• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
The Old Hack

Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

I've heard this argument before.  There's a difference in extremity of response.  The response to the Las Vegas mass-shooting is "we have to ban guns!".  If someone uses a truck to plow through a crowd there are not calls for banning trucks.  Both items are regulated by government.  Rather heavily so.

Both guns and trucks are on the list of things a liberal activist would like to see eliminated from the US landscape and the weapon of choice has been government over-regulation as a way of strangling supply.  with trucks, it's ever-higher emissions and mileage requirements.  With guns it is a ever narrowing list of what qualities are deemed acceptable for sale.

And I'm sure that people would say that if you must control the types of guns a person can own, then you must control the types of vehicles a person can drive, but isn't that already the case for vehicles? I mean, in Canada, we have vehicles classified under different categories based on size, weight, purpose, etc, the G license is for cars and trucks weighing up to 11000kg and can tow up to 4600kg, a D license allows for vehicles over 11000kg (though same towed restriction), class F and C are for transit buses (F being max 24 passenger, C for more the 24), E and  B class for School purpose buses (E being max 24 passenger, B for more than 24) Incidentally, each class is tiered rather than specific to the types of vehicles they allow, so a B license would count for being qualified to drive G, D, F, C and E class vehicles. A class A license is needed for tractor-trailers or trucks larger than 11000kg and towing more than 4600kg and counts toward a G, D and a lot of time you hear the term A-Z license which means the driver is qualified to drive large trucks equipped with air brakes. I know from some American friends who are truckers that they had to go through some rigorous training to be able to drive a transport so I'm under the assumption that there a similar licensing system.

It's not easy for just anyone to get a hold of a large truck and be able to run over a crowd of people, and chances are a person who's unqualified to drive a large truck might end up damaging the truck and making it undrivable before they can get to the crowd. And for smaller vehicles, well it happened in Charlottesville and there were some fatalities, so do we go back to horse and buggy for travel? Walking?

5 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

How is the 2nd Amendment being abused?  And by who?

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was so that the US could have  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" and while this is probably purely just an outsider's view of things, I look at whats been happening over the past 20 or so years and I can't for the life of me believe that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" exists. If being able to hoard guns is supposed to make things safer, why does the idea of traveling to the US scare me? There were at least 4 Canadians killed in the Vegas shooting, I have family and friends that have traveled to Vegas numerous times, they could have been caught in that.

5 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

I agree that that the First Amendment gets twisted a lot.  Some US NFL players refuse to stand for the national anthem as is traditional.  Constitutionally, they have the First Amendment right to do that.  But their activist supporters somehow forget that people who don't like seeing those sorts of antics have First Amendment rights too. And that includes the freedom to flame the football players for their actions.  The activists claim that the football player's First Amendment rights are somehow violated by the criticism and pushback against the players' actions.

The main argument for taking a knee is that people consider it disrepectful to the flag and military, except that members of the military have state that taking a knee is the best way to go for those that want to protest against something they believe is unjust. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/09/25/anthem-kneeling-isnt-aimed-veterans-and-other-nfl-protest-misconceptions/701409001/

No one seems to be bothered by the fact that the American flag gets much more disrepect from the general populace outside of football teams.

408935-I-ve-never-seen-so-many-people-we

Quote from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/4/8

" (d) The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery."

5 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

I fail to see the problem with the EVE Online gun and ammo posts.  Sounds like the guys were having fun...

As an aside, constitutionally speaking, the EVE forum mods did not have to allow those overkill posts.  Freedom of speech does not mean I have to give you a platform to speak.  the EVE forum mods could delete those posts and not violate the poster's First amendment rights (I am setting aside the very real possibility that the EVE forum servers are not located in the US and wouldn't be subject to the First Amendment).  The same thing lets The Old Hack write forum rules and risk no First Amendment legal challenge when he enforces them. 

It goes back to what I said about the 2nd Amendment and my view that it's not being applied in the way it was intended. The Vegas shooter was reported to have had 47 guns, many modified with extended magizines, the guy apparently was able to walk into the hotel where there were signs posted saying that weapons were prohibited, carrying ten bags full of weapons, and proceeded to set up his hotel room with surveillance cameras and no one thought to question it? I would imagine that someone might have offered to help carry some of it and were refused, or was allowed and found the bags rather heavy? Either way that should have raised a number of questions. You think there's nothing wrong with people saying "there's no such thing as overkill"? I would argue that the Vegas shooting was overkill, that even if miraculously only 1 person died in that, it was overkill, because it didn't need to happen. Same goes for the Orlando shooting last year, and other mass shootings that have happened.

Incidentally, it wasn't on the Official EVE Forums that these were being posted in, the group had it's own website and forums, so the moderators were also members, and some even participated in that thread, it was like how ToH participates these forums:

1 hour ago, The Old Hack said:

The Moderator: *desperately waves tattered, near-shredded white flag from his trench*

Sort of. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Scotty said:

And I'm sure that people would say that if you must control the types of guns a person can own, then you must control the types of vehicles a person can drive, but isn't that already the case for vehicles? I mean, in Canada, we have vehicles classified under different categories based on size, weight, purpose, etc, the G license is for cars and trucks weighing up to 11000kg and can tow up to 4600kg, a D license allows for vehicles over 11000kg (though same towed restriction), class F and C are for transit buses (F being max 24 passenger, C for more the 24), E and  B class for School purpose buses (E being max 24 passenger, B for more than 24) Incidentally, each class is tiered rather than specific to the types of vehicles they allow, so a B license would count for being qualified to drive G, D, F, C and E class vehicles. A class A license is needed for tractor-trailers or trucks larger than 11000kg and towing more than 4600kg and counts toward a G, D and a lot of time you hear the term A-Z license which means the driver is qualified to drive large trucks equipped with air brakes. I know from some American friends who are truckers that they had to go through some rigorous training to be able to drive a transport so I'm under the assumption that there a similar licensing system.

...but they don't try to rewrite the licensing rules every time there's a road accident.  Or even if a truck is used as a weapon.

The individual case is dealt with as an individual case.  The legal structure changes according to need, not high-volume pressure groups.

42 minutes ago, Scotty said:

It's not easy for just anyone to get a hold of a large truck and be able to run over a crowd of people, and chances are a person who's unqualified to drive a large truck might end up damaging the truck and making it undrivable before they can get to the crowd. And for smaller vehicles, well it happened in Charlottesville and there were some fatalities, so do we go back to horse and buggy for travel? Walking?

Of course not.  We even want to adapt and evolve the rules and laws to adjust for the times.  We do NOT want to do that fresh on the heels of a tragedy because that's when impulsive, "act in haste, repent at leisure" sort of lawmaking is done.  But fresh on the heels of a tragedy is when all the pressure is on to "do something".  That's at the heart of Rahm Emanuel's now-famous aphorism, "never let a good crisis go to waste".

51 minutes ago, Scotty said:

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was so that the US could have  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" and while this is probably purely just an outsider's view of things, I look at whats been happening over the past 20 or so years and I can't for the life of me believe that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" exists. If being able to hoard guns is supposed to make things safer, why does the idea of traveling to the US scare me? There were at least 4 Canadians killed in the Vegas shooting, I have family and friends that have traveled to Vegas numerous times, they could have been caught in that.

As an aside, that is the mechanism by which terrorism operates.  To make you afraid of going about your business as normal, but with a political demands list attached.

Most terrorist/lone gunman sorts of attacks in the US are ended by a civilian on the scene with a gun.  I do not know if the Vegas concert was a "gun free zone" but those are the places I would suggest thinking twice about going to.  If one must have a gun-free zone, there needs to be armed security.  Vegas casinos can afford it, though not all public places can.  Police response times are simply too slow to be save many lives.

1 hour ago, Scotty said:

The main argument for taking a knee is that people consider it disrepectful to the flag and military, except that members of the military have state that taking a knee is the best way to go for those that want to protest against something they believe is unjust. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/09/25/anthem-kneeling-isnt-aimed-veterans-and-other-nfl-protest-misconceptions/701409001/

No one seems to be bothered by the fact that the American flag gets much more disrepect from the general populace outside of football teams.

