are wholly impractical for the individual to provide for themselves.


I would also note, however, that I sense an increasing shift toward a definition of rights analogous to that you defined above among some of my fellow citizens. As a Lockean civil-contract type myself, I prefer the traditional definition.

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 not the other way around, is that the US state has the ability to use violence to force you into obedience, as long as it acts in accordance with the collective will of the people. You cannot apply violence to force the state to recognize your rights, all you can do is try to change the collective will, which will in turn change the state.

If you want it otherwise, you would have to disassemble the state and it's ability to use violence, in effect making each of you a one-man state. And of course live in total isolation, because once you meet other people, your rights will be determined by the will of those you meet as well the power ratio between the two of you.

[HoreTore]

Whats happening in Greece is a pretty good argument against gun prohibition

You think giving guns to a few million nazi's and communist who are looking to establish dictatorships is a good idea...?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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 not the other way around, is that the US state has the ability to use violence to force you into obedience, as long as it acts in accordance with the collective will of the people. You cannot apply violence to force the state to recognize your rights, all you can do is try to change the collective will, which will in turn change the state.

If you want it otherwise, you would have to disassemble the state and it's ability to use violence, in effect making each of you a one-man state. And of course live in total isolation, because once you meet other people, your rights will be determined by the will of those you meet as well the power ratio between the two of you.

Sorry, for reasons I am having trouble articulating to myself, your response is pissing me off. I will therefore not respond at the present time with any counterpoints.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

[Ironside]

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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

[Ironside]

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".

[Papewaio]

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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

[Ironside]

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?

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

[Ironside]

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.