Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 358487 times)

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #700 on: April 06, 2016, 02:44:28 PM »

Aside from my flippant and admittedly ignorant response about 'Eddie the Eagle' you will find I made no argument whatsoever on the technical details of weapons themselves and indeed have refrained from defending any particular ban or restriction. I have consistently presented an argument based on the concept of inherent rights and their not being able to be used as a trump card against gun restrictions in general.

No of us have opposed this opinion as presented here, but that is not what you have actually been avocating.  You have been inplying that "restrictions in general" don't already exist, and therefore you (as an uninitiatied voter in this debate) should have equal say in the details of such restrictions upon rights that you do not choose to exercise.

Quote
Frankly, I find it a bit elitist and snobbish the way you seem to think that only pro-gun advocates have the expertise to present any legitimate opinion whatsoever regarding the issue gun restrictions. I may not be able to identify whether a glock is loaded or not and the different tiers of such a determination, but that doesn't mean that I have nothing to contribute to the discussion regarding the entire subject of gun restrictions and inherent rights.

Not only pro-gun advocates, but not the uninitiated.  There are some gun-control advocates with real gun experience, they are just rare.  What we are saying is that the ignorant don't get a say in the how-what-where-why-when that we exercise our rights.  You are ignorant of both the functions of firearms; as well as the existing restrictions, standard procedures & safety protocols regarding any activity related to those firearms.  And yet, you continue to support an ideological position that you have already acknowledged is a product of such ignorance.  If you wish to debate this topic as peers; educate yourself on the nature of firearms & the existing restrictions.  When you come back, you might not suddenly be an advocate for gun rights, but odds are high that you will no longer be concerned that current regulations are ineffective or inadequate.  Can they be improve?  Certainly.  But we are here to tell you, not in the way that the current anti-gun movement desires to push their agenda.  You don't believe us, because you are ignorant of the present reality. 

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4190
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #701 on: April 06, 2016, 03:01:45 PM »
Martin Luther King had guns. So did many Civil Rights activists of his day:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/mlk-and-his-guns_b_810132.html

Did Black Americans have any right to fight back with deadly force when the KKK came to visit?

Martin King's movement did not depend upon guns. It was peaceful. They would have lost if they had tried to stage an armed resistance to Jim Crow.
Ah, but it did. It was most definitely 'armed resistance'. What it was NOT was armed rebellion. They worked within the existing system, which allowed citizens to own guns and use them for self defense. And they did just that. There are plenty of articles on line, and whole books written about this topic.

If I name some specific group, historically oppressed, you are fine with them fighting back with guns. But you want to prevent or restrict current groups from doing the same. Cognitive dissonance! ALL gun registration schemes, gun licenses, mandatory training programs, whether intended to or not, have the effect of preventing oppressed peoples from accessing guns.
 
Let me give you a current equivalency: Many states run by the Republican Party are trying to implement voter ID, where you have to show something like a driver's license or a passport or some other approved ID to vote. Democrats say that this is designed to suppress the Black/minority vote. Is it? How are your gun control systems different? If I say gun controllers are timid people who want to keep dangerous brown people from owning guns, why would I be wrong, by your lights?

To piggyback on the point Tom mate at the end there, to "speak the language of liberals" so to say.

Pro life folks often prevent effective sex ed in classrooms.

Gun control folks often prevent effective gun safety in classrooms.

The reasons for these 2 facts are the same. Both groups are driven by ideology, rather than being interested in effective solutions.
Sex is a part of a normal, healthy life, guns do not have to be, therefore one should be taught in public schools and one should not.  The idea that those should be equivocated is ridiculous.  I was taught how to shoot at a gun range, like a normal person, not a school.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #702 on: April 06, 2016, 03:04:57 PM »
Now, I am not saying the gun control people in this thread believe this. They are probably well meaning. However, the Bloomberg's, Soros's, Brady's etc of the world do hold these attitudes.

Diane Feinstein said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

This is the second time in this thread that someone has taken this very quote radically out of context to try to prove a shadowy conspiracy of people wanting to ban all guns.  It's still as dishonest as when moonshadow was doing it.


It wasn't dishonest when I did it either.  I included that quote in a huge list of quotes to display that those opposed to guns generally did exist, and that they held positions of political power.  You pointed out that this one, in particular, was out of context; which I acknowledged was true.  That did not, however, overturn my point; because if the other 10 or 12 quotes were out of context, you would have made it your life's work to demonstrate that to be so.  But you did not, because you could not.  We have, together, already established that this particular quote is often taken out of context; as is the Gandi quote.  That doesn't make his point any less valid than my own.  You are a deep ideologue, GuitarStv, who is not only willfully ignorant of the true & present nature of guns & gun regulations; but one that isn't interested in a rational conversation, nor have you ever been engaged in this debate in good faith for the stretch of this thread.  What you are, GuitarStv, is an eloquent troll.  You are subtle & well spoken, but a troll nonetheless.  If I had any faith that the moderators held the capacity to see this nuance in your posts, I'd report you.  Such as it is, it's not worth the effort; but your opinion means nothing at all, because ours' means nothing at all to you.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #703 on: April 06, 2016, 03:10:14 PM »

Sex is a part of a normal, healthy life, guns do not have to be, therefore one should be taught in public schools and one should not. The idea that those should be equivocated is ridiculous.  I was taught how to shoot at a gun range, like a normal person, not a school.

It was an analogy, not a comparison.  Anyone's personal opinion about whether or not gun safety or sex ed should be taught in school; or home, or in a specialized institution; is irrelevant to the analogy.  If gun safety for children, the example here being the Eddie Eagle program, is wise generally; then teaching it in schools simply make sense because it's the one institution that exists to teach all children the stuff they need to know.  I wouldn't support teaching 6 year olds range safety in school either, but the Eddie Eagle program isn't range safety, it's home safety.

jamesvt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #704 on: April 06, 2016, 03:20:10 PM »

Sex is a part of a normal, healthy life, guns do not have to be, therefore one should be taught in public schools and one should not. The idea that those should be equivocated is ridiculous.  I was taught how to shoot at a gun range, like a normal person, not a school.

It was an analogy, not a comparison.  Anyone's personal opinion about whether or not gun safety or sex ed should be taught in school; or home, or in a specialized institution; is irrelevant to the analogy.  If gun safety for children, the example here being the Eddie Eagle program, is wise generally; then teaching it in schools simply make sense because it's the one institution that exists to teach all children the stuff they need to know.  I wouldn't support teaching 6 year olds range safety in school either, but the Eddie Eagle program isn't range safety, it's home safety.
Was going to post something very similar. In a country that has more firearms than people I would put firearm safety on the critical need to know list for children and public school is the best way to reach the most children.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2669
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #705 on: April 06, 2016, 03:26:58 PM »

Sex is a part of a normal, healthy life, guns do not have to be, therefore one should be taught in public schools and one should not. The idea that those should be equivocated is ridiculous.  I was taught how to shoot at a gun range, like a normal person, not a school.

It was an analogy, not a comparison.  Anyone's personal opinion about whether or not gun safety or sex ed should be taught in school; or home, or in a specialized institution; is irrelevant to the analogy.  If gun safety for children, the example here being the Eddie Eagle program, is wise generally; then teaching it in schools simply make sense because it's the one institution that exists to teach all children the stuff they need to know.  I wouldn't support teaching 6 year olds range safety in school either, but the Eddie Eagle program isn't range safety, it's home safety.
Was going to post something very similar. In a country that has more firearms than people I would put firearm safety on the critical need to know list for children and public school is the best way to reach the most children.

My daughter gets it all the time at her (private religious) preschool.  All guns are bad.  Only bad guys have guns.  I'm driving down the highway one day and she spots a James Bond billboard and he's holding up his PPK and she says "he's a bad guy, he has a gun!"  She was real confused when she finds out daddy sometimes carries a gun.  I suppose it's not the worst thing she can learn but she seems to have developed an almost irrational fear of guns, rather than a healthy respect which I would have preferred. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #706 on: April 06, 2016, 03:44:59 PM »
Martin Luther King had guns. So did many Civil Rights activists of his day:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/mlk-and-his-guns_b_810132.html

Did Black Americans have any right to fight back with deadly force when the KKK came to visit?

Martin King's movement did not depend upon guns. It was peaceful. They would have lost if they had tried to stage an armed resistance to Jim Crow.
Ah, but it did. It was most definitely 'armed resistance'. What it was NOT was armed rebellion. They worked within the existing system, which allowed citizens to own guns and use them for self defense. And they did just that. There are plenty of articles on line, and whole books written about this topic.

If I name some specific group, historically oppressed, you are fine with them fighting back with guns. But you want to prevent or restrict current groups from doing the same. Cognitive dissonance! ALL gun registration schemes, gun licenses, mandatory training programs, whether intended to or not, have the effect of preventing oppressed peoples from accessing guns.
 
Let me give you a current equivalency: Many states run by the Republican Party are trying to implement voter ID, where you have to show something like a driver's license or a passport or some other approved ID to vote. Democrats say that this is designed to suppress the Black/minority vote. Is it? How are your gun control systems different? If I say gun controllers are timid people who want to keep dangerous brown people from owning guns, why would I be wrong, by your lights?

To piggyback on the point Tom mate at the end there, to "speak the language of liberals" so to say.

Pro life folks often prevent effective sex ed in classrooms.

Gun control folks often prevent effective gun safety in classrooms.

The reasons for these 2 facts are the same. Both groups are driven by ideology, rather than being interested in effective solutions.
Sex is a part of a normal, healthy life, guns do not have to be, therefore one should be taught in public schools and one should not.  The idea that those should be equivocated is ridiculous.  I was taught how to shoot at a gun range, like a normal person, not a school.

Are you misunderstanding me on purpose?

I'm not saying children should be taught how to use firearms in school. I'm not saying kids should *shoot guns* at school. I'm saying they should be taught about how to (not) handle firearms if they come across them unsupervised I'm a classroom setting.

Just like kids should be taught about sex in a classroom setting. Kids shouldn't *have sex* in a classroom to learn about sex. Rather taught about how it can be handled safely and responsibly when it comes up in their lives.

You must be purposely misrepresenting my statement. There is no other explanation.


Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #707 on: April 06, 2016, 03:54:19 PM »
but I have provided a reasonable counter argument that the AR-15 is not vital to personal self-defense.

No, you haven't.  You consider it reasonable, only because you are uninitiated.  Even if 'vital' was a defining requirement.  It isn't.

My counter argument is that the AR-15 is not needed to reasonably and effective defend oneself in the US. If the AR-15 did not exist, people would easily be able to defend themselves with shotguns and other types of weapons that would be available to them. As of yet, I have seen no evidence that refutes this. Thus I believe it to be a reasonable counter argument. Mind you, this is not an argument that the AR-15 should be banned. Only that a theoretical ban would not infringe on this supposed right to self-defense and thus an argument against the ban could not rely upon infringement. It would have to be based on the merits (or lack thereof) of arguments based upon the societal benefit (or lack thereof) of a ban. For the purpose of this subthread, I am not advancing any opinion whatsoever on the societal benefits (or lack thereof) of a ban.

My counter to that is how does one define reasonable and effective?  A single shot .22LR could be effective in certain scenarios.  Would that then mean banning shotguns and everything else is now kosher?  That's the slippery slope you go down when opaque definitions are used to define what can and cannot be used in self-defense.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #708 on: April 06, 2016, 03:56:26 PM »

You must be purposely misrepresenting my statement. There is no other explanation.