408935-I-ve-never-seen-so-many-people-we

Quote from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/4/8

" (d) The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery."

There's some point to it and if we want to be stick-up-out-butts about it, this would really have to go.  In actual practice people are not intending disrespect.  And certainly aren't aware of the law you cited. 

Intent counts for a lot.  Your picture is showing people in a casual, probably celebratory mood.  They are not going out of their way to be disrespectful.  Quite the contrary in fact.  The football players that kneel or stay in their locker rooms during the national anthem are being pointedly and intentionally disrespectful.

1 hour ago, Scotty said:

It goes back to what I said about the 2nd Amendment and my view that it's not being applied in the way it was intended. The Vegas shooter was reported to have had 47 guns, many modified with extended magizines, the guy apparently was able to walk into the hotel where there were signs posted saying that weapons were prohibited, carrying ten bags full of weapons, and proceeded to set up his hotel room with surveillance cameras and no one thought to question it? I would imagine that someone might have offered to help carry some of it and were refused, or was allowed and found the bags rather heavy? Either way that should have raised a number of questions.

That is not a second amendment problem.  It's a sloppy casino security problem.

The US gun culture has changed primarily because some well-meaning and very insistent people are trying to change things.  Newton's law of politics: For every push there's a pushback.  Leave the gun enthusiasts alone.  The problems aren't by and large happening in the red gun-culture states but the blue inner cities.  Vegas is high profile because it is rare.  Inner-city gun violence is the big problem.  There's no crisis mentality around it because it is so everyday.

1 hour ago, Scotty said:

You think there's nothing wrong with people saying "there's no such thing as overkill"? I would argue that the Vegas shooting was overkill, that even if miraculously only 1 person died in that, it was overkill, because it didn't need to happen. Same goes for the Orlando shooting last year, and other mass shootings that have happened.

Incidentally, it wasn't on the Official EVE Forums that these were being posted in, the group had it's own website and forums, so the moderators were also members, and some even participated in that thread, it was like how ToH participates these forums:

The webcomic Schlock Mercenary has a set of 70 maxims of maximally effective mercenaries.  Maxim 37 reads "There is no overkill.  There is only open fire and time to reload."  The EVE online forum you are talking about may be quoting Maxim 37.  The comic's creator, Howard Taylor, is no hard-right gun nut, yet he penned that maxim for his humor webcomic about 30th century mercenaries going around hurting people and breaking things for fun and profit.

The fact that these gun-porn pictures were posted on a private forum is so much the better.  Why should I not let them have their fun?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vorlonagent said:

The individual case is dealt with as an individual case.  The legal structure changes according to need, not high-volume pressure groups.

I don't disagree with that, there's definitely a need to find out what caused the person to act the way they did, but also there's a need to find out how they were able to do it, how easy it was to get that many weapons into a hotel room, but you can't ignore how easy it was for the person to obtain all those weapons.

35 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

Of course not.  We even want to adapt and evolve the rules and laws to adjust for the times.  We do NOT want to do that fresh on the heels of a tragedy because that's when impulsive, "act in haste, repent at leisure" sort of lawmaking is done.  But fresh on the heels of a tragedy is when all the pressure is on to "do something".  That's at the heart of Rahm Emanuel's now-famous aphorism, "never let a good crisis go to waste".

"We do NOT want to do that fresh on the heels of a tragedy because that's when impulsive, "act in haste, repent at leisure" sort of lawmaking is done."

We don't? So a major natural disaster happen, that kills hundreds or thousands of people and millions or billions in damage, and we shouldn't try to think of ways to prevent it from happening again? If an office building collapses despite conforming to building codes, shouldn't those codes be revised? If hundreds of people get sick because food/water was contaminated, should we not look at improving quality control and sanitation protocol?

A lot of times laws and codes are made based on the assumption that it's good enough, until it's suddenly not, laws and codes set up 200 years ago are based on how many people there were in the country, how tall buildings were, and how much pollution affected the food supply, those laws and codes could not hope to survive long as expansion took place, but more often than not, it took for something to fail to make people revise those laws and codes.

With the 2nd Amendment, it seems to go the other way, people are lobbying for it to be easier to own a gun, any gun they want, and as many guns as they want, and to be able to carry them wherever they want. That's not the culture I feel the 2nd Amendment was intending to make. The quote of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is the first part of the 2nd Amendment, but everyone's focused on the second part "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." So we have a bit of a paradox in that how can you regulate something, while at the same time...not regulate it, because regulation means restriction, which would be an infringement. As it stands now, there is no actual militia in the US it's all in the various branches of the US armed forces. So what really is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment? Why is it so important that people hoard guns?

1 hour ago, Vorlonagent said:

As an aside, that is the mechanism by which terrorism operates.  To make you afraid of going about your business as normal, but with a political demands list attached.

Most terrorist/lone gunman sorts of attacks in the US are ended by a civilian on the scene with a gun.  I do not know if the Vegas concert was a "gun free zone" but those are the places I would suggest thinking twice about going to.  If one must have a gun-free zone, there needs to be armed security.  Vegas casinos can afford it, though not all public places can.  Police response times are simply too slow to be save many lives.

Of course that's how terrorism works, but the government isn't treating the vegas shooting as terrorism, if the shooter wasn't an American citizen everyone would be clamouring at the government to close borders and ban immigration as it was already close to doing recently. Terrorism is terrorism, no matter who commits the act, and it needs to be dealt with equally.

I dunno if the concert itself was a gun free zone, but the hotel that the shooter stayed at was a gun free zone, no one checked him for guns though and he carried 10 bags of them in. and even if the concert wasn't gun free, from where the shoot was located, it wouldn't have mattered if 1 or 10 or 50 concert goers had guns with them, they wouldn't have located where the shots were coming from quickly enough and they'd most likely get picked off before they had a chance. the security guard that attempted to get to the guy after hearing the first few shots was shot himself before he got to the door because the shooter had a camera in the hall to warn him.

1 hour ago, Vorlonagent said:

There's some point to it and if we want to be stick-up-out-butts about it, this would really have to go.  In actual practice people are not intending disrespect.  And certainly aren't aware of the law you cited. 

Intent counts for a lot.  Your picture is showing people in a casual, probably celebratory mood.  They are not going out of their way to be disrespectful.  Quite the contrary in fact.  The football players that kneel or stay in their locker rooms during the national anthem are being pointedly and intentionally disrespectful.

In the image I posted, yes they likely didn't intend on being disrepectful and aren't aware that it was, but the football players and teams are making a point in that how can they respect something that doesn't respect them,  so the best way to tell everyone how they feel, is to show everyone that they can't stand like Americans if they aren't treated like Americans.

1 hour ago, Vorlonagent said:

The webcomic Schlock Mercenary has a set of 70 maxims of maximally effective mercenaries.  Maxim 37 reads "There is no overkill.  There is only open fire and time to reload."  The EVE online forum you are talking about may be quoting Maxim 37.  The comic's creator, Howard Taylor, is no hard-right gun nut, yet he penned that maxim for his humor webcomic about 30th century mercenaries going around hurting people and breaking things for fun and profit.

It's one thing to apply a mentality to a game or comic, or film. But an entirely different thing when it applies to real life circumstances. I can handle reading about 30th century mercs, I can handle playing a game where you shoot up other players. What I can't handle is knowing someone has a stockpile of guns in their house with absolutely no guarantee that they won't go on a shooting spree in 5, 10, 15 or so years because they one day said "F it!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

Sure.  But you have to talk to me not at me.  You have to understand my concerns not dismiss them.  I will give you the same courtesy.

Excuse me?  You are the one who is making broad generalizations about the opposition all being on board with the extremist fringe.  I have asked you repeatedly to address what restrictons, if any, you personally would approve of, and you are the one who still refuses to talk to/with me as an individual.  I do not appreciate your trying to imply that I'm the one refusing to engage in a conversation.

