New gun control thread!

[TakeYouToTasker]

Absolutely not.

 

Since we're on a new page I'll just attach this question to my answer. Saves time of going back to page 16.

Laws should serve a purpose, not be symbolic.

 

We don't need to be passing laws that would only serve to curtail behaviors in people who are already not demonstrating the behavior you are seeking to curtail.

[We Come In Peace]

Are you for real or just trying to grasp what is set out rather clearly in the United States Constitution??

The specific argument/meme in question has nothing to do with the second amendment or the constitution. Again, the logic proposed by B-Man was: "You honestly expect criminals to obey gun laws? That's a special kind of stupid".

 

There is no right to kill (except in self defense...like when a scumbag is attacking your wife)

There is no right to steal (except when his name is Charles Rangle)

There is no right to rape (with the exception of certain farm animals in NC at JBoyst farm )

You're drifting from the point. I concede there are no rights to kill, steal, or rape. Yet, why do we bother making laws prohibiting them if killers are just going to kill, rapists are going to rape and thieves are going to steal?

 

Applying B-Man's logic, or at the very least the logic he's advocating, we cannot legislate because criminals won't follow the laws anyway.

 

Seems silly, don't it?

 

But ownership of a gun is protected...hence the reason why laws limiting that constitutionally protected right leave a bad taste in the mouth of Americans.

And yet the second amendment is the only amendment with the word "regulated" written into it.

 

Think about that some.

 

Yes, killers will kill, and thieves will steal, but law abiding citizens (responsible gun owners) will be left holding a pitchfork if gun laws are expanded - criminals will always have access to firearms.

Think about that logic right there for a moment. No one is talking about repealing the second amendment and no one is talking about taking away all the guns. That's the extrapolation you're drawing from a fantasy that's been sold to you by the pro-gun advocates.

 

Do you honestly have a problem with a background check before purchasing a firearm that every "responsible" gun owner would pass with flying colors?

 

Laws should serve a purpose, not be symbolic.

 

We don't need to be passing laws that would only serve to curtail behaviors in people who are already not demonstrating the behavior you are seeking to curtail.

 

Do you think legislation is written with criminals in mind? By your logic here we shouldn't have drunk driving laws, I mean, we have them now and drunks are still driving. So why bother? What good do they do?

 

What's the purpose of having Drunk Driving laws on the books?

 

Again, nothing. Just sound.

If you didn't have to sound out all the words when you're reading, there wouldn't be any sound at all in my posts.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Good legislation is always written with criminals in mind, or it doesn't serve a purpose.

 

Your drunk driving laws are a prime example of this. Those laws were designed to take drunks off the road.

 

Gun legislation doesn't serve that purpose. It doesn't curtail crminal behavior. It only serves to criminalize peaceful folks who are not otherwise engaging in criminal behavior.

[We Come In Peace]

Good legislation is always written with criminals in mind, or it doesn't serve a purpose.

 

Your drunk driving laws are a prime example of this. Those laws were designed to take drunks off the road.

 

Gun legislation doesn't serve that purpose. It doesn't curtail crminal behavior. It only serves to criminalize peaceful folks who are not otherwise engaging in criminal behavior.

Interesting, yet we still have thousands of drunk driving accidents every year. So the laws didn't take the drunks off the road, did it? So you could argue all Drunk Driving laws did was to criminalize peaceful folk who were not otherwise engaging in criminal behavior.

 

(And I'm not trying to be purposefully difficult, I'm trying to hone in on a specific point).

 

And I'd still like to hear B-Man's answer to my question(s). If he's not too busy being cranky.

Edited April 21, 2013 by We Come In Peace

[meazza]

Interesting, yet we still have thousands of drunk driving accidents every year. So the laws didn't take the drunks off the road, did it? So you could argue all Drunk Driving laws did was to criminalize peaceful folk who were not otherwise engaging in criminal behavior.

 

(And I'm not trying to be purposefully difficult, I'm trying to hone in on a specific point).