In Chris22's case, there is another explanation.  I suspect that s(he) doesn't take the time to read all of the posts whenever there is a surge of activity, but only the last several on the last page; thus missing a great deal of context in this case.  Which is why I explained it was an analogy, not an actual recommendation.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #709 on: April 06, 2016, 04:00:22 PM »
Now, I am not saying the gun control people in this thread believe this. They are probably well meaning. However, the Bloomberg's, Soros's, Brady's etc of the world do hold these attitudes.

Diane Feinstein said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."


This is the second time in this thread that someone has taken this very quote radically out of context to try to prove a shadowy conspiracy of people wanting to ban all guns.  It's still as dishonest as when moonshadow was doing it.

Watch the interview please.  You can find it on YouTube. Then make a mental note to look into the quotations you randomly find while googling before assuming they support what you think they do.  Feinstein is talking about a loophole in assault weapons ban legislation.  She isn't talking about picking up your hunting rifles, shotguns, revolvers, or other handguns.

"Nobody wants to round up all your damned guns." - Jesus Christ from the 1st book of Abraham Lincoln

Are you fucking kidding me?

How am I using it out of context? Are you for real? You think I have never seen the interview? I have been a gun rights activist for years. I have lobbied representatives at the state capitol for gun rights initiatives. Newspapers used to call me for quotes on gun issues.  I teach gun safety classes. I teach shooting classes. I am a competitive shooter. I make my own ammunition and teach people how to do so. What are your qualifications on this topic?

I have seen the whole interview several times, thank you. Just re - watched it.

What she is saying is she wanted a TOTAL BAN on Assault Weapons.  All she could get passed was a ban on the new manufacture of them. She says that if she could have gotten a ban on them and confiscated them from the American people, she would have.

Here is a Senator admitting that she wants to ban all "assault weapons".

How am I advancing a conspiracy theory by saying that anti-gun people want to ban guns? She has also admitted to wanting to ban all handguns. So have many powerful anti gun people. So yes, there are people who want to ban guns, or at least most guns.

By the way, some of my hunting guns ARE "assault weapons" under that law. ALL of my competition rifles fall under that law.

So please, stop spouting nonsense on a topic you do not understand.

« Last Edit: April 06, 2016, 04:07:16 PM by winkeyman »

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #710 on: April 06, 2016, 04:09:29 PM »
Quote

My counter argument is that the AR-15 is not needed to reasonably and effective defend oneself in the US. If the AR-15 did not exist, people would easily be able to defend themselves with shotguns and other types of weapons that would be available to them. As of yet, I have seen no evidence that refutes this. Thus I believe it to be a reasonable counter argument. Mind you, this is not an argument that the AR-15 should be banned. Only that a theoretical ban would not infringe on this supposed right to self-defense and thus an argument against the ban could not rely upon infringement. It would have to be based on the merits (or lack thereof) of arguments based upon the societal benefit (or lack thereof) of a ban. For the purpose of this subthread, I am not advancing any opinion whatsoever on the societal benefits (or lack thereof) of a ban.

My counter to that is how does one define reasonable and effective?  A single shot .22LR could be effective in certain scenarios.  Would that then mean banning shotguns and everything else is now kosher?  That's the slippery slope you go down when opaque definitions are used to define what can and cannot be used in self-defense.

Did anyone else catch the irony in this?  I have much experience with the standard caliber round for the AR-15, the NATO 5.56mm.  In American Standard nomenclature, the NATO 5.56mm is .223 caliber, or 223 hundredths of an inch in diameter.  A 22 caliber long rifle is 220 hundredths of an inch in diameter.  So while the NATO 5.56mm round is usually about 50% heavier & somewhat faster (they are both supersonic); it's basically a fast version of a 22LR, and isn't "high powered" by any stretch of the imagination.  No one I know would hunt deer with a 223, for example, because it would be cruel to the deer.  They would be critically injured, but not die immediately.  Literally any complaint that could be leveled at a standard round AR-15 can also be leveled at any semi-auto 22LR with a removable magazine, and the 22LR is, quite literally and by a wide margin, the most versatile & most widely used caliber in the history of firearms.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2669
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #711 on: April 06, 2016, 04:18:20 PM »

You must be purposely misrepresenting my statement. There is no other explanation.

In Chris22's case, there is another explanation.  I suspect that s(he) doesn't take the time to read all of the posts whenever there is a surge of activity, but only the last several on the last page; thus missing a great deal of context in this case.  Which is why I explained it was an analogy, not an actual recommendation.

Eh?  I mean, guilty, to some extent, on not reading everything, but I didn't engage you on that topic.  I fully grasp what you're saying on the sex ed thing and agree.  Are you possible confusing me with someone else on this point?

Also, yes, he.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3481
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #712 on: April 06, 2016, 04:28:47 PM »
Making the Eddie Eagle or similar gun safety program mandatory (or at least strongly encouraged) in elementary schools would be a common sense, practical, move that would provide immediate tangible benefits. There would be fewer accidents involving children with guns. Pro gun people would agree to this measure. In fact we have been pushing for something like it for many years.

I'm not surprised you've been pushing to bring the NRA's cartoon propaganda mascot into the schools to brainwash kids into becoming the next generation of gun activists unable to feel safe unless they have a gun with them at all times.

What is WRONG with you? Do you really not know ANYTHING about the topic at hand?

The Eddie Eagle program is a cartoon mascot that says "If you see a gun... STOP... DONT TOUCH... TELL AN ADULT!"

THATS IT!!!

I even said "or some other program" because I know you are too irrationally scared of the NRA to EVER support ANYTHING it does. Provide free trigger locks with every gun purchase? BRAINWASHING!

Have the CDC come up with a cartoon dog that's says "If you see a gun... STOP... DONT TOUCH... TELL AN ADULT!" and put it in school.

I apologize for my casual reply. I don't go spending time reading up on NRA public outreach messages and was not aware that this was the extent of the message that you were promoting for kids.
And yet you feel well informed enough to call it the "NRA's cartoon propaganda mascot [...] to brainwash kids into becoming the next generation of gun activists unable to feel safe unless they have a gun with them at all times."

You don't have a fucking clue, but you're perfectly happy to run around spouting nonsense.  Now do you understand why there's so much pushback for gun laws? The people who want more laws are generally clueless, much like yourself.

I realize there have been a lot of posts since this and this has already been addressed, but you are not the only person who does this and it's incredibly frustrating.  Here's another example - people who think they know what they're talking about but have NO idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY_jtGXG5dI   45 seconds to 2 minutes is absolutely factually incorrect. If you don't know guns, you might hear that and think oh my god, that's terrifying and we need MORE LAWS!  If you do know guns, you know he's not making any sense whatsoever.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2016, 04:36:41 PM by JLee »

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #713 on: April 06, 2016, 05:12:19 PM »
Making the Eddie Eagle or similar gun safety program mandatory (or at least strongly encouraged) in elementary schools would be a common sense, practical, move that would provide immediate tangible benefits. There would be fewer accidents involving children with guns. Pro gun people would agree to this measure. In fact we have been pushing for something like it for many years.

I'm not surprised you've been pushing to bring the NRA's cartoon propaganda mascot into the schools to brainwash kids into becoming the next generation of gun activists unable to feel safe unless they have a gun with them at all times.

What is WRONG with you? Do you really not know ANYTHING about the topic at hand?

The Eddie Eagle program is a cartoon mascot that says "If you see a gun... STOP... DONT TOUCH... TELL AN ADULT!"

THATS IT!!!

I even said "or some other program" because I know you are too irrationally scared of the NRA to EVER support ANYTHING it does. Provide free trigger locks with every gun purchase? BRAINWASHING!

Have the CDC come up with a cartoon dog that's says "If you see a gun... STOP... DONT TOUCH... TELL AN ADULT!" and put it in school.

I apologize for my casual reply. I don't go spending time reading up on NRA public outreach messages and was not aware that this was the extent of the message that you were promoting for kids.
And yet you feel well informed enough to call it the "NRA's cartoon propaganda mascot [...] to brainwash kids into becoming the next generation of gun activists unable to feel safe unless they have a gun with them at all times."

You don't have a fucking clue, but you're perfectly happy to run around spouting nonsense.  Now do you understand why there's so much pushback for gun laws? The people who want more laws are generally clueless, much like yourself.

I realize there have been a lot of posts since this and this has already been addressed, but you are not the only person who does this and it's incredibly frustrating.  Here's another example - people who think they know what they're talking about but have NO idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY_jtGXG5dI   45 seconds to 2 minutes is absolutely factually incorrect. If you don't know guns, you might hear that and think oh my god, that's terrifying and we need MORE LAWS!  If you do know guns, you know he's not making any sense whatsoever.

Holy shit that's hilarious. That's almost the worst shit I've ever heard from the media and anti gun folks. Which is saying something because the show their wildly dangerous ignorance on the topic every chance they get. Hilarious. Sad.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #714 on: April 06, 2016, 05:19:25 PM »

You must be purposely misrepresenting my statement. There is no other explanation.

In Chris22's case, there is another explanation.  I suspect that s(he) doesn't take the time to read all of the posts whenever there is a surge of activity, but only the last several on the last page; thus missing a great deal of context in this case.  Which is why I explained it was an analogy, not an actual recommendation.

Eh?  I mean, guilty, to some extent, on not reading everything, but I didn't engage you on that topic.  I fully grasp what you're saying on the sex ed thing and agree.  Are you possible confusing me with someone else on this point?

Also, yes, he.

No, I'm not confused.  As you can tell, I'm quite observant.  I know that you were not engaging me on this matter, I was pointing out to Winkeyman that your confusion was not malicious.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #715 on: April 06, 2016, 05:26:33 PM »


Holy shit that's hilarious. That's almost the worst shit I've ever heard from the media and anti gun folks. Which is saying something because the show their wildly dangerous ignorance on the topic every chance they get. Hilarious. Sad.

Oh my good god.  How did this mook get a gig as some kind of expert?  Who the hell is he?

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #716 on: April 06, 2016, 05:27:01 PM »

You must be purposely misrepresenting my statement. There is no other explanation.

In Chris22's case, there is another explanation.  I suspect that s(he) doesn't take the time to read all of the posts whenever there is a surge of activity, but only the last several on the last page; thus missing a great deal of context in this case.  Which is why I explained it was an analogy, not an actual recommendation.

Eh?  I mean, guilty, to some extent, on not reading everything, but I didn't engage you on that topic.  I fully grasp what you're saying on the sex ed thing and agree.  Are you possible confusing me with someone else on this point?

Also, yes, he.

No, I'm not confused.  As you can tell, I'm quite observant.  I know that you were not engaging me on this matter, I was pointing out to Winkeyman that your confusion was not malicious.

Um mm I think you might be confusing Chris22 with Gin1986

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #717 on: April 06, 2016, 05:29:06 PM »

You must be purposely misrepresenting my statement. There is no other explanation.

In Chris22's case, there is another explanation.  I suspect that s(he) doesn't take the time to read all of the posts whenever there is a surge of activity, but only the last several on the last page; thus missing a great deal of context in this case.  Which is why I explained it was an analogy, not an actual recommendation.

Eh?  I mean, guilty, to some extent, on not reading everything, but I didn't engage you on that topic.  I fully grasp what you're saying on the sex ed thing and agree.  Are you possible confusing me with someone else on this point?

Also, yes, he.

No, I'm not confused.  As you can tell, I'm quite observant.  I know that you were not engaging me on this matter, I was pointing out to Winkeyman that your confusion was not malicious.