12 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

...but they don't try to rewrite the licensing rules every time there's a road accident.  Or even if a truck is used as a weapon.

The rules for cars and trucks have been rewritten, gradually over many years, in response to numerous safety concerns, both individual and collective.  Cars have had to add seat belts and air bags, anti-lock brakes, engines that can run on unleaded gas and spew fewer toxins into everyone's environment, windshields that break into small chunks instead of long sharp blades.  Can you tell me some equivalent changes that has been made to all guns in order to make them safer?

Quote

The individual case is dealt with as an individual case.  The legal structure changes according to need, not high-volume pressure groups.

When big corporatiions are involved, sometimes very little changes until they are forced into it by community action, unionization, etc.  Look up the history of "company towns," of child labor, of the use of Pinkerton goons to literally bust unions by busting heads.  Similarly, it often takes public outcry to get laws changed, with marches and sit-ins and letter-writing campaigns.  An individual case doesn't have nearly the voice that a collection of them has.  This latest incident just happens to have created several hundred individuals affected by the lack of regulation.

Quote

As an aside, that is the mechanism by which terrorism operates.  To make you afraid of going about your business as normal, but with a political demands list attached.

So far no one has found any political demands or goals at work here, no hint of any goals at all on the part of the shooter.

Quote

Most terrorist/lone gunman sorts of attacks in the US are ended by a civilian on the scene with a gun. 

Las Vegas concert - shot himself

Orlando nightclub - shot by police

San Francisco UPS - shot himself

Charleston church - fled, later arrested by police

Fort Hood - shot himself

Sandy Hook - shot himself

Tucson (Gabrielle Giffords) - arrested at the scene

Carson City IHOP - shot himself (one civillian reportedly had a gun but was unable to return fire; gunman didn't stop until police arrived)

Virginia Tech - shot himself

Columbine high school - shot themselves

Quote

Intent counts for a lot.  Your picture is showing people in a casual, probably celebratory mood.  They are not going out of their way to be disrespectful.  Quite the contrary in fact.  The football players that kneel or stay in their locker rooms during the national anthem are being pointedly and intentionally disrespectful.

Their intent is to raise awareness of injustice and to inspire others to take action against that injustice.  I can't think of a more American motive.  Plus, they are not shouting, cursing, waving torches, or beating people up.  They are quietly either kneeling or linking arms.  If they wanted to show disrespect for the flag, they could; instead, they are behaving in a very calm and respectful manner which does not disrupt anyone else in their actions -- unlike, I might add, the people who choose to boo them during the Anthem.

Quote

The US gun culture has changed primarily because some well-meaning and very insistent people are trying to change things.  Newton's law of politics: For every push there's a pushback.  Leave the gun enthusiasts alone.  The problems aren't by and large happening in the red gun-culture states but the blue inner cities.  Vegas is high profile because it is rare. 

There's a big difference between someone having a rifle for hunting, or a handgun for self-defence, and someone collecting dozens or hundreds of weapons which have no other purpose than to hurt or kill large numbers of other human beings.  You still seem to refuse to address, or even acknowledge, this difference.

Quote

Inner-city gun violence is the big problem.  There's no crisis mentality around it because it is so everyday.

You obviously don't live near Chicago.  This is being talked about every day.

Quote

The webcomic Schlock Mercenary has a set of 70 maxims of maximally effective mercenaries.  Maxim 37 reads "There is no overkill.  There is only open fire and time to reload." 

The phrase "There's no kill like overkill" is a heck of a lot older than Schlock Mercenary is.

10 hours ago, Scotty said:

I don't disagree with that, there's definitely a need to find out what caused the person to act the way they did, but also there's a need to find out how they were able to do it, how easy it was to get that many weapons into a hotel room, but you can't ignore how easy it was for the person to obtain all those weapons.

As to getting the guns into a hotel room, Las Vegas is a convention town.  I've attended the Western Veterinary Conference at Mandalay Bay myself (although I couldn't afford their hotel rooms), and there is generally an exhibit hall with from dozens to hundreds of booths for all sorts of companies wanting to sell stuff to the convention attendees.  These exhibitors often have large displays which can be broken down into carryable cases, as well as books, samples, etc.  The hotel probably assumed that was what was in those heavy cases, and that their guest had simply decided to come a little early for a vacation and couldn't leave the stuff in the exhibit hall until the previous convention got out of the way.

10 hours ago, Scotty said:

A lot of times laws and codes are made based on the assumption that it's good enough, until it's suddenly not, laws and codes set up 200 years ago are based on how many people there were in the country, how tall buildings were, and how much pollution affected the food supply, those laws and codes could not hope to survive long as expansion took place, but more often than not, it took for something to fail to make people revise those laws and codes.

Exactly!  Most laws evolve over time, in response to what is happening in the real world.  We are not allowed to drive any car we want, anywhere we want, any time we want, because that would not be safe for the people around us.  Stop signs and lanes and turn signals didn't spring up on their own, universally embraced.  They had to become the law of the land, with penalties for violating those laws.

10 hours ago, Scotty said:

With the 2nd Amendment, it seems to go the other way, people are lobbying for it to be easier to own a gun, any gun they want, and as many guns as they want, and to be able to carry them wherever they want. That's not the culture I feel the 2nd Amendment was intending to make. The quote of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is the first part of the 2nd Amendment, but everyone's focused on the second part "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." So we have a bit of a paradox in that how can you regulate something, while at the same time...not regulate it, because regulation means restriction, which would be an infringement. As it stands now, there is no actual militia in the US it's all in the various branches of the US armed forces. So what really is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment? Why is it so important that people hoard guns?

There is a very small but vocal minority who say that they have to be allowed to have enough guns to be able to overthrow the United States government if it ever becomes a tyrrany.

10 hours ago, Scotty said:

Of course that's how terrorism works, but the government isn't treating the vegas shooting as terrorism, if the shooter wasn't an American citizen everyone would be clamouring at the government to close borders and ban immigration as it was already close to doing recently. Terrorism is terrorism, no matter who commits the act, and it needs to be dealt with equally.

So far as we know so far, there was no goal the shooter was trying to accomplish, political or otherwise.

10 hours ago, Scotty said:

even if the concert wasn't gun free, from where the shoot was located, it wouldn't have mattered if 1 or 10 or 50 concert goers had guns with them, they wouldn't have located where the shots were coming from quickly enough and they'd most likely get picked off before they had a chance. the security guard that attempted to get to the guy after hearing the first few shots was shot himself before he got to the door because the shooter had a camera in the hall to warn him.

That seems to be the pattern in the cases I listed above.  Shooter continues shooting until the police arrive, then most often the shooter kills himself, occasionally he is either killed or arrested by police or escapes to be arrested later.

10 hours ago, Scotty said:

In the image I posted, yes they likely didn't intend on being disrepectful and aren't aware that it was, but the football players and teams are making a point in that how can they respect something that doesn't respect them,  so the best way to tell everyone how they feel, is to show everyone that they can't stand like Americans if they aren't treated like Americans.

Exactly.  They are engaging in a quiet, non-violent, non-disruptive protest.  It doesn't get more American than that.

19 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Could we please avoid the extremist hyperbole?  There is a *lot* of ground in between "anyone can have any gun they want anywhere they want" and "no one can have any guns at all ever except the Government."  Straw Man arguments may be easy wins, but you're only fighting yourself.

How about addressing the option of requiring reasonable licensing and training, and putting tighter restrictions on automatic weapons than on legitimate hunting rifles?  How about making it at least as difficult to get a license to own a gun as it is to get a driver's license, or putting even half as many regulations on guns to make them safer as we have on cars?  Is operating a gun while intoxicated a crime?  How about giving one to an unlicensed, untrained minor?  If a gun is supposed to be for self-defense, wouldn't it make sense to give them, say, a grip that senses fingerprints, and only allows authorized users to fire it?  To put microprint serial numbers on bullets in such a way that the fragments can be identified when they are used in crimes, and their purchaser traced?