 

And I'd still like to hear B-Man's answer to my question(s). If he's not too busy being cranky.

 

I think the issue is more related to enforcement.

 

For example, drunk driving is an issue in Canada. Some provinces decided to reduce the accepted level of alcohol to 0.05 from 0.08. The logic isn't sound. The drunk driving problem isn't the dude who is blowing the bubble and driving with 0.06 but the guy who is driving at 3 times the legal limit. So the issue is related to enforcement of current laws instead of putting new laws making life harder on those who choose to abide by the law.

 

Same thing with speeding. A kid was driving at 120 KP/H on my street that has a legal limit of 50. He smashed into a pole. The MADD crowd (the lobby no one ever talks about) pushed to drop the limit to 40...

[We Come In Peace]

I think the issue is more related to enforcement.

 

For example, drunk driving is an issue in Canada. Some provinces decided to reduce the accepted level of alcohol to 0.05 from 0.08. The logic isn't sound. The drunk driving problem isn't the dude who is blowing the bubble and driving with 0.06 but the guy who is driving at 3 times the legal limit. So the issue is related to enforcement of current laws instead of putting new laws making life harder on those who choose to abide by the law.

 

Same thing with speeding. A kid was driving at 120 KP/H on my street that has a legal limit of 50. He smashed into a pole. The MADD crowd (the lobby no one ever talks about) pushed to drop the limit to 40...

Thank you for your response.

 

So what's the solution? Using your example above and the position that B-Man is advocating, it's clear that having drunk driving laws on the books isn't going to stop the guy who's 3x the legal limit, right? A guy like that is always going to be a guy like that with or without the laws on the books, no?

 

So why do we bother if the only people being harassed by said laws are the citizens who choose to live their lives within the confines of the law? Is it just to appease MADD?

Edited April 21, 2013 by We Come In Peace

[meazza]

Thank you for your response.

 

So what's the solution? Using your example above and the position that B-Man is advocating, it's clear that having drunk driving laws on the books isn't going to stop the guy who's 3x the legal limit, right? A guy like that is always going to be a guy like that with or without the laws on the books, no?

 

So why do we bother if the only people being harassed by said laws are the citizens who choose to live their lives within the confines of the law? Is it just to appease MADD?

 

Well you're trying to shift me into saying, "we need reasonable laws and they have to be enforced."

 

In that case I agree but I'm not an expert on current gun control laws in America. I am assuming that most laws that do exist should be an effective deterrent if they were properly enforced (see Alaska Darin's post). In that case, you'll still get incidents where someone manages to get their hands on a weapon and shoots up a school.

 

There are no perfect solutions. Not that I know of anyway. The knee jerk politicizing that instantly comes out I think is counter productive.

[We Come In Peace]

Well you're trying to shift me into saying, "we need reasonable laws and they have to be enforced."

 

In that case I agree but I'm not an expert on current gun control laws in America. I am assuming that most laws that do exist should be an effective deterrent if they were properly enforced (see Alaska Darin's post). In that case, you'll still get incidents where someone manages to get their hands on a weapon and shoots up a school.

 

There are no perfect solutions. Not that I know of anyway. The knee jerk politicizing that instantly comes out I think is counter productive.

I'm not trying to shift you into saying anything. I'm trying to get B-Man to answer some questions, but with you I'm just conversing.

 

B-Man proposed the idea that we can't have gun laws because criminals won't follow them. This isn't an original thought, it's a common talking point thrown out by the right and it's a ridiculous assertion to make in the debate on guns in America. And it's talking point that will continue to be thrown around in the blogs, articles, NRA proclamations and all the other nonsense that will be coming in as this debate continues throughout the coming months and years. It's a ridiculous assertion that we cannot legislate because criminals won't follow laws. It's shallow, unsophisticated, incorrect, and disingenuous.