Um mm I think you might be confusing Chris22 with Gin1986

Did I?

Well crap.  I did. Sorry to everyone!  Apparently I'm not as observant as I claim.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4190
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #718 on: April 06, 2016, 06:10:39 PM »
Martin Luther King had guns. So did many Civil Rights activists of his day:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/mlk-and-his-guns_b_810132.html

Did Black Americans have any right to fight back with deadly force when the KKK came to visit?

Martin King's movement did not depend upon guns. It was peaceful. They would have lost if they had tried to stage an armed resistance to Jim Crow.
Ah, but it did. It was most definitely 'armed resistance'. What it was NOT was armed rebellion. They worked within the existing system, which allowed citizens to own guns and use them for self defense. And they did just that. There are plenty of articles on line, and whole books written about this topic.

If I name some specific group, historically oppressed, you are fine with them fighting back with guns. But you want to prevent or restrict current groups from doing the same. Cognitive dissonance! ALL gun registration schemes, gun licenses, mandatory training programs, whether intended to or not, have the effect of preventing oppressed peoples from accessing guns.
 
Let me give you a current equivalency: Many states run by the Republican Party are trying to implement voter ID, where you have to show something like a driver's license or a passport or some other approved ID to vote. Democrats say that this is designed to suppress the Black/minority vote. Is it? How are your gun control systems different? If I say gun controllers are timid people who want to keep dangerous brown people from owning guns, why would I be wrong, by your lights?

To piggyback on the point Tom mate at the end there, to "speak the language of liberals" so to say.

Pro life folks often prevent effective sex ed in classrooms.

Gun control folks often prevent effective gun safety in classrooms.

The reasons for these 2 facts are the same. Both groups are driven by ideology, rather than being interested in effective solutions.
Sex is a part of a normal, healthy life, guns do not have to be, therefore one should be taught in public schools and one should not.  The idea that those should be equivocated is ridiculous.  I was taught how to shoot at a gun range, like a normal person, not a school.

Are you misunderstanding me on purpose?

I'm not saying children should be taught how to use firearms in school. I'm not saying kids should *shoot guns* at school. I'm saying they should be taught about how to (not) handle firearms if they come across them unsupervised I'm a classroom setting.

Just like kids should be taught about sex in a classroom setting. Kids shouldn't *have sex* in a classroom to learn about sex. Rather taught about how it can be handled safely and responsibly when it comes up in their lives.

You must be purposely misrepresenting my statement. There is no other explanation.
Or, the other (true) explanation is that I disagree with you.  Simple as that.  In my sex education class we learned about our anatomy, saw a video of a birth and an abortion, saw examples of STDs, put a condom on a cucumber etc.  Things that directly related to sex/effects of sex.  Exactly how can you teach anything about gun safety (other than leave if you see one) without the proper props?  No one would say you should not teach sex ed with no examples (or at least most would not). 
I find many of these comments concerning especially because I am not anti-gun, but honestly without the examples of people who I know are responsible gun owners, this thread may have moved me from the gun crowd camp to maybe we do need these bans.  At least how it is coming out, you guys are not the examples I would want to use for the pro-gun camp.

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #719 on: April 06, 2016, 06:22:06 PM »
Quote

My counter argument is that the AR-15 is not needed to reasonably and effective defend oneself in the US. If the AR-15 did not exist, people would easily be able to defend themselves with shotguns and other types of weapons that would be available to them. As of yet, I have seen no evidence that refutes this. Thus I believe it to be a reasonable counter argument. Mind you, this is not an argument that the AR-15 should be banned. Only that a theoretical ban would not infringe on this supposed right to self-defense and thus an argument against the ban could not rely upon infringement. It would have to be based on the merits (or lack thereof) of arguments based upon the societal benefit (or lack thereof) of a ban. For the purpose of this subthread, I am not advancing any opinion whatsoever on the societal benefits (or lack thereof) of a ban.

My counter to that is how does one define reasonable and effective?  A single shot .22LR could be effective in certain scenarios.  Would that then mean banning shotguns and everything else is now kosher?  That's the slippery slope you go down when opaque definitions are used to define what can and cannot be used in self-defense.

Did anyone else catch the irony in this?  I have much experience with the standard caliber round for the AR-15, the NATO 5.56mm.  In American Standard nomenclature, the NATO 5.56mm is .223 caliber, or 223 hundredths of an inch in diameter.  A 22 caliber long rifle is 220 hundredths of an inch in diameter.  So while the NATO 5.56mm round is usually about 50% heavier & somewhat faster (they are both supersonic); it's basically a fast version of a 22LR, and isn't "high powered" by any stretch of the imagination.  No one I know would hunt deer with a 223, for example, because it would be cruel to the deer.  They would be critically injured, but not die immediately.  Literally any complaint that could be leveled at a standard round AR-15 can also be leveled at any semi-auto 22LR with a removable magazine, and the 22LR is, quite literally and by a wide margin, the most versatile & most widely used caliber in the history of firearms.

They're both 22 caliber (same diameter) but that's really about where the comparisons end.  Force = mass x acceleration so the 5.56 being heavier and faster results in significant more force.  It would be similar to comparing a ping pong ball and a golf ball.  Similar diameter but one hurts a hell of a lot more if it hits you.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #720 on: April 06, 2016, 07:04:04 PM »
Martin Luther King had guns. So did many Civil Rights activists of his day:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/mlk-and-his-guns_b_810132.html

Did Black Americans have any right to fight back with deadly force when the KKK came to visit?

Martin King's movement did not depend upon guns. It was peaceful. They would have lost if they had tried to stage an armed resistance to Jim Crow.
Ah, but it did. It was most definitely 'armed resistance'. What it was NOT was armed rebellion. They worked within the existing system, which allowed citizens to own guns and use them for self defense. And they did just that. There are plenty of articles on line, and whole books written about this topic.

If I name some specific group, historically oppressed, you are fine with them fighting back with guns. But you want to prevent or restrict current groups from doing the same. Cognitive dissonance! ALL gun registration schemes, gun licenses, mandatory training programs, whether intended to or not, have the effect of preventing oppressed peoples from accessing guns.
 
Let me give you a current equivalency: Many states run by the Republican Party are trying to implement voter ID, where you have to show something like a driver's license or a passport or some other approved ID to vote. Democrats say that this is designed to suppress the Black/minority vote. Is it? How are your gun control systems different? If I say gun controllers are timid people who want to keep dangerous brown people from owning guns, why would I be wrong, by your lights?

To piggyback on the point Tom mate at the end there, to "speak the language of liberals" so to say.

Pro life folks often prevent effective sex ed in classrooms.

Gun control folks often prevent effective gun safety in classrooms.

The reasons for these 2 facts are the same. Both groups are driven by ideology, rather than being interested in effective solutions.
Sex is a part of a normal, healthy life, guns do not have to be, therefore one should be taught in public schools and one should not.  The idea that those should be equivocated is ridiculous.  I was taught how to shoot at a gun range, like a normal person, not a school.

Are you misunderstanding me on purpose?

I'm not saying children should be taught how to use firearms in school. I'm not saying kids should *shoot guns* at school. I'm saying they should be taught about how to (not) handle firearms if they come across them unsupervised I'm a classroom setting.

Just like kids should be taught about sex in a classroom setting. Kids shouldn't *have sex* in a classroom to learn about sex. Rather taught about how it can be handled safely and responsibly when it comes up in their lives.

You must be purposely misrepresenting my statement. There is no other explanation.
Or, the other (true) explanation is that I disagree with you.  Simple as that.  In my sex education class we learned about our anatomy, saw a video of a birth and an abortion, saw examples of STDs, put a condom on a cucumber etc.  Things that directly related to sex/effects of sex.  Exactly how can you teach anything about gun safety (other than leave if you see one) without the proper props?  No one would say you should not teach sex ed with no examples (or at least most would not). 
I find many of these comments concerning especially because I am not anti-gun, but honestly without the examples of people who I know are responsible gun owners, this thread may have moved me from the gun crowd camp to maybe we do need these bans.  At least how it is coming out, you guys are not the examples I would want to use for the pro-gun camp.

Really? You can't imagine how to teach gun safety to kids? How about this.

In elementary school you teach them the basics of don't touch, get away, tell an adult.

In middle school you go a little further. Explain the facts that all guns should be treated as if they are loaded, even if you think it isnt. Teach them which situations it is appropriate to handle firearms (in a proper venue under adult supervision) and when it isn't (when you are hanging out at a friends house). You teach them the rules of gun safety so they can know what's safe and what's not. That way if they do end up going hunting or to a shooting range with a friend's family for example, they know to excuse themselves from the activity if the people they are with are NOT being safe. Just like we teach them not to get in a car with a person who has been drinking or agree to sex if no condom is present. Because we realize kids may be exposed to guns in the coming years and they need to know how to handle these situations just like they need to know how to handle drinking and sex. You can teach kids not to get into a car with a driver without getting anyone drunk. You can teach a teen not to get it on without a condom without putting a condom on Junior in the middle of biology class. And you can teach them how to handle situations with guns without having a gun in the classroom. You show some graphic images of gunshot wounds so kids know that it's not like the movies. The hero of the story (them) doesn't take a bullet and keep on saving the day, they bleed to death. We display reality to dispell the misconceptions they have about the seriousness of firearms they pick up from video games and movies. Just like we do by showing pictures of STDS.

How's that for a start? Are you getting a picture yet? See, we have  real solutions. Now, some people would say to this "I find that distasteful, we shouldn't have to do all this we should just keep guns away from people!" And that's the exact same ignorant garbage people used to (and some still though thankfully a minority) say about educating kids about sex and drugs. You find it distasteful?  Wish we didn't have to do it? Well tough luck, guns are a part of life in America and we should educate kids so they are equipped to make smart decisions.

As for you being turned off of the pro gun crowd due to attitudes like mine... I don't care. People like me are the face of the gun rights movement. And since we have been winning we must be doing something right. The gun rights movement lost a lot of ground through the 20th century by pussyfooting around and compromising and being timid. We are gaining found by pushing back against the bullshit, hard. We are speaking the truth and people are listening and attitudes are changing for the better.

Two decades ago, the president of one of America's biggest gun manufacturers ENDORSED the assault weapons ban. If someone did that now, gun owners would boycott that company into bankruptcy overnight without a second thought. No more compromises on our rights. We have the right to keep and bear arms (including assault weapons) to hunt, recreate, collect, defend ourselves and our families, defend against a foreign invasion and from our own government if need be. Those are the facts.

You know, I usually concealed carry. But for the rest of the week I am going to open carry and be extra polite and courteous to everyone e I meet. Hell, I might even invite an uninitiated co-workers to the range and explain the importance of the 2 on the way there. Winning.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #721 on: April 06, 2016, 07:35:36 PM »

I find many of these comments concerning especially because I am not anti-gun, but honestly without the examples of people who I know are responsible gun owners, this thread may have moved me from the gun crowd camp to maybe we do need these bans.  At least how it is coming out, you guys are not the examples I would want to use for the pro-gun camp.

That's quite the change in opinion for one thread. I'm glad you know some responsible gun owners.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

jamesvt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #722 on: April 06, 2016, 09:20:12 PM »
Gin1984 you were never in the "gun crowd camp". If you are pro something you don't all of a sudden become against that thing because you don't like what someone wrote on an internet forum.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8195
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #723 on: April 07, 2016, 06:20:18 AM »
Now, I am not saying the gun control people in this thread believe this. They are probably well meaning. However, the Bloomberg's, Soros's, Brady's etc of the world do hold these attitudes.