Are there no regulations of guns which you would approve of??

 

16 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Now, I ask again, are you willing to discuss that vast middle ground, or are you going to continue to insist on only addressing the extremist viewpoints?

Third time the charm?  Are there any gun regulations, current or proposed, which you do approve of?  Do you have any suggestions for how to combat gun violence other than for everyone to walk around armed to the teeth ready to shoot each other if we think it's justified?  Because so far you are giving me the impression that you are at that extreme by refusing to talk about other options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

There is a very small but vocal minority who say that they have to be allowed to have enough guns to be able to overthrow the United States government if it ever becomes a tyrrany.

That's the real problem, people state that they need to be able to defend themselves, but when the enemy has assault rifles, the people demand that the 2nd amendment allow them to have assault rifles. The problem is, the US military is so large and so advanced, that that the general population would have no hope in hell to overthrow the government if the government has the full support of the military.

2 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

So far as we know so far, there was no goal the shooter was trying to accomplish, political or otherwise.

That doesn't make be feel any safer that there could be an American citizen that's either mentally unstable or just says "F my life" and wants to take as many people down with them.

2 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Third time the charm?  Are there any gun regulations, current or proposed, which you do approve of?  Do you have any suggestions for how to combat gun violence other than for everyone to walk around armed to the teeth ready to shoot each other if we think it's justified?  Because so far you are giving me the impression that you are at that extreme by refusing to talk about other options.

That's already been happening in terms of Law Enforcement shooting first and asking questions later, a black kid playing around with a toy gun? "Oh, I didn't know it was a toy until after I killed them", another black person arrested or killed for carrying a firearm in an area where open carry is allowed with no provocation other that "I felt threatened by him having a gun". This is why athletes are taking knees during anthems, if the 2nd amendment is for all Americans, then this "cherry picking" of which Americans it applies to is violating that. I really hate to say this, but I wonder if the US as a culture is mature enough to have the 2nd amendment if it can't be responsible with how it treats it's citizens.

 

 

And sorry to change the subject, but the US Commerce department just slapped an 80% "Anti-Dumping" duty on Bombardier on top of the 220% countervailing tariff, so when Bombardier goes to deliver it's planes to Delta, the US would essentially get the planes not only for free, but Bombardier will be paying the US to take them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/5/2017 at 7:15 PM, Scotty said:

It's not easy for just anyone to get a hold of a large truck and be able to run over a crowd of people, and chances are a person who's unqualified to drive a large truck might end up damaging the truck and making it undrivable before they can get to the crowd.

I drive a 37-foot motorhome legally authorized to weigh up to 20,500 pounds. Special credentials or training required, beyond an ordinary driver's license: none.

20 hours ago, Scotty said:

With the 2nd Amendment, it seems to go the other way, people are lobbying for it to be easier to own a gun, any gun they want, and as many guns as they want, and to be able to carry them wherever they want. That's not the culture I feel the 2nd Amendment was intending to make. The quote of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is the first part of the 2nd Amendment, but everyone's focused on the second part "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." So we have a bit of a paradox in that how can you regulate something, while at the same time...not regulate it, because regulation means restriction, which would be an infringement. As it stands now, there is no actual militia in the US it's all in the various branches of the US armed forces. So what really is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment? Why is it so important that people hoard guns?

When the 2nd Amendment was enacted, "well regulated" was understood to mean that the people knew how to use their weapons effectively and could move in a group in a somewhat coherent fashion.

And there was no  weapon or weapon-system possessed by the United States or any state, that was not also found in private ownership. If you wished to own a cannon, could afford it, and owned or had authorized access to property sufficient to practice operating it without undue hazard to your neighbors, that was okay. If you owned a ship and wished to equip it as a functioning warship, and could afford it, that was okay - in fact, there's a reference to such warships in the US Constitution.

That's the culture the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect - not make, it already existed. And remember, many of the very people who wrote the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment had, less than a decade previously, called upon the common people to take up arms against their government, and/or themselves done so.

The reason the second half of the 2nd Amendment gets the emphasis is that the first half has no impact on the meaning of the whole thing. It merely explains one purpose of the second half.

Here's the important part of what US national law, today, says about the militia, in 10 USC § 311-312:

Quote

 The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32 , under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

 The classes of the militia are--

 the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia;  and

 the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

----------------------- 312:

The following persons are exempt from militia duty:

 The Vice President.

 The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.

 Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty.

 Customhouse clerks.

 Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail.

 Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States.

 Pilots on navigable waters.

 Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States.

 A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe.  However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant.

(The "except as provided" reference in 311 creates a higher age cap for certain persons. In other words it's an extension, not a restriction. Notice that 312 exempts certain people from militia duty, but not membership.)

My very-rough estimate is that the US militias, collectively, are somewhere in the general area of 90-100 million people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Scotty said:

I don't disagree with that, there's definitely a need to find out what caused the person to act the way they did, but also there's a need to find out how they were able to do it, how easy it was to get that many weapons into a hotel room, but you can't ignore how easy it was for the person to obtain all those weapons.

Completely agreed.  It's entirely warranted to ask how this guy got through the system and make changes to keep someone else from falling through the same crack.  To be honest I'd think that goes without saying.

22 hours ago, Scotty said:
Quote

"We do NOT want to do that fresh on the heels of a tragedy because that's when impulsive, "act in haste, repent at leisure" sort of lawmaking is done."

We don't? So a major natural disaster happen, that kills hundreds or thousands of people and millions or billions in damage, and we shouldn't try to think of ways to prevent it from happening again? If an office building collapses despite conforming to building codes, shouldn't those codes be revised? If hundreds of people get sick because food/water was contaminated, should we not look at improving quality control and sanitation protocol?

In all your examples change is warranted.  But if a building is "up to code" and still falls down, I would want to know what part of the code failed and amend that.  Ideally I might also pick up any smaller issues and throw addressing them into the process.  Same for sanitation issues and the same for people who pass background checks that shouldn't.  We need to know where and what to change.  I also want to see laws crafted that the public and private entities can live with.  That all takes time.

The whole point of "Do Something" legislation is to placate the public.  My interest is solving problems, not politicians looking good for the cameras.

22 hours ago, Scotty said:

A lot of times laws and codes are made based on the assumption that it's good enough, until it's suddenly not, laws and codes set up 200 years ago are based on how many people there were in the country, how tall buildings were, and how much pollution affected the food supply, those laws and codes could not hope to survive long as expansion took place, but more often than not, it took for something to fail to make people revise those laws and codes.

With the 2nd Amendment, it seems to go the other way, people are lobbying for it to be easier to own a gun, any gun they want, and as many guns as they want, and to be able to carry them wherever they want. That's not the culture I feel the 2nd Amendment was intending to make. The quote of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is the first part of the 2nd Amendment, but everyone's focused on the second part "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." So we have a bit of a paradox in that how can you regulate something, while at the same time...not regulate it, because regulation means restriction, which would be an infringement. As it stands now, there is no actual militia in the US it's all in the various branches of the US armed forces. So what really is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment? Why is it so important that people hoard guns?

What you're seeing is pushback against tightening gun regulations.  There were always mutually-agreed-upon limits to the Second Amendment.  the US Supreme Court has ruled many times that there are always commonsense limits to every constitutional right.  For the 2nd Amendment, private citizens do not get to own combat-capable military hardware such as tanks, artillery, jet fighters, etc.  That's completely common sense and nobody is arguing differently.  The rub comes when you talk about guns that an individual can carry around.  Of myself I'm inclined to not allow .50 cal or .30 cal machine guns or other extreme stuff without a lot of explanation and licensing.  The smaller the gun the more individual rights become important.

Also newton's law of politics: The more extreme the push to regulate, the more extreme the pushback.