 

I'm pin pointing it because I'd like to think that the serious minded folks on this board, even the ones I often disagree with, are honest enough to see through this bullshiit talking point. If B-Man doesn't want to take ownership for this position, I won't hold him to it. But at least have the balls to admit that it's a bullshiit talking point. Because that's all it is. A talking point propagated by the pro-gun crowd (you can see it in the video that Chef posted a while back in this thread) that is shallow, stupid, and fantastical. It shows a complete detachment from reality.

 

I'll be willing to let the subject drop if we can come to some sort of detente on this one talking point. If we can agree to keep this kind of nonsense out of the debate in future posts and threads and articles that will undoubtedly be linked by B-Man and others, it will help service both sides of this issue in the long run. As I asked B-Man originally, when the pro-gun crowd has so many other valid points to make within this debate, why do they feel the need to continue to promote this particular talking point? It does nothing but make the people who repeat it look like asshats.

[meazza]

I'm not trying to shift you into saying anything. I'm trying to get B-Man to answer some questions, but with you I'm just conversing.

 

B-Man proposed the idea that we can't have gun laws because criminals won't follow them. This isn't an original thought, it's a common talking point thrown out by the right and it's a ridiculous assertion to make in the debate on guns in America. And it's talking point that will continue to be thrown around in the blogs, articles, NRA proclamations and all the other nonsense that will be coming in as this debate continues throughout the coming months and years. It's a ridiculous assertion that we cannot legislate because criminals won't follow laws. It's shallow, unsophisticated, incorrect, and disingenuous.

 

I'm pin pointing it because I'd like to think that the serious minded folks on this board, even the ones I often disagree with, are honest enough to see through this bullshiit talking point. If B-Man doesn't want to take ownership for this position, I won't hold him to it. But at least have the balls to admit that it's a bullshiit talking point. Because that's all it is. A talking point propagated by the pro-gun crowd (you can see it in the video that Chef posted a while back in this thread) that is shallow, stupid, and fantastical. It shows a complete detachment from reality.

 

I'll be willing to let the subject drop if we can come to some sort of detente on this one talking point. If we can agree to keep this kind of nonsense out of the debate in future posts and threads and articles that will undoubtedly be linked by B-Man and others, it will help service both sides of this issue in the long run. As I asked B-Man originally, when the pro-gun crowd has so many other valid points to make within this debate, why do they feel the need to continue to promote this particular talking point? It does nothing but make the people who repeat it look like asshats.

 

B-Man just posts articles from right wing websites so I don't really see a point.

[B-Man]

I'm not trying to shift you into saying anything. I'm trying to get B-Man to answer some questions, but with you I'm just conversing.

 

B-Man proposed the idea that we can't have gun laws because criminals won't follow them.

 

No matter how many times you type your interpretation, it doesn't make it so.

 

 

B-Man just posts articles from right wing websites so I don't really see a point.

 

I post articles from many sites, the majority are conservative, and with opinions not often read by many posters here.............yourself included.

 

Feel free to read a point that you may not have read elsewhere, or skip over them completely , no difference to me.

 

 

 

 

.

[meazza]

 

I post articles from many sites, the majority are conservative, and with opinions not often read by many posters here.............yourself included.

 

Feel free to read a point that you may not have read elsewhere, or skip over them completely , no difference to me.

 

 

I actually agree with you 85% of the time but that is what you do most of the time.

[Nanker]

The American culture derives as much from the Constitution as the Constitution was derived from the culture and ideals of the time. We're instructed that we have inalienable rights - endowed by our creator. These are not granted to us by a sovereign power, we are imbued with these by natural law. One of these is the right to bear arms. The Supremes have decided that this is an individual's RIGHT. Federal laws restricting that right are unconstitutional by nature.

 

Why WCIP do you want to make criminals of millions of Americans? Why do you advocate taking away one of our inalienable rights, when you so passionately advocate for new man-made rights for other groups that you feel are oppressed?