Diane Feinstein said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

This is the second time in this thread that someone has taken this very quote radically out of context to try to prove a shadowy conspiracy of people wanting to ban all guns.  It's still as dishonest as when moonshadow was doing it.


It wasn't dishonest when I did it either.  I included that quote in a huge list of quotes to display that those opposed to guns generally did exist, and that they held positions of political power.  You pointed out that this one, in particular, was out of context; which I acknowledged was true.  That did not, however, overturn my point; because if the other 10 or 12 quotes were out of context, you would have made it your life's work to demonstrate that to be so.  But you did not, because you could not.  We have, together, already established that this particular quote is often taken out of context; as is the Gandi quote.  That doesn't make his point any less valid than my own.  You are a deep ideologue, GuitarStv, who is not only willfully ignorant of the true & present nature of guns & gun regulations; but one that isn't interested in a rational conversation, nor have you ever been engaged in this debate in good faith for the stretch of this thread.  What you are, GuitarStv, is an eloquent troll.  You are subtle & well spoken, but a troll nonetheless.  If I had any faith that the moderators held the capacity to see this nuance in your posts, I'd report you.  Such as it is, it's not worth the effort; but your opinion means nothing at all, because ours' means nothing at all to you.

I stopped researching your quotes after the first two or three all turned out to be either complete fabrications, or taken out of context.  You earlier admitted that you didn't research any of the quotes made in your posts, you were just dumping the results of idyll googling.  That's intellectually dishonest, and (as demonstrated by Winkeyman doing the exact same) common to the pro gun side's debating tactics.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #724 on: April 07, 2016, 06:43:00 AM »
Too many comments to individually reply to after I logged off yesterday. I'll try to address the various things I read...

One doesn't have to be an expert one a particular area to be able to have some level of say in regards to what is taught their children in schools. That doesn't mean it makes sense to get deep down in the weeds about the more advanced details, but I have enough understanding to say that I agree with what Winkey espouses for elementary level teaching about guns. Kind of like how it is not unreasonable for an adult who got a D in History to legitimately opine that schools should teach about the American Revolution.

Moonshadow and possibly others seem to think that my argument against the idea that there is an inherent right to self-defense that is an ultimate trump card to beat down gun regulation implies that I think there is not already any gun regulation. That is false. Of course there is regulation. In the last few days while address the inherent rights argument, I've tried very hard to NOT give an opinion either for or against existing or further regulation. The AR-15 posts were NOT meant to say that the AR-15 should be banned but started as an example from a list that Winkey provided as an intellectual exercise to determine whether the prior ban on AR-15s was an unreasonable infringement on a assumed right to self-defense. As it stands, I'm not convinced it was. Moonshadow seems to argue that a person should be able to choose ANY weapon they want for self-defense and that the removal of any weapon from the list of options is a violation of his right to self-defense. Yet Guitarstv's examples showed that even Moonshadow acknowledges that some weapons should not be available. Thus it is not a matter of WHETHER there can be restrictions, but rather on WHAT restrictions are reasonable. Determining WHAT restrictions is the difficult point and the devil is in the details and I freely admit that my limited knowledge about guns makes me a poor advocate for opining on those details. Even so, I believe that I have effectively demonstrated that at least in regards to SOME regulations, the argument that they should be rejected merely based on the right to self-defense is irrational.

Finally, although I did apologize to Winkey regarding my flippant post, I will offer up a further mea culpa that I was wrong. I replied in haste and ignorance on the matter of Eddie the Eagle. I let my personal biases get the better of me and was wrong to do so.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #725 on: April 07, 2016, 07:26:30 AM »
Now, I am not saying the gun control people in this thread believe this. They are probably well meaning. However, the Bloomberg's, Soros's, Brady's etc of the world do hold these attitudes.

Diane Feinstein said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

This is the second time in this thread that someone has taken this very quote radically out of context to try to prove a shadowy conspiracy of people wanting to ban all guns.  It's still as dishonest as when moonshadow was doing it.


It wasn't dishonest when I did it either.  I included that quote in a huge list of quotes to display that those opposed to guns generally did exist, and that they held positions of political power.  You pointed out that this one, in particular, was out of context; which I acknowledged was true.  That did not, however, overturn my point; because if the other 10 or 12 quotes were out of context, you would have made it your life's work to demonstrate that to be so.  But you did not, because you could not.  We have, together, already established that this particular quote is often taken out of context; as is the Gandi quote.  That doesn't make his point any less valid than my own.  You are a deep ideologue, GuitarStv, who is not only willfully ignorant of the true & present nature of guns & gun regulations; but one that isn't interested in a rational conversation, nor have you ever been engaged in this debate in good faith for the stretch of this thread.  What you are, GuitarStv, is an eloquent troll.  You are subtle & well spoken, but a troll nonetheless.  If I had any faith that the moderators held the capacity to see this nuance in your posts, I'd report you.  Such as it is, it's not worth the effort; but your opinion means nothing at all, because ours' means nothing at all to you.

I stopped researching your quotes after the first two or three all turned out to be either complete fabrications, or taken out of context.  You earlier admitted that you didn't research any of the quotes made in your posts, you were just dumping the results of idyll googling.  That's intellectually dishonest, and (as demonstrated by Winkeyman doing the exact same) common to the pro gun side's debating tactics.

Please read my post #731

People like you say "Nobody wants to ban and take away your guns."

The Diane Feinstein quote we are referencing is not hard to understand. What you have there (in context) is a powerful Senator who champions gun control legislation. You have her saying that she was unable to get a total ban and confiscation on "assault weapons." However, if she could have gotten the votes, she would have done a total ban and confiscation of "assault weapons" and made Mr. and Ms. America turn 'em all in. Most of the firearms I own would fall under such a ban.

In Australia (and other countries), the government DID ban and confiscate and destroy most guns. Powerful American liberals say they wants our gun regulations to look more like Australia.

I spend a lot of time in Scotland and have friends there that are gun owners. The government there DID ban and confiscate most of their guns. Powerful American liberals say they want our gun regulations to look more like the UK's.

Powerful people in the US government and many voters would like to, if they have the votes, ban and confiscate most of my guns.

So how can you tell me "nobody wants to ban and take away your guns" and then say I am dishonest and lack context?

What if John Smith (and this is the case for many people) only own two guns, a Glock with "high capacity" magazines and an AR-15. If our gun laws looked like the UK, or Australia, or Diane Feinstein's version of America, then it is correct to say that powerful people want to ban and take away ALL of John Smith's guns.

You are the one who lacks context. You are the one who is being dishonest.

Me: People want to ban and confiscate my guns.
You: LIAR! DISHONEST! YOU TAKE THINGS OUT OF CONTEXT! THEY ONLY WANT TO BAN AND CONFISCATE MOST OF THEM! THEY DONT WANT TO TAKE AWAY YOUR REVOLVERS AND BOLT ACTION RIFLES (yet)!

What a laughable response.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4190
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #726 on: April 07, 2016, 07:42:36 AM »
Gin1984 you were never in the "gun crowd camp". If you are pro something you don't all of a sudden become against that thing because you don't like what someone wrote on an internet forum.
People don't seem to read/comprehend well in this thread.  Reread my statement. 

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #727 on: April 07, 2016, 07:45:29 AM »
Now, I am not saying the gun control people in this thread believe this. They are probably well meaning. However, the Bloomberg's, Soros's, Brady's etc of the world do hold these attitudes.

Diane Feinstein said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

This is the second time in this thread that someone has taken this very quote radically out of context to try to prove a shadowy conspiracy of people wanting to ban all guns.  It's still as dishonest as when moonshadow was doing it.


It wasn't dishonest when I did it either.  I included that quote in a huge list of quotes to display that those opposed to guns generally did exist, and that they held positions of political power.  You pointed out that this one, in particular, was out of context; which I acknowledged was true.  That did not, however, overturn my point; because if the other 10 or 12 quotes were out of context, you would have made it your life's work to demonstrate that to be so.  But you did not, because you could not.  We have, together, already established that this particular quote is often taken out of context; as is the Gandi quote.  That doesn't make his point any less valid than my own.  You are a deep ideologue, GuitarStv, who is not only willfully ignorant of the true & present nature of guns & gun regulations; but one that isn't interested in a rational conversation, nor have you ever been engaged in this debate in good faith for the stretch of this thread.  What you are, GuitarStv, is an eloquent troll.  You are subtle & well spoken, but a troll nonetheless.  If I had any faith that the moderators held the capacity to see this nuance in your posts, I'd report you.  Such as it is, it's not worth the effort; but your opinion means nothing at all, because ours' means nothing at all to you.

I stopped researching your quotes after the first two or three all turned out to be either complete fabrications, or taken out of context.  You earlier admitted that you didn't research any of the quotes made in your posts, you were just dumping the results of idyll googling.  That's intellectually dishonest, and (as demonstrated by Winkeyman doing the exact same) common to the pro gun side's debating tactics.

Please read my post #731

People like you say "Nobody wants to ban and take away your guns."

The Diane Feinstein quote we are referencing is not hard to understand. What you have there (in context) is a powerful Senator who champions gun control legislation. You have her saying that she was unable to get a total ban and confiscation on "assault weapons." However, if she could have gotten the votes, she would have done a total ban and confiscation of "assault weapons" and made Mr. and Ms. America turn 'em all in. Most of the firearms I own would fall under such a ban.

In Australia (and other countries), the government DID ban and confiscate and destroy most guns. Powerful American liberals say they wants our gun regulations to look more like Australia.

I spend a lot of time in Scotland and have friends there that are gun owners. The government there DID ban and confiscate most of their guns. Powerful American liberals say they want our gun regulations to look more like the UK's.

Powerful people in the US government and many voters would like to, if they have the votes, ban and confiscate most of my guns.

So how can you tell me "nobody wants to ban and take away your guns" and then say I am dishonest and lack context?

What if John Smith (and this is the case for many people) only own two guns, a Glock with "high capacity" magazines and an AR-15. If our gun laws looked like the UK, or Australia, or Diane Feinstein's version of America, then it is correct to say that powerful people want to ban and take away ALL of John Smith's guns.

You are the one who lacks context. You are the one who is being dishonest.

Me: People want to ban and confiscate my guns.
You: LIAR! DISHONEST! YOU TAKE THINGS OUT OF CONTEXT! THEY ONLY WANT TO BAN AND CONFISCATE MOST OF THEM! THEY DONT WANT TO TAKE AWAY YOUR REVOLVERS AND BOLT ACTION RIFLES (yet)!

What a laughable response.

Seems to me that both sides are prone to some over-simplification. Yeah, I'm sure there are some extreme anti-gun activists that would like to take away most or all guns. On the other hand, most people in favor of gun control are not nearly so extreme and as far as I know there is no even semi-realistic plan or policy proposal to come and take away people's guns. Even Feinsteins desired ban on 'assault weapons' would likely not involve requiring people to surrender the existing weapons they have. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that wasn't part of the previous ban on the AK-15 was it. That ban allowed existing owners to keep their weapons. Educate me on the Australian gun control that folks talk about. I understand that gun buybacks were part of the way that they reduced the number of existing guns, but that was voluntary, wasn't it, not confiscation?



I think what GuitarStv meant was the nobody wants to take away ALL your guns. The examples you provide


MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #728 on: April 07, 2016, 07:47:57 AM »
Too many comments to individually reply to after I logged off yesterday. I'll try to address the various things I read...