But that the same time guns are collectibles like anything else.  One person owns 147 guns for the same reason another owns 10,000 Magic cards (Something scary easy to do.  Magic has been continuously printing cards and coming out with new ones for 22 years now). 

The is also the real fear that an increasingly controlling and intrusive US government may go over the line into tyranny and need to be opposed.

The definition of "militia" is the subject of a lot of debate.  Some people define "militias" as only state national guards, but the Supreme Court has interpreted the 2nd broader than that.

22 hours ago, Scotty said:

Of course that's how terrorism works, but the government isn't treating the vegas shooting as terrorism, if the shooter wasn't an American citizen everyone would be clamouring at the government to close borders and ban immigration as it was already close to doing recently. Terrorism is terrorism, no matter who commits the act, and it needs to be dealt with equally.

I try to keep my personal definition of "terrorism" on a tight leash.  It's very easy to plaster the "terrorist" label on anybody I don't like and "terrorism" on any action.  The target has to be civilian and there has to be a political motive.  Actions taken against a military unit are asymmetric warfare, but not "terrorism".  Even if the primarily purpose to scare and destroy morale, it is not terrorism per se even though the actions might be undertaken by people who have also acted against civilians in the past or belong to an organization that has (i.e. terrorists).

So far as I know, the Vegas shooter had no political motive for what he did so at the very least *I* would not define him as a terrorist.  Were one to be unearthed, then he would be.  Race, religion and country of origin do not enter into it.

22 hours ago, Scotty said:

I dunno if the concert itself was a gun free zone, but the hotel that the shooter stayed at was a gun free zone, no one checked him for guns though and he carried 10 bags of them in. and even if the concert wasn't gun free, from where the shoot was located, it wouldn't have mattered if 1 or 10 or 50 concert goers had guns with them, they wouldn't have located where the shots were coming from quickly enough and they'd most likely get picked off before they had a chance. the security guard that attempted to get to the guy after hearing the first few shots was shot himself before he got to the door because the shooter had a camera in the hall to warn him.

Completely agreed.  The Vegas shooter should not have been able to bring that many (really any) guns into a gun-free casino. That's all poor casino security, however. 

It may be that the concert was a "gun-free zone" by extension of being held at a gun-free casino.

22 hours ago, Scotty said:

In the image I posted, yes they likely didn't intend on being disrepectful and aren't aware that it was, but the football players and teams are making a point in that how can they respect something that doesn't respect them,  so the best way to tell everyone how they feel, is to show everyone that they can't stand like Americans if they aren't treated like Americans.

I understand the motive behind the football player's actions, but they have no control over how their actions are seen or interpreted.  The knowing and intentional nature of the disrespect makes a strong distinction between football player actions and people wearing the flag for casual fun and maybe casual patriotism.

22 hours ago, Scotty said:

It's one thing to apply a mentality to a game or comic, or film. But an entirely different thing when it applies to real life circumstances. I can handle reading about 30th century mercs, I can handle playing a game where you shoot up other players. What I can't handle is knowing someone has a stockpile of guns in their house with absolutely no guarantee that they won't go on a shooting spree in 5, 10, 15 or so years because they one day said "F it!"

People don't work that way for the same reason they don't react to violent cartoons or violent video games that way. 

As with all sweeping generalizations about people, there are exceptions.  But they're rare.  In the main, people are simply people.  Gun people are no different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Excuse me?  You are the one who is making broad generalizations about the opposition all being on board with the extremist fringe.  

I apparently owe you an apology for misreading you.  I didn't realize it even as I sat down to write this reply.  Unfortunately I do not have the time to address the substance of your rather long post at the moment.

It was not my intent to characterize all those on the left as I did, but looking over my post I can see how that came across.  I would have addressed that last post but I oped to keep things simple so as to focus on me-you and not get distracted in issue-stuff.  We have already seen how well that went.

10 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

I have asked you repeatedly to address what restrictons, if any, you personally would approve of, and you are the one who still refuses to talk to/with me as an individual.

I already posted

Quote

I'll support some or all of the above you mentioned.  I just want to know where it ends. 

That really was intended to suggest flexibility on specifics.  I was waiting for a "Cool!  let's get into the details!"

10 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

I do not appreciate your trying to imply that I'm the one refusing to engage in a conversation.

As i say, it wasn't my intention.  I have an explanation, which is not the same thing as a justification.  I erred at least twice by you.  And maybe a third time by not expanding on more common ground.  I honestly thought I was meeting you halfway.  I would have been if I was perceiving you properly, which I was not, so that's on me.

Quote

 

You are the one assuming that there is some vast liberal conspiracy that all think alike, all act alike, and all want the most extreme position you can imagine.  You are the one presenting the position that it is one side versus the other side and no middle ground can be sought or expected.

 

I communicated poorly with that post and things just got worse from there.

At that time I did not understand why you were telling me that I was saying something that I knew I wasn't saying, so the rest of your yesterday post came across as a superior -> inferior lecture, with you casting yourself as the superior of course.  I now realize you were not doing anything of the sort.  You were trying to draw me out into a proper discussion.  I hope we can get back to that or at least agree to disagree amicably.

The final line of your post still reads more like an ultimatum than an invitation to a civil discussion.

Quote

Now, I ask again, are you willing to discuss that vast middle ground, or are you going to continue to insist on only addressing the extremist viewpoints?

As I said my one-line reply was intended to not get caught and deflected by issues.  I definitely thought I had obviously been mistreated and misunderstood and that was reflected in what I said.  

Quote

Sure.  But you have to talk to me not at me.  You have to understand my concerns not dismiss them.  I will give you the same courtesy.

I apologize for misreading you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, VorlonAgent!  It's so nice to see someone in an online discussion willing to say, oops, I misinterpreted that, let's carry on a reasonable discussion together, instead if doubling down on talking past each other. My apologies for whatever part of the misunderstanding was mine.  I'll go back and re-read what you've said in this new light, too.  Hopefully we can find some more common ground, or at least discuss our differing views of the ground.  :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

The whole point of "Do Something" legislation is to placate the public.  My interest is solving problems, not politicians looking good for the cameras.

I'll admit, there is a lot of posturing that happens after a tragedy. But it would be prudent to try to make the necessary changes so that more tragedies wouldn't happen. Use all that energy from trying to look good for the cameras for actually going over the amendment and determine if it's being interpreted accurately.

9 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

I try to keep my personal definition of "terrorism" on a tight leash.  It's very easy to plaster the "terrorist" label on anybody I don't like and "terrorism" on any action.  The target has to be civilian and there has to be a political motive.  Actions taken against a military unit are asymmetric warfare, but not "terrorism".  Even if the primarily purpose to scare and destroy morale, it is not terrorism per se even though the actions might be undertaken by people who have also acted against civilians in the past or belong to an organization that has (i.e. terrorists).

So far as I know, the Vegas shooter had no political motive for what he did so at the very least *I* would not define him as a terrorist.  Were one to be unearthed, then he would be.  Race, religion and country of origin do not enter into it.

The thing is though, even if there wasn't a political statement being made here, it still generated a level of fear that any ISIS suicide bomber would do, and I can't see how we shouldn't treat it as any differently, an act of terror is an act of terror. The vegas shooter might not have had any political reasons for doing what he did, but he still had the intent of killing as many people as he could before anyone could get to him, and then killed himself which would suggest that he didn't want to give them the satisfaction of either taking him alive, or killing him themselves. To me, that's terrorism.

9 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

I understand the motive behind the football player's actions, but they have no control over how their actions are seen or interpreted.  The knowing and intentional nature of the disrespect makes a strong distinction between football player actions and people wearing the flag for casual fun and maybe casual patriotism.

But they do have control, it's called the media, it's been explained on numerous occasions why they do what they do and how it's not aimed at the military, but if the general public choose to ignore that then who's actually being disrepectful here? It goes back to that mentality of deciding who's allowed to get away with certain actions.