[3rdnlng]

We already have gun laws on the books. Criminals are violating those laws. So the answer for some is to make the laws more stringent, rather than make the enforcement of the existing laws tougher?

[meazza]

We already have gun laws on the books. Criminals are violating those laws. So the answer for some is to make the laws more stringent, rather than make the enforcement of the existing laws tougher?

 

It looks good on paper to pass a new law. Makes everyone feel like they have accomplished something.

[3rdnlng]

 

 

It looks good on paper to pass a new law. Makes everyone feel like they have accomplished something.

 

I just realized that my prior post just summed up the last 2 pages in this thread. My prose might not be as pretty as our resident writer's is, but my telegraph bill would be a hell of alot less than his.

[We Come In Peace]

No matter how many times you type your interpretation, it doesn't make it so.

 

And yet you refuse to answer or clarify as to why. Do you deny that's what the meme you posted means? Or are you simply not taking accountability for the viewpoint expressed in said meme? Or, did you post it as a joke knowing full well that the point offered in that meme is learning disabled? Or is it that you are you being an intellectual coward and running from something you posted when called out on it?

 

It's gotta be one of those...

[We Come In Peace]

The American culture derives as much from the Constitution as the Constitution was derived from the culture and ideals of the time. We're instructed that we have inalienable rights - endowed by our creator. These are not granted to us by a sovereign power, we are imbued with these by natural law. One of these is the right to bear arms. The Supremes have decided that this is an individual's RIGHT. Federal laws restricting that right are unconstitutional by nature.

 

Why WCIP do you want to make criminals of millions of Americans? Why do you advocate taking away one of our inalienable rights, when you so passionately advocate for new man-made rights for other groups that you feel are oppressed?

This is a much better argument than the one B-Man is proposing. I'm fine with rational, well thought out articulations of the issue at hand. What's not cool is posting bullshiit talking points that are beyond stupid to anyone with a fully functioning frontal lobe. But maybe that's asking for too much in regards to B-Man if he won't even own up to it.

 

As for the questions in your post, which don't have to do with the specific topic I was discussing but are certainly worth exploring further...

 

The second amendment is the only amendment with the words "well regulated" in it. This is not on accident. I would argue, from a personal perspective, that the Supremes have let the country down when it comes to their interpretation of the second amendment. I would also argue there are ways to legislate effective measures that would help curb the over 80 deaths a DAY caused by gun violence without infringing on any individual right to bear arms. Not all of these legislative measures would have to do with guns or the second amendment of course. I'm not naive enough to believe that guns are the sole cause of the violence (or even a primary cause), but believing that there's nothing we can do about it simply because of the 2nd amendment is a massive mind!@#$ perpetrated by, amongst others, the NRA and pro-gun segment of the debate.

 

In reality, the NRA doesn't give two squirts about the constitution. They've made that abundantly clear with their flip flopping on issues and their complete de-balling of the ATF. What the NRA cares about is protecting their income stream and those of their primary benefactors, the gun manufacturers. There is a way to regulate gun ownership without infringing on the private citizen's right to bear arms or amending or eliminating the 2nd amendment.

 

And, for the record I'm a (former/soon to be again) gun owner.

 

EDIT: As for the statement in your post asking why I would "want to make criminals out of millions of Americans", that's not at all what I'm proposing. Nor am I proposing repealing the 2nd Amendment or banning firearms.

 

What I'm proposing is a common sense middle ground between the two camps that is entirely reasonable and achievable without anyone surrendering any innate rights whatsoever.

Edited April 21, 2013 by We Come In Peace

[We Come In Peace]

B-Man just posts articles from right wing websites so I don't really see a point.

I've grown to like B-Man's contributions quite a bit, even though you're right about his MO. There are plenty of people on here who I disagree with on many things, including B-Man, but still enjoy throwing things back and forth with them because they bring good points to the table. Like Nanker's post above and your own.