One doesn't have to be an expert one a particular area to be able to have some level of say in regards to what is taught their children in schools. That doesn't mean it makes sense to get deep down in the weeds about the more advanced details, but I have enough understanding to say that I agree with what Winkey espouses for elementary level teaching about guns. Kind of like how it is not unreasonable for an adult who got a D in History to legitimately opine that schools should teach about the American Revolution.

Moonshadow and possibly others seem to think that my argument against the idea that there is an inherent right to self-defense that is an ultimate trump card to beat down gun regulation implies that I think there is not already any gun regulation. That is false. Of course there is regulation. In the last few days while address the inherent rights argument, I've tried very hard to NOT give an opinion either for or against existing or further regulation. The AR-15 posts were NOT meant to say that the AR-15 should be banned but started as an example from a list that Winkey provided as an intellectual exercise to determine whether the prior ban on AR-15s was an unreasonable infringement on a assumed right to self-defense. As it stands, I'm not convinced it was. Moonshadow seems to argue that a person should be able to choose ANY weapon they want for self-defense and that the removal of any weapon from the list of options is a violation of his right to self-defense. Yet Guitarstv's examples showed that even Moonshadow acknowledges that some weapons should not be available. Thus it is not a matter of WHETHER there can be restrictions, but rather on WHAT restrictions are reasonable. Determining WHAT restrictions is the difficult point and the devil is in the details and I freely admit that my limited knowledge about guns makes me a poor advocate for opining on those details. Even so, I believe that I have effectively demonstrated that at least in regards to SOME regulations, the argument that they should be rejected merely based on the right to self-defense is irrational.


That was not my point.  My point was that you get the order of the matter backwards.  Since we, as in society, are starting from the position that self-defense is a human right, the benefits of limitations have to be justified to all concerned from a position of reason and knowledge.  Your position, from the start, was that I (the self-defender in this context) had to justify to society the benefits of my choices of tools.  I don't accept the extreme arguments of backpack nukes or landmines, because anyone rational can see the net social benefits of restrictions to these choices.  You chose the AR-15 as your example weapon, because it was part of the assualt weapons ban, and we pointed out (quite well, I believe) why the weapons included in that ban were arbitrary from an educated perspective.  I'm not expecting you to actually defend banning the AR-15, I was trying to highlight the fact that your side of the debate is ignorant to the details that are actually worth discussing.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #729 on: April 07, 2016, 07:53:39 AM »
Now, I am not saying the gun control people in this thread believe this. They are probably well meaning. However, the Bloomberg's, Soros's, Brady's etc of the world do hold these attitudes.

Diane Feinstein said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

This is the second time in this thread that someone has taken this very quote radically out of context to try to prove a shadowy conspiracy of people wanting to ban all guns.  It's still as dishonest as when moonshadow was doing it.


It wasn't dishonest when I did it either.  I included that quote in a huge list of quotes to display that those opposed to guns generally did exist, and that they held positions of political power.  You pointed out that this one, in particular, was out of context; which I acknowledged was true.  That did not, however, overturn my point; because if the other 10 or 12 quotes were out of context, you would have made it your life's work to demonstrate that to be so.  But you did not, because you could not.  We have, together, already established that this particular quote is often taken out of context; as is the Gandi quote.  That doesn't make his point any less valid than my own.  You are a deep ideologue, GuitarStv, who is not only willfully ignorant of the true & present nature of guns & gun regulations; but one that isn't interested in a rational conversation, nor have you ever been engaged in this debate in good faith for the stretch of this thread.  What you are, GuitarStv, is an eloquent troll.  You are subtle & well spoken, but a troll nonetheless.  If I had any faith that the moderators held the capacity to see this nuance in your posts, I'd report you.  Such as it is, it's not worth the effort; but your opinion means nothing at all, because ours' means nothing at all to you.

I stopped researching your quotes after the first two or three all turned out to be either complete fabrications, or taken out of context.  You earlier admitted that you didn't research any of the quotes made in your posts, you were just dumping the results of idyll googling.  That's intellectually dishonest, and (as demonstrated by Winkeyman doing the exact same) common to the pro gun side's debating tactics.

Please read my post #731

People like you say "Nobody wants to ban and take away your guns."

The Diane Feinstein quote we are referencing is not hard to understand. What you have there (in context) is a powerful Senator who champions gun control legislation. You have her saying that she was unable to get a total ban and confiscation on "assault weapons." However, if she could have gotten the votes, she would have done a total ban and confiscation of "assault weapons" and made Mr. and Ms. America turn 'em all in. Most of the firearms I own would fall under such a ban.

In Australia (and other countries), the government DID ban and confiscate and destroy most guns. Powerful American liberals say they wants our gun regulations to look more like Australia.

I spend a lot of time in Scotland and have friends there that are gun owners. The government there DID ban and confiscate most of their guns. Powerful American liberals say they want our gun regulations to look more like the UK's.

Powerful people in the US government and many voters would like to, if they have the votes, ban and confiscate most of my guns.

So how can you tell me "nobody wants to ban and take away your guns" and then say I am dishonest and lack context?

What if John Smith (and this is the case for many people) only own two guns, a Glock with "high capacity" magazines and an AR-15. If our gun laws looked like the UK, or Australia, or Diane Feinstein's version of America, then it is correct to say that powerful people want to ban and take away ALL of John Smith's guns.

You are the one who lacks context. You are the one who is being dishonest.

Me: People want to ban and confiscate my guns.
You: LIAR! DISHONEST! YOU TAKE THINGS OUT OF CONTEXT! THEY ONLY WANT TO BAN AND CONFISCATE MOST OF THEM! THEY DONT WANT TO TAKE AWAY YOUR REVOLVERS AND BOLT ACTION RIFLES (yet)!

What a laughable response.

Seems to me that both sides are prone to some over-simplification. Yeah, I'm sure there are some extreme anti-gun activists that would like to take away most or all guns. On the other hand, most people in favor of gun control are not nearly so extreme and as far as I know there is no even semi-realistic plan or policy proposal to come and take away people's guns. Even Feinsteins desired ban on 'assault weapons' would likely not involve requiring people to surrender the existing weapons they have. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that wasn't part of the previous ban on the AK-15 was it. That ban allowed existing owners to keep their weapons. Educate me on the Australian gun control that folks talk about. I understand that gun buybacks were part of the way that they reduced the number of existing guns, but that was voluntary, wasn't it, not confiscation?



I think what GuitarStv meant was the nobody wants to take away ALL your guns. The examples you provide

This is exactly the point GuitarSTV keeps sticking on.

The 1994 AWB did not require people to turn in their guns. Because it was not politically possible at that time to pass such a law. It only banned the new manufacture of many guns.

However, Diane Feinstein said many times that if she COULD have gotten the votes for a confiscation, she would have done it in a heartbeat. "Mr and Ms. America, turn them all in!" That's what she is saying in the interview Guitar and I are talking about.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #730 on: April 07, 2016, 07:55:23 AM »
Too many comments to individually reply to after I logged off yesterday. I'll try to address the various things I read...

One doesn't have to be an expert one a particular area to be able to have some level of say in regards to what is taught their children in schools. That doesn't mean it makes sense to get deep down in the weeds about the more advanced details, but I have enough understanding to say that I agree with what Winkey espouses for elementary level teaching about guns. Kind of like how it is not unreasonable for an adult who got a D in History to legitimately opine that schools should teach about the American Revolution.

Moonshadow and possibly others seem to think that my argument against the idea that there is an inherent right to self-defense that is an ultimate trump card to beat down gun regulation implies that I think there is not already any gun regulation. That is false. Of course there is regulation. In the last few days while address the inherent rights argument, I've tried very hard to NOT give an opinion either for or against existing or further regulation. The AR-15 posts were NOT meant to say that the AR-15 should be banned but started as an example from a list that Winkey provided as an intellectual exercise to determine whether the prior ban on AR-15s was an unreasonable infringement on a assumed right to self-defense. As it stands, I'm not convinced it was. Moonshadow seems to argue that a person should be able to choose ANY weapon they want for self-defense and that the removal of any weapon from the list of options is a violation of his right to self-defense. Yet Guitarstv's examples showed that even Moonshadow acknowledges that some weapons should not be available. Thus it is not a matter of WHETHER there can be restrictions, but rather on WHAT restrictions are reasonable. Determining WHAT restrictions is the difficult point and the devil is in the details and I freely admit that my limited knowledge about guns makes me a poor advocate for opining on those details. Even so, I believe that I have effectively demonstrated that at least in regards to SOME regulations, the argument that they should be rejected merely based on the right to self-defense is irrational.


That was not my point.  My point was that you get the order of the matter backwards.  Since we, as in society, are starting from the position that self-defense is a human right, the benefits of limitations have to be justified to all concerned from a position of reason and knowledge.  Your position, from the start, was that I (the self-defender in this context) had to justify to society the benefits of my choices of tools.  I don't accept the extreme arguments of backpack nukes or landmines, because anyone rational can see the net social benefits of restrictions to these choices.  You chose the AR-15 as your example weapon, because it was part of the assualt weapons ban, and we pointed out (quite well, I believe) why the weapons included in that ban were arbitrary from an educated perspective.  I'm not expecting you to actually defend banning the AR-15, I was trying to highlight the fact that your side of the debate is ignorant to the details that are actually worth discussing.

If I understand your post correctly, then, you do agree that if an argument could be made that banning the AR-15 was a benefit to society, such an argument would not be trumped by the fact that it limited your right to self-defense?

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2669
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #731 on: April 07, 2016, 08:11:09 AM »
Too many comments to individually reply to after I logged off yesterday. I'll try to address the various things I read...

One doesn't have to be an expert one a particular area to be able to have some level of say in regards to what is taught their children in schools. That doesn't mean it makes sense to get deep down in the weeds about the more advanced details, but I have enough understanding to say that I agree with what Winkey espouses for elementary level teaching about guns. Kind of like how it is not unreasonable for an adult who got a D in History to legitimately opine that schools should teach about the American Revolution.

Moonshadow and possibly others seem to think that my argument against the idea that there is an inherent right to self-defense that is an ultimate trump card to beat down gun regulation implies that I think there is not already any gun regulation. That is false. Of course there is regulation. In the last few days while address the inherent rights argument, I've tried very hard to NOT give an opinion either for or against existing or further regulation. The AR-15 posts were NOT meant to say that the AR-15 should be banned but started as an example from a list that Winkey provided as an intellectual exercise to determine whether the prior ban on AR-15s was an unreasonable infringement on a assumed right to self-defense. As it stands, I'm not convinced it was. Moonshadow seems to argue that a person should be able to choose ANY weapon they want for self-defense and that the removal of any weapon from the list of options is a violation of his right to self-defense. Yet Guitarstv's examples showed that even Moonshadow acknowledges that some weapons should not be available. Thus it is not a matter of WHETHER there can be restrictions, but rather on WHAT restrictions are reasonable. Determining WHAT restrictions is the difficult point and the devil is in the details and I freely admit that my limited knowledge about guns makes me a poor advocate for opining on those details. Even so, I believe that I have effectively demonstrated that at least in regards to SOME regulations, the argument that they should be rejected merely based on the right to self-defense is irrational.