 

9 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

What you're seeing is pushback against tightening gun regulations.  There were always mutually-agreed-upon limits to the Second Amendment.  the US Supreme Court has ruled many times that there are always commonsense limits to every constitutional right.  For the 2nd Amendment, private citizens do not get to own combat-capable military hardware such as tanks, artillery, jet fighters, etc.  That's completely common sense and nobody is arguing differently.  The rub comes when you talk about guns that an individual can carry around.  Of myself I'm inclined to not allow .50 cal or .30 cal machine guns or other extreme stuff without a lot of explanation and licensing.  The smaller the gun the more individual rights become important.

Also newton's law of politics: The more extreme the push to regulate, the more extreme the pushback.

But that the same time guns are collectibles like anything else.  One person owns 147 guns for the same reason another owns 10,000 Magic cards (Something scary easy to do.  Magic has been continuously printing cards and coming out with new ones for 22 years now). 

The is also the real fear that an increasingly controlling and intrusive US government may go over the line into tyranny and need to be opposed.

The definition of "militia" is the subject of a lot of debate.  Some people define "militias" as only state national guards, but the Supreme Court has interpreted the 2nd broader than that.

I get that people want to be able to defend themselves and their country and have the ability to oppose a tyrannical government. That much is a given. But how can you guarantee the right to do so when that right can be misused so easily. That's why I said earlier that I felt that the 2nd Amendment was being abused, the shooter used his right to buy the guns which he then used to kill fellow Americans. He single handedly turned the 2nd Amendment on itself. If that can't be prevented, is it really worth having? To be able to have an effective 2nd Amendment, everyone, EVERYONE, should be held responsible for the safety of not only themselves, but their fellow citizens, no matter if they're white, black or LGBTQ or any other groups. But that would require dealing with more than just the 2nd Amendment part of the constitution.

In terms of Collections, there's a level of responsibility in the care and display that greatly differs depending on the collection, usually it correlates to the potential harm a collection can do to others. As far as I can tell, no one has ever gone on a killing spree where the method of killing was by giving everyone severe papercuts with MTG cards, so of course no one is going to be demanding regulations on how many cards you can own, though the game itself is regulated pretty well at least in tournament settings. Someone with a sword/knife collection would of course be expected to take care in how they store and display pieces as well. And while yes, crimes committed with knives are very numerous as well, attackers with knives or swords don't get anywhere near the kill counts as attackers with guns. Guns allow attackers to kill from a distance without immediate danger to themselves, that's what makes them scarier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, there is a body of very loud activists who define "the middle ground" as halfway between wherever current law is and a complete ban on privately-owned firearms - and if current law changes, "the middle ground" moves.

These activists want to make the world safe for thuggery - or at least that's the effect of the laws they seek. Given the choice between a 200-pound wife-beating husband being shot, and a 130-pound frightened wife being beaten to death, they prefer the latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Don Edwards said:

Unfortunately, there is a body of very loud activists who define "the middle ground" as halfway between wherever current law is and a complete ban on privately-owned firearms - and if current law changes, "the middle ground" moves.

There is also a body of very loud activists who define "the middle ground" as somewhere between an absolute and total absence of any regulation on any gun (or other weapon) in any circumstance, and banning private citizens from owning tanks and rocket launchers but allowing automatic weapons without hindrance - and absolutely refuse to discuss any other options.  And their "middle ground" never seems to move.

1 hour ago, Don Edwards said:

These activists want to make the world safe for thuggery - or at least that's the effect of the laws they seek. Given the choice between a 200-pound wife-beating husband being shot, and a 130-pound frightened wife being beaten to death, they prefer the latter.

Must be Halloween season, look at all the straw men!  

As I've said before, when you are ready to discuss the actual opinions that studies show the vast majority hold, that there should be some regulations putting reasonable limits on firearms, then I am happy to engage with you.  But if you're going to argue against imaginary opponents, then you can do it alone.

Same question I've been asking over and over, with no response -- are there any limits of which you do approve?  Should toddlers be taught to fire uzis and find them in their Christmas stockings?  Should that 200-pound convicted wife-beater have just as much free access to whatever firearms he wants, even if he's publicly threatened to shoot her and their children?  Should the guy who's robbed five banks and shot a teller be able to walk into a gun store on the day he gets out of prison, and walk out with a brand new 9mm?  If your answer is no, of course not, then we agree there should be some limits, and we just have to explore what those limits should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honest question. What's more of a political statement, Football players taking a knee during the National Anthem, or the Vice President spending over $400K of taxpayer's money to fly to the Colts vs 49ers game only to leave during the National Anthem while players took a knee? There's no way that wasn't a planned PR stunt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My participation is going to be spotty this week. I am helping my mom recover from knee-replacement-replacement surgery.

On 10/6/2017 at 10:44 PM, CritterKeeper said:

Thank you, VorlonAgent!  It's so nice to see someone in an online discussion willing to say, oops, I misinterpreted that, let's carry on a reasonable discussion together, instead if doubling down on talking past each other. My apologies for whatever part of the misunderstanding was mine.  I'll go back and re-read what you've said in this new light, too.  Hopefully we can find some more common ground, or at least discuss our differing views of the ground.  :-)

I really try to keep myself grounded, reasoned and reasonable and fact-based.

I don't always succeed (and when I fail I tend to fail big), but I do try...

On 10/7/2017 at 0:03 PM, CritterKeeper said:

There is also a body of very loud activists who define "the middle ground" as somewhere between an absolute and total absence of any regulation on any gun (or other weapon) in any circumstance, and banning private citizens from owning tanks and rocket launchers but allowing automatic weapons without hindrance - and absolutely refuse to discuss any other options.  And their "middle ground" never seems to move.

Newton's law of politics.  The harder you feel pushed, the harder you feel like you have to push back.   The more uncompromising the other side looks, the more uncompromising you feel you have to be.  Escalation and de-humanization can bounce back and forth between two sides of any disagreement, which I imagine is the basis of Godwin's Law, where all internet conversations eventually lead to someone calling someone else a nazi.  These conflicts can be de-escalated but its not easy especially with the internet in play.

It's really easy to perceive the extremity of the other side as being genuine, but like you posted, bell curve of behavior and outlook.  How many people just want things to be "better" in some way and how many are really committed to an absolute end-goal?

On 10/7/2017 at 10:23 AM, Don Edwards said:

Unfortunately, there is a body of very loud activists who define "the middle ground" as halfway between wherever current law is and a complete ban on privately-owned firearms - and if current law changes, "the middle ground" moves.

The first paragraph of Don's post is something of concern to me as well.  I can't remember any serious push to broaden gun rights anytime in the last 40 years.  The push is always toward restriction after restriction.  And it does appear that compromise only fuels the next round of restrictions.

This is why I asked "where does it end?"  This is a question that has also not been adequately answered.  Gun owners have been dealing with a "death of a thousand cuts" sort of situation for a while now.  Any meeting of minds must include a cessation of legislative hostility or at least a point where gun owners begin to pick up allies who previously were adversaries.

Don''s second paragraph, however, was less than helpful, as was the first paragraph of Critterkeeper's reply.  

On 10/7/2017 at 0:03 PM, CritterKeeper said:

Same question I've been asking over and over, with no response -- are there any limits of which you do approve?  Should toddlers be taught to fire uzis and find them in their Christmas stockings?  Should that 200-pound convicted wife-beater have just as much free access to whatever firearms he wants, even if he's publicly threatened to shoot her and their children?  Should the guy who's robbed five banks and shot a teller be able to walk into a gun store on the day he gets out of prison, and walk out with a brand new 9mm?  If your answer is no, of course not, then we agree there should be some limits, and we just have to explore what those limits should be.

People convicted of crimes are legally presumed to have signed away some constitutional protections as it is.  An individual with a history of violent crime convictions has (or should have) signed away his 2nd Amendment rights as well.  We obviously want to makcommonsense exceptions to the 2nd Amendment.