 

I'm a dick. I know I'm a dick. But I'm always interested in having good discussions about the topics of the day. 99% of the time B-Man contributes to that, even if it is just the conservative camp's opinion on the matter. This is just one of those times where he's being coy. Don't know why. He has so many other points to offer on this issue, why he's clinging to this one is beyond me.

[B-Man]

 

I Know why the Lame Duck Squawks

 

By Clarice Feldman

 

This has not been a good week for President Obama. I think it will not be the worst week of this year or this term, which I predict will get worse as his own personality flaws and patently partisan strategies make his lame-duck term even more impotent than is usually the case.

 

To begin with, he bet the farm on the passage of new gun-control legislation. Albeit the vote this week in the Senate was only on amendments to the main bill -- something his Majority Leader Reid (who won his last race as the NRA choice) insisted on, though it made passage more difficult, requiring 60, not 51 votes -- all the amendments went down in flames with numbers of his own party members abandoning him. By week's end Reid had withdrawn the main bill without even bringing it to a vote.

 

In defiance of reality, Obama held a petulant, unpresidential press conference, ending the effort as he began it with demagogic, partisan rhetoric. ...and a threat to accomplish by executive orders what he cannot achieve by legislation

 

{snip}

 

 

As to the repeated claim that 90% of Americans wanted this legislation and the wicked NRA was strong enough to block it, and did so by lies, the first answer is to admire the strength of the president's opponents and marvel at his own incredible impotence. On the other hand, it's more likely that claim is bunk. Charlie Martin and Tom Maguire dismantle that nonsensical excuse:

Charlie on Facebook:

Odd how something is bipartisan if 59 Democrats and 1 Republican votes for it in the face of mass public opposition in many polls (*cough*

health care

*cough*), but it's Republican when 5 Democrats vote against it. It's also funny how a slightly different question ("change gun control laws"/"leave them as they are") gets a substantial majority in favor of keeping them as they are:

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

 

Tom Maguire also probed the 90% claim and found it without substance:

 

So when our peerless leader says that "90 percent of the American people support universal background checks" he really means that roughly 90% support the current law and a bare majority favor extending that law to family transfers. I wonder if he knows he is wrong about this?

 

{snip}

 

Now, on to the next wedge issue the Administration hoped to exploit -- immigration. This is another major issue, where a very lengthy bill has been drafted so far without hearings or debate, on an important hot-button issue.

 

Fate doesn't seem to be with him. The perpetrators of the Boston terror campaign seem to be recent Islamic immigrants and the citizens of Massachusetts, which has very strict gun control laws, were forced to cower inside their defenseless homes in fear.

 

 

http://www.americant...l#ixzz2R8vZF7fn

 

 

Edited April 21, 2013 by B-Man

[We Come In Peace]

As to the repeated claim that 90% of Americans wanted this legislation and the wicked NRA was strong enough to block it, and did so by lies, the first answer is to admire the strength of the president's opponents and marvel at his own incredible impotence. On the other hand, it's more likely that claim is bunk. Charlie Martin and Tom Maguire dismantle that nonsensical excuse:

Charlie on Facebook:

Odd how something is bipartisan if 59 Democrats and 1 Republican votes for it in the face of mass public opposition in many polls (*cough*

health care

*cough*), but it's Republican when 5 Democrats vote against it. It's also funny how a slightly different question ("change gun control laws"/"leave them as they are") gets a substantial majority in favor of keeping them as they are:

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

 

Tom Maguire also probed the 90% claim and found it without substance:

 

 

So when our peerless leader says that "90 percent of the American people support universal background checks" he really means that roughly 90% support the current law and a bare majority favor extending that law to family transfers. I wonder if he knows he is wrong about this?

 

 

 

Of course the brilliant statistical analysis quoted in your excerpt are misleading and wrong. But I guess that's what you get when you post claims from a guy on Facebook and another guy with 13 followers on some blog.

 

Way not to let facts get in the way of your argument though, bro.

 

Edited April 21, 2013 by We Come In Peace