That was not my point.  My point was that you get the order of the matter backwards.  Since we, as in society, are starting from the position that self-defense is a human right, the benefits of limitations have to be justified to all concerned from a position of reason and knowledge.  Your position, from the start, was that I (the self-defender in this context) had to justify to society the benefits of my choices of tools.  I don't accept the extreme arguments of backpack nukes or landmines, because anyone rational can see the net social benefits of restrictions to these choices.  You chose the AR-15 as your example weapon, because it was part of the assualt weapons ban, and we pointed out (quite well, I believe) why the weapons included in that ban were arbitrary from an educated perspective.  I'm not expecting you to actually defend banning the AR-15, I was trying to highlight the fact that your side of the debate is ignorant to the details that are actually worth discussing.

If I understand your post correctly, then, you do agree that if an argument could be made that banning the AR-15 was a benefit to society, such an argument would not be trumped by the fact that it limited your right to self-defense?

Pretty clearly, which is why we don't argue for things like the repeal of the Firearms act of 1934 or to be allowed to have nukes, missiles, bombs, etc.

The problem is, when firearms-ignorant people like yourself get to make firearms laws, we end up with half-assed arbitrary bullshit like the AWB.  Go google "shoulder thing that goes up".  It is disgusting what the ignorant want to ban that they have zero understanding of.

But you keep harping on this point, page after page, as if it makes some difference.  It doesn't.  Because you can't make a rational argument why an AR-15 should be banned.  Not based on capability, on statistics, or on anything else.  So why are we still fucking discussing it?  You might as well be telling us you can outlaw cucumbers because they aren't vital for self defense.  So what?  It doesn't mean anything. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #732 on: April 07, 2016, 08:35:18 AM »
Too many comments to individually reply to after I logged off yesterday. I'll try to address the various things I read...

One doesn't have to be an expert one a particular area to be able to have some level of say in regards to what is taught their children in schools. That doesn't mean it makes sense to get deep down in the weeds about the more advanced details, but I have enough understanding to say that I agree with what Winkey espouses for elementary level teaching about guns. Kind of like how it is not unreasonable for an adult who got a D in History to legitimately opine that schools should teach about the American Revolution.

Moonshadow and possibly others seem to think that my argument against the idea that there is an inherent right to self-defense that is an ultimate trump card to beat down gun regulation implies that I think there is not already any gun regulation. That is false. Of course there is regulation. In the last few days while address the inherent rights argument, I've tried very hard to NOT give an opinion either for or against existing or further regulation. The AR-15 posts were NOT meant to say that the AR-15 should be banned but started as an example from a list that Winkey provided as an intellectual exercise to determine whether the prior ban on AR-15s was an unreasonable infringement on a assumed right to self-defense. As it stands, I'm not convinced it was. Moonshadow seems to argue that a person should be able to choose ANY weapon they want for self-defense and that the removal of any weapon from the list of options is a violation of his right to self-defense. Yet Guitarstv's examples showed that even Moonshadow acknowledges that some weapons should not be available. Thus it is not a matter of WHETHER there can be restrictions, but rather on WHAT restrictions are reasonable. Determining WHAT restrictions is the difficult point and the devil is in the details and I freely admit that my limited knowledge about guns makes me a poor advocate for opining on those details. Even so, I believe that I have effectively demonstrated that at least in regards to SOME regulations, the argument that they should be rejected merely based on the right to self-defense is irrational.


That was not my point.  My point was that you get the order of the matter backwards.  Since we, as in society, are starting from the position that self-defense is a human right, the benefits of limitations have to be justified to all concerned from a position of reason and knowledge.  Your position, from the start, was that I (the self-defender in this context) had to justify to society the benefits of my choices of tools.  I don't accept the extreme arguments of backpack nukes or landmines, because anyone rational can see the net social benefits of restrictions to these choices.  You chose the AR-15 as your example weapon, because it was part of the assualt weapons ban, and we pointed out (quite well, I believe) why the weapons included in that ban were arbitrary from an educated perspective.  I'm not expecting you to actually defend banning the AR-15, I was trying to highlight the fact that your side of the debate is ignorant to the details that are actually worth discussing.

If I understand your post correctly, then, you do agree that if an argument could be made that banning the AR-15 was a benefit to society, such an argument would not be trumped by the fact that it limited your right to self-defense?

Pretty clearly, which is why we don't argue for things like the repeal of the Firearms act of 1934 or to be allowed to have nukes, missiles, bombs, etc.

The problem is, when firearms-ignorant people like yourself get to make firearms laws, we end up with half-assed arbitrary bullshit like the AWB.  Go google "shoulder thing that goes up".  It is disgusting what the ignorant want to ban that they have zero understanding of.

But you keep harping on this point, page after page, as if it makes some difference.  It doesn't.  Because you can't make a rational argument why an AR-15 should be banned.  Not based on capability, on statistics, or on anything else.  So why are we still fucking discussing it?  You might as well be telling us you can outlaw cucumbers because they aren't vital for self defense.  So what?  It doesn't mean anything.

I agree that trying to present an intelligent theoretical argument to anyone whose sole criteria for intelligence is knowing whether a glock is loaded or unloaded is probably a waste of time. The challenge reminds me of the Old Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy text adventure game published by Infocom back in the 80's. At one point in the game the player as Arthur Dent has to solve a problem of how to convince a talking door that Arthur is himself intelligent. Nerd credits for those who played the game and remember what Arthur had to show the door.

Actually I enjoy discussing issues with folks on the forum who can appreciate logic and political philosophy*. As for why I keep repeating myself? I guess just to make sure that the logical reasoning I'm presenting can rise above the BS replies from ignorant people. Sigh, yeah, I know its a Sisyphean task.. Oh, don't worry about looking up Sisyphus. That was a story told by ancient Greeks and they were obviously not intelligent because they also couldn't tell whether a glock was loaded. ;)

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1110
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #733 on: April 07, 2016, 08:37:39 AM »
Dramaman -

Ignorance is one of the reasons marijuana is still illegal (and illegal to begin with).

Feinstein, one of the most vocal gun control advocates, continues to fight marijuana despite facts and public opinion to the contrary.

I assume she applies a similar level of thought to her gun control positions.  People like her are how bad laws get on the books and stay there.  Not just referring to guns.

MW

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #734 on: April 07, 2016, 08:45:03 AM »
Dramaman -

Ignorance is one of the reasons marijuana is still illegal (and illegal to begin with).

Feinstein, one of the most vocal gun control advocates, continues to fight marijuana despite facts and public opinion to the contrary.

I assume she applies a similar level of thought to her gun control positions.  People like her are how bad laws get on the books and stay there.  Not just referring to guns.

MW, I don't disagree with you, but we are a nation of laws with representatives (flawed as they are) who we empower to make those laws.

Its interesting that the challenge of legislating on complicated, technical subjects is one of the arguments against term limits as well as a defense of lobbyists.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2669
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #735 on: April 07, 2016, 08:53:10 AM »
Too many comments to individually reply to after I logged off yesterday. I'll try to address the various things I read...

One doesn't have to be an expert one a particular area to be able to have some level of say in regards to what is taught their children in schools. That doesn't mean it makes sense to get deep down in the weeds about the more advanced details, but I have enough understanding to say that I agree with what Winkey espouses for elementary level teaching about guns. Kind of like how it is not unreasonable for an adult who got a D in History to legitimately opine that schools should teach about the American Revolution.

Moonshadow and possibly others seem to think that my argument against the idea that there is an inherent right to self-defense that is an ultimate trump card to beat down gun regulation implies that I think there is not already any gun regulation. That is false. Of course there is regulation. In the last few days while address the inherent rights argument, I've tried very hard to NOT give an opinion either for or against existing or further regulation. The AR-15 posts were NOT meant to say that the AR-15 should be banned but started as an example from a list that Winkey provided as an intellectual exercise to determine whether the prior ban on AR-15s was an unreasonable infringement on a assumed right to self-defense. As it stands, I'm not convinced it was. Moonshadow seems to argue that a person should be able to choose ANY weapon they want for self-defense and that the removal of any weapon from the list of options is a violation of his right to self-defense. Yet Guitarstv's examples showed that even Moonshadow acknowledges that some weapons should not be available. Thus it is not a matter of WHETHER there can be restrictions, but rather on WHAT restrictions are reasonable. Determining WHAT restrictions is the difficult point and the devil is in the details and I freely admit that my limited knowledge about guns makes me a poor advocate for opining on those details. Even so, I believe that I have effectively demonstrated that at least in regards to SOME regulations, the argument that they should be rejected merely based on the right to self-defense is irrational.


That was not my point.  My point was that you get the order of the matter backwards.  Since we, as in society, are starting from the position that self-defense is a human right, the benefits of limitations have to be justified to all concerned from a position of reason and knowledge.  Your position, from the start, was that I (the self-defender in this context) had to justify to society the benefits of my choices of tools.  I don't accept the extreme arguments of backpack nukes or landmines, because anyone rational can see the net social benefits of restrictions to these choices.  You chose the AR-15 as your example weapon, because it was part of the assualt weapons ban, and we pointed out (quite well, I believe) why the weapons included in that ban were arbitrary from an educated perspective.  I'm not expecting you to actually defend banning the AR-15, I was trying to highlight the fact that your side of the debate is ignorant to the details that are actually worth discussing.

If I understand your post correctly, then, you do agree that if an argument could be made that banning the AR-15 was a benefit to society, such an argument would not be trumped by the fact that it limited your right to self-defense?

Pretty clearly, which is why we don't argue for things like the repeal of the Firearms act of 1934 or to be allowed to have nukes, missiles, bombs, etc.

The problem is, when firearms-ignorant people like yourself get to make firearms laws, we end up with half-assed arbitrary bullshit like the AWB.  Go google "shoulder thing that goes up".  It is disgusting what the ignorant want to ban that they have zero understanding of.

But you keep harping on this point, page after page, as if it makes some difference.  It doesn't.  Because you can't make a rational argument why an AR-15 should be banned.  Not based on capability, on statistics, or on anything else.  So why are we still fucking discussing it?  You might as well be telling us you can outlaw cucumbers because they aren't vital for self defense.  So what?  It doesn't mean anything.

I agree that trying to present an intelligent theoretical argument to anyone whose sole criteria for intelligence is knowing whether a glock is loaded or unloaded is probably a waste of time.

Climb down off your intellectual high horse there, hombre.  Note that my insistence on your knowing about the Glock was only a predication for your qualification on enacting legislation on how to store said Glock.  If you don't understand the differences between the various firearm conditions, you have zero knowledge of safe storage.  Period, the end.  You simply can't have an intelligent discussion on the matter because you don't know the facts. 


Quote
Actually I enjoy discussing issues with folks on the forum who can appreciate logic and political philosophy*. As for why I keep repeating myself? I guess just to make sure that the logical reasoning I'm presenting can rise above the BS replies from ignorant people. Sigh, yeah, I know its a Sisyphean task.. Oh, don't worry about looking up Sisyphus. That was a story told by ancient Greeks and they were obviously not intelligent because they also couldn't tell whether a glock was loaded. ;)

Keep pushing the rock up the hill.  Because that's all you're doing, is mental masturbation.  "Ohh, looky here, I could take away your right to an AR-15 if I could prove it dangerous somehow because it isn't necessary to your right of self defense."  The problem is the italicized, you can't prove that, partially because you lack any sort of technical understanding about firearms, and partially because it simply ISN'T more dangerous, the fact is wrong!  So why keep arguing about it?  To win imaginary points on your debate team chalkboard in the sky?