We can work out a set of reasonable circumstances for who *shouldn't* be allowed to own a gun without too much trouble, though I have personal knowledge of one case where this was abused.  A civil war historian with a collection of antique guns was having trouble with the administrators of a college he was working for.  He has a history of some non-violent psychological issues.  Admin called the police, they took all his guns and had destroyed them by the time the historian got his name cleared.

The real rub is banning guns by classification. It is really troubling is when government says "you can't own this class of gun". It can be seen as convicting the entire population of a crime without trial or representation.  As I have posted before there are wide ranges of military hardware where this is reasonable:  Combat-capable artillery, tanks and airplanes are on any reasonable no-go list.

I am willing to support class restrictions especially if there are reasonable exceptions, such as perhaps licensing.  I can't own an M-16 (full auto weapon) unless I have a license, though there should be guns I can own without one.  The terms of the license is touchy stuff.  Some gun owners would feel they are signing up for a visit from government thugs should government go full-on authoritarian.  Also licensing fees and other hoops to jump through could be used to create a de-facto ban like literacy tests and poll taxes were once used to de-facto ban black voting in the South.

Does this seem like a good starting point for discussion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was well aware that I had skipped over Scotty's post. Let's take care of that oversight...

On 10/7/2017 at 8:09 AM, Scotty said:

I'll admit, there is a lot of posturing that happens after a tragedy. But it would be prudent to try to make the necessary changes so that more tragedies wouldn't happen. Use all that energy from trying to look good for the cameras for actually going over the amendment and determine if it's being interpreted accurately.

Agreed.  The time frame is the thing.  Doing things fast means doing things sloppily.  Doing things carefully means no substantive changes while emotions run high and the shooting is in the 24-hour news cycle.  Really you can't do any genuine legislative business UNTIL the furor dies down.

On 10/7/2017 at 8:09 AM, Scotty said:

The thing is though, even if there wasn't a political statement being made here, it still generated a level of fear that any ISIS suicide bomber would do, and I can't see how we shouldn't treat it as any differently, an act of terror is an act of terror. The vegas shooter might not have had any political reasons for doing what he did, but he still had the intent of killing as many people as he could before anyone could get to him, and then killed himself which would suggest that he didn't want to give them the satisfaction of either taking him alive, or killing him themselves. To me, that's terrorism.

I would point out that there is no massive pressure for anti-terror legislation every time there is a terror attack in the US.  Even if there were pressure to do a bunch of new laws, I would still want to slow down and do things right, not fast.

I can agree to disagree with your definition of terrorism.  Certainly the vegas shooter's intent was to terrorize.

On 10/7/2017 at 8:09 AM, Scotty said:

But they do have control, it's called the media, it's been explained on numerous occasions why they do what they do and how it's not aimed at the military, but if the general public choose to ignore that then who's actually being disrepectful here? It goes back to that mentality of deciding who's allowed to get away with certain actions.

It doesn't have to be aimed at the military.  Aimed at the country is enough.  

This is nothing new.  Colin Kaepernik (sp) was kneeling this time last year. And it was already spreading.  Opinions are set in stone by now.  The only reason kneeling is in the news is that it's not a one-season fad.  It's looking to be a permanent part of the NFL experience.  And it is not wanted.  Just because the viewing public know why NFL players are kneeling, doesn't mean they must like or even tolerate it.  They're turning off the TV or changing the channel and the NFL is losing money.

I have to admit I take a dark satisfaction in this.  Like many publicity-dependent institutions, the NFL has a corrupt side that prefers to hush up problems in the name of ratings instead of dealing with bad behavior as bad behavior (looking at YOU, Bill Belichick!).  The NFL finally has a problem they can't just make go away and all sorts of unrelated dirt is coming out.  I didn't realize, for example, that the NFL was a tax-exempt nonprofit.  I'm not at all certain it should be.

On 10/7/2017 at 8:09 AM, Scotty said:

I get that people want to be able to defend themselves and their country and have the ability to oppose a tyrannical government. That much is a given. But how can you guarantee the right to do so when that right can be misused so easily. That's why I said earlier that I felt that the 2nd Amendment was being abused, the shooter used his right to buy the guns which he then used to kill fellow Americans. He single handedly turned the 2nd Amendment on itself. If that can't be prevented, is it really worth having? To be able to have an effective 2nd Amendment, everyone, EVERYONE, should be held responsible for the safety of not only themselves, but their fellow citizens, no matter if they're white, black or LGBTQ or any other groups. But that would require dealing with more than just the 2nd Amendment part of the constitution.

The way I frame the question is price vs. performance.  What benefits does the 2nd provide vs what deficits.   Weighing the 2nd means weighing both.

I'm not sure what you mean by "everyone, EVERYONE, should be held responsible for the safety of not only themselves, but their fellow citizens".  What does that mean in practical terms?  What obligations should be legal vs what should be traditional?  Where are the actual problems?  If I live in a gun-friendly red state, what is my obligation to the vegas shooter's victims?  What is my obligation to the huge amount of gun deaths in the inner city?

On 10/7/2017 at 8:09 AM, Scotty said:

In terms of Collections, there's a level of responsibility in the care and display that greatly differs depending on the collection, usually it correlates to the potential harm a collection can do to others. As far as I can tell, no one has ever gone on a killing spree where the method of killing was by giving everyone severe papercuts with MTG cards, so of course no one is going to be demanding regulations on how many cards you can own, though the game itself is regulated pretty well at least in tournament settings. Someone with a sword/knife collection would of course be expected to take care in how they store and display pieces as well. And while yes, crimes committed with knives are very numerous as well, attackers with knives or swords don't get anywhere near the kill counts as attackers with guns. Guns allow attackers to kill from a distance without immediate danger to themselves, that's what makes them scarier.

I completely agree that people should be held responsible for their actions and should take responsibility if they choose to collect articles that are dangerous.

Generally speaking the responsibility of red-state gun owners is borne out by the low amount of gun-related incidents in those states.  Again I'm not sure what in real terms you are looking for that doesn't already exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/8/2017 at 2:43 PM, Scotty said:

Honest question. What's more of a political statement, Football players taking a knee during the National Anthem, or the Vice President spending over $400K of taxpayer's money to fly to the Colts vs 49ers game only to leave during the National Anthem while players took a knee? There's no way that wasn't a planned PR stunt.

Missed this above.  It's simple.  They're the same.  There's no more or less political about either action.  They're both innately political.

The NFL players plan, if only within each individual players' own minds, to kneel at the anthem.  They know there's TV cameras to broadcast their actions.  It is a straightforward, intended PR stunt.

Mike Pence had to plan in advance to leave the game when players kneel.  He also knows there are cameras to record his actions.  His is a straightforward, intended PR stunt as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

It doesn't have to be aimed at the military.  Aimed at the country is enough.  

This is nothing new.  Colin Kaepernik (sp) was kneeling this time last year. And it was already spreading.  Opinions are set in stone by now.  The only reason kneeling is in the news is that it's not a one-season fad.  It's looking to be a permanent part of the NFL experience.  And it is not wanted.  Just because the viewing public know why NFL players are kneeling, doesn't mean they must like or even tolerate it.  They're turning off the TV or changing the channel and the NFL is losing money.

It just seems wrong that the there's more attention focused on NFL players taking a knee, than there is of Neo-Nazi groups protesting in Charlottesville (again), the Charlottesville protesters are essentially saying "hey! Hilter had the right idea!" so in my mind that's more disrepectful to all those that fought in WW2, and that Mike Pence chose to condemn the NFL players rather than the Neo-Nazi group sickens me.

37 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

I have to admit I take a dark satisfaction in this.  Like many publicity-dependent institutions, the NFL has a corrupt side that prefers to hush up problems in the name of ratings instead of dealing with bad behavior as bad behavior (looking at YOU, Bill Belichick!).  The NFL finally has a problem they can't just make go away and all sorts of unrelated dirt is coming out.  I didn't realize, for example, that the NFL was a tax-exempt nonprofit.  I'm not at all certain it should be.