PS, don't perpetuate the classic liberal bigotry that everyone who disagrees with you and/or likes guns is unintelligent, unsophisticated, or uncultured.  Just because I say fuck a lot and like things that go bang doesn't make you smarter.  It's pretty empty arrogance given the number of times you've stomped on your dick with your own ignorance in this thread.   
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1110
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #736 on: April 07, 2016, 08:59:35 AM »
Dramaman -

Ignorance is one of the reasons marijuana is still illegal (and illegal to begin with).

Feinstein, one of the most vocal gun control advocates, continues to fight marijuana despite facts and public opinion to the contrary.

I assume she applies a similar level of thought to her gun control positions.  People like her are how bad laws get on the books and stay there.  Not just referring to guns.

MW, I don't disagree with you, but we are a nation of laws with representatives (flawed as they are) who we empower to make those laws.

Its interesting that the challenge of legislating on complicated, technical subjects is one of the arguments against term limits as well as a defense of lobbyists.

Drama

It's not just technical subjects.  Some lawmakers and do-gooders feel they need a law to prevent anything they don't like without any sort of cost benefit analysis.

The AR-15 is a popular rifle that gun control advocates hate.  It's used in very few murders because it's expensive and big.  Despite that, it's a target because it "looks" like a military rifle.

Since I brought up out of control lawmakers and groups, DUI laws and Madd are another example.  I hate drunk drivers, but the campaign to criminalize drivers who have had small amounts to drink has taken on a life of it's own.  MADD championed the push from .10 BAC to .08 despite science that said drivers in that range (.08 and .09) weren't a huge danger.  Why, because they had to do something in spite of the facts.

You can't criminalize every behavior you don't like and making all citizens criminals isn't good policy either.

MW

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #737 on: April 07, 2016, 09:10:10 AM »
Too many comments to individually reply to after I logged off yesterday. I'll try to address the various things I read...

One doesn't have to be an expert one a particular area to be able to have some level of say in regards to what is taught their children in schools. That doesn't mean it makes sense to get deep down in the weeds about the more advanced details, but I have enough understanding to say that I agree with what Winkey espouses for elementary level teaching about guns. Kind of like how it is not unreasonable for an adult who got a D in History to legitimately opine that schools should teach about the American Revolution.

Moonshadow and possibly others seem to think that my argument against the idea that there is an inherent right to self-defense that is an ultimate trump card to beat down gun regulation implies that I think there is not already any gun regulation. That is false. Of course there is regulation. In the last few days while address the inherent rights argument, I've tried very hard to NOT give an opinion either for or against existing or further regulation. The AR-15 posts were NOT meant to say that the AR-15 should be banned but started as an example from a list that Winkey provided as an intellectual exercise to determine whether the prior ban on AR-15s was an unreasonable infringement on a assumed right to self-defense. As it stands, I'm not convinced it was. Moonshadow seems to argue that a person should be able to choose ANY weapon they want for self-defense and that the removal of any weapon from the list of options is a violation of his right to self-defense. Yet Guitarstv's examples showed that even Moonshadow acknowledges that some weapons should not be available. Thus it is not a matter of WHETHER there can be restrictions, but rather on WHAT restrictions are reasonable. Determining WHAT restrictions is the difficult point and the devil is in the details and I freely admit that my limited knowledge about guns makes me a poor advocate for opining on those details. Even so, I believe that I have effectively demonstrated that at least in regards to SOME regulations, the argument that they should be rejected merely based on the right to self-defense is irrational.


That was not my point.  My point was that you get the order of the matter backwards.  Since we, as in society, are starting from the position that self-defense is a human right, the benefits of limitations have to be justified to all concerned from a position of reason and knowledge.  Your position, from the start, was that I (the self-defender in this context) had to justify to society the benefits of my choices of tools.  I don't accept the extreme arguments of backpack nukes or landmines, because anyone rational can see the net social benefits of restrictions to these choices.  You chose the AR-15 as your example weapon, because it was part of the assualt weapons ban, and we pointed out (quite well, I believe) why the weapons included in that ban were arbitrary from an educated perspective.  I'm not expecting you to actually defend banning the AR-15, I was trying to highlight the fact that your side of the debate is ignorant to the details that are actually worth discussing.

If I understand your post correctly, then, you do agree that if an argument could be made that banning the AR-15 was a benefit to society, such an argument would not be trumped by the fact that it limited your right to self-defense?

Pretty clearly, which is why we don't argue for things like the repeal of the Firearms act of 1934 or to be allowed to have nukes, missiles, bombs, etc.

The problem is, when firearms-ignorant people like yourself get to make firearms laws, we end up with half-assed arbitrary bullshit like the AWB.  Go google "shoulder thing that goes up".  It is disgusting what the ignorant want to ban that they have zero understanding of.

But you keep harping on this point, page after page, as if it makes some difference.  It doesn't.  Because you can't make a rational argument why an AR-15 should be banned.  Not based on capability, on statistics, or on anything else.  So why are we still fucking discussing it?  You might as well be telling us you can outlaw cucumbers because they aren't vital for self defense.  So what?  It doesn't mean anything.

I agree that trying to present an intelligent theoretical argument to anyone whose sole criteria for intelligence is knowing whether a glock is loaded or unloaded is probably a waste of time.

Climb down off your intellectual high horse there, hombre.  Note that my insistence on your knowing about the Glock was only a predication for your qualification on enacting legislation on how to store said Glock.  If you don't understand the differences between the various firearm conditions, you have zero knowledge of safe storage.  Period, the end.  You simply can't have an intelligent discussion on the matter because you don't know the facts.

Wow, once again you seem to have the delusion that I was arguing about firearm conditions and safe storage. I don't recall ever pontificating on those issues. Of course maybe you're just hallucinating I did seeing as you must be a bit light headed sitting up there on your own high saddle there, cowboy. ;)

Actually I enjoy discussing issues with folks on the forum who can appreciate logic and political philosophy*. As for why I keep repeating myself? I guess just to make sure that the logical reasoning I'm presenting can rise above the BS replies from ignorant people. Sigh, yeah, I know its a Sisyphean task.. Oh, don't worry about looking up Sisyphus. That was a story told by ancient Greeks and they were obviously not intelligent because they also couldn't tell whether a glock was loaded. ;)

Keep pushing the rock up the hill.  Because that's all you're doing, is mental masturbation.  "Ohh, looky here, I could take away your right to an AR-15 if I could prove it dangerous somehow because it isn't necessary to your right of self defense."  The problem is the italicized, you can't prove that, partially because you lack any sort of technical understanding about firearms, and partially because it simply ISN'T more dangerous, the fact is wrong!  So why keep arguing about it?  To win imaginary points on your debate team chalkboard in the sky?

PS, don't perpetuate the classic liberal bigotry that everyone who disagrees with you and/or likes guns is unintelligent, unsophisticated, or uncultured.  Just because I say fuck a lot and like things that go bang doesn't make you smarter.  It's pretty empty arrogance given the number of times you've stomped on your dick with your own ignorance in this thread.

Actually I enjoy discussing issues (guns and otherwise) with people who can disagree with me in an intelligent, sophisticated or cultured way as I enjoy learning new facts and expanding the limits of my own knowledge. For those others, I find amusement in stringing them on and seeing just how ridiculous they can be. :)

[MOD EDIT: Please don't troll.] 
« Last Edit: April 07, 2016, 12:51:06 PM by arebelspy »

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #738 on: April 07, 2016, 09:14:04 AM »
Dramaman -

Ignorance is one of the reasons marijuana is still illegal (and illegal to begin with).

Feinstein, one of the most vocal gun control advocates, continues to fight marijuana despite facts and public opinion to the contrary.

I assume she applies a similar level of thought to her gun control positions.  People like her are how bad laws get on the books and stay there.  Not just referring to guns.

MW, I don't disagree with you, but we are a nation of laws with representatives (flawed as they are) who we empower to make those laws.

Its interesting that the challenge of legislating on complicated, technical subjects is one of the arguments against term limits as well as a defense of lobbyists.

Drama

It's not just technical subjects.  Some lawmakers and do-gooders feel they need a law to prevent anything they don't like without any sort of cost benefit analysis.

The AR-15 is a popular rifle that gun control advocates hate.  It's used in very few murders because it's expensive and big.  Despite that, it's a target because it "looks" like a military rifle.

Since I brought up out of control lawmakers and groups, DUI laws and Madd are another example.  I hate drunk drivers, but the campaign to criminalize drivers who have had small amounts to drink has taken on a life of it's own.  MADD championed the push from .10 BAC to .08 despite science that said drivers in that range (.08 and .09) weren't a huge danger.  Why, because they had to do something in spite of the facts.

You can't criminalize every behavior you don't like and making all citizens criminals isn't good policy either.

Okay, but when its a matter of where you draw the line, there is always going to be some error and reasonable people will disagree on which side to fall on.

Incidentally every time I hear about MADD, I can't help but recall a joke opposition group a classmate dreamed up years ago. DAMM - Drunks Against Mad Mothers.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2669
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #739 on: April 07, 2016, 09:16:43 AM »
Wow, once again you seem to have the delusion that I was arguing about firearm conditions and safe storage. I don't recall ever pontificating on those issue. Of course maybe your just hallucinating I did seeing as you must be a bit light headed sitting up there on your own high saddle there, cowboy. ;)

TIL that insisting someone argue with a base of knowledge about which they are arguing puts me on a high horse.  You may not have argued specifically about firearm conditions, but you've spent plenty of time throwing out the incendiary "well I COULD argue you don't have a right to an AR-15...." while having zero technical knowledge about why that does or doesn't make any sense, so the point remains. 

Quote
Actually I enjoy discussing issues with folks on the forum who can appreciate logic and political philosophy*. As for why I keep repeating myself? I guess just to make sure that the logical reasoning I'm presenting can rise above the BS replies from ignorant people. Sigh, yeah, I know its a Sisyphean task.. Oh, don't worry about looking up Sisyphus. That was a story told by ancient Greeks and they were obviously not intelligent because they also couldn't tell whether a glock was loaded. ;)

Keep pushing the rock up the hill.  Because that's all you're doing, is mental masturbation.  "Ohh, looky here, I could take away your right to an AR-15 if I could prove it dangerous somehow because it isn't necessary to your right of self defense."  The problem is the italicized, you can't prove that, partially because you lack any sort of technical understanding about firearms, and partially because it simply ISN'T more dangerous, the fact is wrong!  So why keep arguing about it?  To win imaginary points on your debate team chalkboard in the sky?

PS, don't perpetuate the classic liberal bigotry that everyone who disagrees with you and/or likes guns is unintelligent, unsophisticated, or uncultured.  Just because I say fuck a lot and like things that go bang doesn't make you smarter.  It's pretty empty arrogance given the number of times you've stomped on your dick with your own ignorance in this thread.

Actually I enjoy discussing issues (guns and otherwise) with people who can disagree with me in an intelligent, sophisticated or cultured way as I enjoy learning new facts and expanding the limits of my own knowledge. For those others, I find amusement in stringing them on and seeing just how ridiculous they can be. :)

Expanding your own knowledge, like with the Eddie Eagle thing you just condemned outright with zero knowledge or research?  And now you're calling others ridiculous.  Okay. 
« Last Edit: April 07, 2016, 09:18:23 AM by Chris22 »
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #740 on: April 07, 2016, 09:38:02 AM »
Wow, once again you seem to have the delusion that I was arguing about firearm conditions and safe storage. I don't recall ever pontificating on those issue. Of course maybe your just hallucinating I did seeing as you must be a bit light headed sitting up there on your own high saddle there, cowboy. ;)

TIL that insisting someone argue with a base of knowledge about which they are arguing puts me on a high horse.  You may not have argued specifically about firearm conditions, but you've spent plenty of time throwing out the incendiary "well I COULD argue you don't have a right to an AR-15...." while having zero technical knowledge about why that does or doesn't make any sense, so the point remains. 

Yes, that was basically my theoretical argument. I'm not sure whether you are so up in arms about it because you misunderstood it for so long or because you have no answer to it. Either way, it definitely has triggered an amusing exchange with you.

Actually I enjoy discussing issues with folks on the forum who can appreciate logic and political philosophy*. As for why I keep repeating myself? I guess just to make sure that the logical reasoning I'm presenting can rise above the BS replies from ignorant people. Sigh, yeah, I know its a Sisyphean task.. Oh, don't worry about looking up Sisyphus. That was a story told by ancient Greeks and they were obviously not intelligent because they also couldn't tell whether a glock was loaded. ;)

Keep pushing the rock up the hill.  Because that's all you're doing, is mental masturbation.  "Ohh, looky here, I could take away your right to an AR-15 if I could prove it dangerous somehow because it isn't necessary to your right of self defense."  The problem is the italicized, you can't prove that, partially because you lack any sort of technical understanding about firearms, and partially because it simply ISN'T more dangerous, the fact is wrong!  So why keep arguing about it?  To win imaginary points on your debate team chalkboard in the sky?

PS, don't perpetuate the classic liberal bigotry that everyone who disagrees with you and/or likes guns is unintelligent, unsophisticated, or uncultured.  Just because I say fuck a lot and like things that go bang doesn't make you smarter.  It's pretty empty arrogance given the number of times you've stomped on your dick with your own ignorance in this thread.

Actually I enjoy discussing issues (guns and otherwise) with people who can disagree with me in an intelligent, sophisticated or cultured way as I enjoy learning new facts and expanding the limits of my own knowledge. For those others, I find amusement in stringing them on and seeing just how ridiculous they can be. :)

Expanding your own knowledge, like with the Eddie Eagle thing you just condemned outright with zero knowledge or research?  And now you're calling others ridiculous.  Okay.

Yep. I was wrong with that. I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2669
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #741 on: April 07, 2016, 09:42:17 AM »
TIL that insisting someone argue with a base of knowledge about which they are arguing puts me on a high horse.  You may not have argued specifically about firearm conditions, but you've spent plenty of time throwing out the incendiary "well I COULD argue you don't have a right to an AR-15...." while having zero technical knowledge about why that does or doesn't make any sense, so the point remains. 

Yes, that was basically my theoretical argument. I'm not sure whether you are so up in arms about it because you misunderstood it for so long or because you have no answer to it. Either way, it definitely has triggered an amusing exchange with you.

Because it's ridiculous.  It's like saying "if I could argue my dog was a cat I'd be right to feed him cat food."  Well, yeah, I guess that's true, but again...so what?

It's pretty clear you actually DO believe the underlying bullshit argument, that the AR-15 can and should be banned because it's dangerous.  Otherwise, why even continue on the point? 
« Last Edit: April 07, 2016, 09:52:32 AM by Chris22 »
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #742 on: April 07, 2016, 09:51:45 AM »
TIL that insisting someone argue with a base of knowledge about which they are arguing puts me on a high horse.  You may not have argued specifically about firearm conditions, but you've spent plenty of time throwing out the incendiary "well I COULD argue you don't have a right to an AR-15...." while having zero technical knowledge about why that does or doesn't make any sense, so the point remains. 

Yes, that was basically my theoretical argument. I'm not sure whether you are so up in arms about it because you misunderstood it for so long or because you have no answer to it. Either way, it definitely has triggered an amusing exchange with you.
Because it's ridiculous.  It's like saying "if I could argue my dog was a cat I'd be right to feed him cat food."  Well, yeah, I guess that's true, but again...so what?

It's pretty clear you actually DO believe the underlying bullshit argument, that the AR-15 can and should be banned because it's dangerous.  Otherwise, why even continue on the point?

What is clear is that you don't understand why I was making this argument and you don't understand the argument that I was responding to. To put it in terms you might better understand, your ignorance in the details of the discussion as it evolved is the equivalent of you not knowing how to tell whether a glock is loaded or not. Thus to paraphrase you and your colorful language, WHY DON'T YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP?

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2669
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #743 on: April 07, 2016, 09:53:19 AM »
TIL that insisting someone argue with a base of knowledge about which they are arguing puts me on a high horse.  You may not have argued specifically about firearm conditions, but you've spent plenty of time throwing out the incendiary "well I COULD argue you don't have a right to an AR-15...." while having zero technical knowledge about why that does or doesn't make any sense, so the point remains. 

Yes, that was basically my theoretical argument. I'm not sure whether you are so up in arms about it because you misunderstood it for so long or because you have no answer to it. Either way, it definitely has triggered an amusing exchange with you.
Because it's ridiculous.  It's like saying "if I could argue my dog was a cat I'd be right to feed him cat food."  Well, yeah, I guess that's true, but again...so what?

It's pretty clear you actually DO believe the underlying bullshit argument, that the AR-15 can and should be banned because it's dangerous.  Otherwise, why even continue on the point?

What is clear is that you don't understand why I was making this argument and you don't understand the argument that I was responding to. To put it in terms you might better understand, your ignorance in the details of the discussion as it evolved is the equivalent of you not knowing how to tell whether a glock is loaded or not. Thus to paraphrase you and your colorful language, WHY DON'T YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP?

Nope, I get it. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #744 on: April 07, 2016, 09:56:11 AM »
TIL that insisting someone argue with a base of knowledge about which they are arguing puts me on a high horse.  You may not have argued specifically about firearm conditions, but you've spent plenty of time throwing out the incendiary "well I COULD argue you don't have a right to an AR-15...." while having zero technical knowledge about why that does or doesn't make any sense, so the point remains. 

Yes, that was basically my theoretical argument. I'm not sure whether you are so up in arms about it because you misunderstood it for so long or because you have no answer to it. Either way, it definitely has triggered an amusing exchange with you.
Because it's ridiculous.  It's like saying "if I could argue my dog was a cat I'd be right to feed him cat food."  Well, yeah, I guess that's true, but again...so what?

It's pretty clear you actually DO believe the underlying bullshit argument, that the AR-15 can and should be banned because it's dangerous.  Otherwise, why even continue on the point?

What is clear is that you don't understand why I was making this argument and you don't understand the argument that I was responding to. To put it in terms you might better understand, your ignorance in the details of the discussion as it evolved is the equivalent of you not knowing how to tell whether a glock is loaded or not. Thus to paraphrase you and your colorful language, WHY DON'T YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP?

Nope, I get it.

Yeah, kind of like how I knew all about Eddie. At least in my case, I had the balls to admit I was wrong.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1110
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #745 on: April 07, 2016, 10:07:01 AM »


Okay, but when its a matter of where you draw the line, there is always going to be some error and reasonable people will disagree on which side to fall on.

Incidentally every time I hear about MADD, I can't help but recall a joke opposition group a classmate dreamed up years ago. DAMM - Drunks Against Mad Mothers.

First of all good joke.

If you have any doubt about where Clinton wants to draw the line, read this:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/04/07/bernie-sanders-guns-aurora/82721118/

The lawsuit is in question is like a drunk driving victims family suing shell for providing the gas in the car.

If those manufacturers and vendors were held liable for misuse of their products, they would all go out of business.  You don't need to outlaw guns, you simply sue the manufacturers out of business.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #746 on: April 07, 2016, 10:13:17 AM »


Okay, but when its a matter of where you draw the line, there is always going to be some error and reasonable people will disagree on which side to fall on.

Incidentally every time I hear about MADD, I can't help but recall a joke opposition group a classmate dreamed up years ago. DAMM - Drunks Against Mad Mothers.

First of all good joke.

If you have any doubt about where Clinton wants to draw the line, read this:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/04/07/bernie-sanders-guns-aurora/82721118/

The lawsuit is in question is like a drunk driving victims family suing shell for providing the gas in the car.

If those manufacturers and vendors were held liable for misuse of their products, they would all go out of business.  You don't need to outlaw guns, you simply sue the manufacturers out of business.

I honestly haven't spent a lot of time studying the pros and cons of holding arm manufactures liable. My initial response is to not throw out the idea completely as I am prone to compare gun manufacturers to the tobacco industry, admittedly an imperfect comparison. On the other hand, we have let lawsuits against the tobacco industry go forward yet they still seem to be around. Thus I can't imagine that allowing some lawsuits against gun manufacturers will mean the death knell for the gun industry.

jamesvt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #747 on: April 07, 2016, 10:20:12 AM »
Gin1984 you were never in the "gun crowd camp". If you are pro something you don't all of a sudden become against that thing because you don't like what someone wrote on an internet forum.
People don't seem to read/comprehend well in this thread.  Reread my statement.
My bad, I read it again after getting an adequate amount of sleep. A person, not necessarily you that would change their mind from being "pro gun" to supporting bans on certain firearms because of what some gun owners posted on a forum were never pro gun to begin with.

jamesvt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #748 on: April 07, 2016, 10:21:56 AM »
Pretty clearly, which is why we don't argue for things like the repeal of the Firearms act of 1934 or to be allowed to have nukes, missiles, bombs, etc.

The problem is, when firearms-ignorant people like yourself get to make firearms laws, we end up with half-assed arbitrary bullshit like the AWB.  Go google "shoulder thing that goes up".  It is disgusting what the ignorant want to ban that they have zero understanding of.

But you keep harping on this point, page after page, as if it makes some difference.  It doesn't.  Because you can't make a rational argument why an AR-15 should be banned.  Not based on capability, on statistics, or on anything else.  So why are we still fucking discussing it?  You might as well be telling us you can outlaw cucumbers because they aren't vital for self defense.  So what?  It doesn't mean anything.
Don't speak for everyone now.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #749 on: April 07, 2016, 10:26:19 AM »


Okay, but when its a matter of where you draw the line, there is always going to be some error and reasonable people will disagree on which side to fall on.

Incidentally every time I hear about MADD, I can't help but recall a joke opposition group a classmate dreamed up years ago. DAMM - Drunks Against Mad Mothers.

First of all good joke.

If you have any doubt about where Clinton wants to draw the line, read this:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/04/07/bernie-sanders-guns-aurora/82721118/

The lawsuit is in question is like a drunk driving victims family suing shell for providing the gas in the car.

If those manufacturers and vendors were held liable for misuse of their products, they would all go out of business.  You don't need to outlaw guns, you simply sue the manufacturers out of business.

I honestly haven't spent a lot of time studying the pros and cons of holding arm manufactures liable. My initial response is to not throw out the idea completely as I am prone to compare gun manufacturers to the tobacco industry, admittedly an imperfect comparison. On the other hand, we have let lawsuits against the tobacco industry go forward yet they still seem to be around. Thus I can't imagine that allowing some lawsuits against gun manufacturers will mean the death knell for the gun industry.

Thinking a bit more on the idea of suing gun manufacturers. Isn't it odd, that the gun industry is legislatively shielded from any lawsuits? I mean, that is kind of unusual. What other industry enjoys that kind of legal protection. Normally the system is supposed to let the courts decide whether there is legal grounds for a lawsuit to go forward. If the idea that a shooting victim can hold the gun manufacturer liable is totally without merit, shouldn't the courts make that determination, like they do with other lawsuits against other types of products? Like I said, just thinking...