I didn't know that it the NFL was tax exempt, not sure if the players are though, but the fact that the NFL seems to have their hands tied might be an indication that those that are corrupt are losing control. I dunno.

44 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

I'm not sure what you mean by "everyone, EVERYONE, should be held responsible for the safety of not only themselves, but their fellow citizens".  What does that mean in practical terms?  What obligations should be legal vs what should be traditional?  Where are the actual problems?  If I live in a gun-friendly red state, what is my obligation to the vegas shooter's victims?  What is my obligation to the huge amount of gun deaths in the inner city?

I mean everyone is treated the same, like when cops see a black man exercising the right to open carry, they don't immediately jump on him. A lot of what I meant is in reference to the general mentality of people, how they view others, sometimes people feel the need to carry weapons as a "just in case" protective measure, but doing so might trigger automatic defense responses in others, so the act of carrying a weapon for protection would created the situation where it gets used.

You're mention of obligation though circles pretty close to being like how I've heard people view universal healthcare, "If I'm healthy, why should I help pay for other people's medical bills?"  It's always "If it doesn't affect me, why should I care?" but what happens when it does affect you in some way? What if you knew one of the victims? What if there's a mass shooting in your gun-friendly state? What if you get shot?

1 hour ago, Vorlonagent said:

Generally speaking the responsibility of red-state gun owners is borne out by the low amount of gun-related incidents in those states.  Again I'm not sure what in real terms you are looking for that doesn't already exist.

It's probably got to do with the overall mentality in regards to how people view guns and each other in such states, if political views and cultural differences aren't rubbing the wrong way, there probably won't be any issues. But sadly, that's not the case for many states, and also sadly, some people's response to political and cultural views that differ from their own is to act with violence against those who differ from them.

1 hour ago, Vorlonagent said:

Missed this above.  It's simple.  They're the same.  There's no more or less political about either action.  They're both innately political.

The NFL players plan, if only within each individual players' own minds, to kneel at the anthem.  They know there's TV cameras to broadcast their actions.  It is a straightforward, intended PR stunt.

Mike Pence had to plan in advance to leave the game when players kneel.  He also knows there are cameras to record his actions.  His is a straightforward, intended PR stunt as well.

I refer to my statement at the top of this post, and in terms of political statements, maybe they are the same. But you can't tell me that taking a knee during the anthem is more disrepectful than waving swastika flags in Charlottesville.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Scotty said:

It just seems wrong that the there's more attention focused on NFL players taking a knee, than there is of Neo-Nazi groups protesting in Charlottesville (again), the Charlottesville protesters are essentially saying "hey! Hilter had the right idea!" so in my mind that's more disrepectful to all those that fought in WW2, and that Mike Pence chose to condemn the NFL players rather than the Neo-Nazi group sickens me.

One can argue there is a matter of degree.  Neo-nazis are an extreme fringe group.  The neo-nazi/KKK march only had long legs in the 24-hour news cycle because a liberal group decided to commit assault and battery on a large scale turning the protest into a riot.  The kneeling thing is in-your-face and is so not just once but every sunday.  

We can hypocrite-hunt all year if we want and I can give as good as I get because hypocrisy is a universal.  It happens to liberals and conservatives in equal measure.

But playing the game is divisive so I'd rather go elsewhere.

26 minutes ago, Scotty said:

I didn't know that it the NFL was tax exempt, not sure if the players are though, but the fact that the NFL seems to have their hands tied might be an indication that those that are corrupt are losing control. I dunno.

I think the NFL as an umbrella organization is non-profit.  I believe NFL teams are for-profit and players are simply employees.

27 minutes ago, Scotty said:

I mean everyone is treated the same, like when cops see a black man exercising the right to open carry, they don't immediately jump on him. A lot of what I meant is in reference to the general mentality of people, how they view others, sometimes people feel the need to carry weapons as a "just in case" protective measure, but doing so might trigger automatic defense responses in others, so the act of carrying a weapon for protection would created the situation where it gets used.

Are we talking about gun rights or racism here?  Or both?

Open carry is not a universal right in the US.  AFAIK, states and localities can ban open-carry and do.  There are states where it is allowed, such as Washington or Texas, but I doubt you could do it in California or New York.

To understand police reactions to blacks one must look at the plight of blacks.  Their situation is messed up in about every way they could be and one of the side effects is police are conditioned by a combination of received wisdom, confirmation bias and genuine experience to look with greater suspicion on blacks.  It's a rift that won't easily or quickly heal.  

I completely agree with Martin Luther King's dream of judging people by the content of their character not the color of their skin.  But people are people and human brains make decisions on more than objective logic.

41 minutes ago, Scotty said:

You're mention of obligation though circles pretty close to being like how I've heard people view universal healthcare, "If I'm healthy, why should I help pay for other people's medical bills?"  It's always "If it doesn't affect me, why should I care?" but what happens when it does affect you in some way? What if you knew one of the victims? What if there's a mass shooting in your gun-friendly state? What if you get shot?

That's not what I said.  I was asking what you thought the obligation would be because it was unclear.  So what obligations (legal or otherwise) do you see for a gun-owner in the wake of the vegas shooting?

48 minutes ago, Scotty said:

I refer to my statement at the top of this post, and in terms of political statements, maybe they are the same. But you can't tell me that taking a knee during the anthem is more disrepectful than waving swastika flags in Charlottesville.

I've done my best.  The NFL players kneeling is intrusive, directly and pointedly disrespectful and ongoing.  Charloteville occurred once, was only in the news, and offered no commentary on the nation.  I can go into detail but I don't really see other reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

Are we talking about gun rights or racism here?  Or both?

Both, because a black American should have just as much right to as a white American.

15 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

To understand police reactions to blacks one must look at the plight of blacks.  Their situation is messed up in about every way they could be and one of the side effects is police are conditioned by a combination of received wisdom, confirmation bias and genuine experience to look with greater suspicion on blacks.  It's a rift that won't easily or quickly heal.  

I haven't seen any real effort from the government to help heal that rift. When Kaepernik first took a knee to protest the poor treatment of black Americans, no one said "Hey, you know what? You're right, you're not being treated as equals, how about we try to fix that?" and instead the government's actions only make that worse.

26 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

I completely agree with Martin Luther King's dream of judging people by the content of their character not the color of their skin.  But people are people and human brains make decisions on more than objective logic.

This is where the paradox of Race comes into play, people talk about White and Black as two races, but we're all Human, one race. How can both be true? And to even consider subspecies of Human invites questions of which is superior. And most often, those who think themselves superior to others, has to be overcompensating for something, but they're in a position of power, they can use that power to twist people's perspectives, they'll put pressure on those they feel inferior and they'll do so in such a way that any pushback will be seen as proof that they're inferior. It's the same tactic that bullies use in school, antagonize someone while the teacher isn't looking  and then play angel when that student retaliates.

42 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

That's not what I said.  I was asking what you thought the obligation would be because it was unclear.  So what obligations (legal or otherwise) do you see for a gun-owner in the wake of the vegas shooting?

I think it still applies though, It would certainly make me feel better if gun owners tried to put forth possible methods for curbing gun violence without compromising their rights. But instead we have gun owners lobbying for deregulation of silencers and armor piercing rounds, which we've already discussed that there's no such thing as a silencer. If gun lobbyists like the NRA only want to think about how much easier they can make it for people to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights and not try to solve the problem of gun violence, then there's no way things could get any better.

1 hour ago, Vorlonagent said:

Charloteville occurred once, was only in the news, and offered no commentary on the nation.

It happened again this past Saturday, and the only reason it wasn't more prominent was because there was no violence, but it still happened. And I think lack of coverage offers more commentary about a nation's priorities than round the clock coverage. The problem is, some may say that if you ignore something, it'll eventually go away. But going back to the bully analogy, bullies don't like being ignored, and will step up their efforts to get you to react, or they'll find someone else to antagonize, the first outcome only makes things worse, and the second doesn't solve the issue at all, just passes it on to someone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Scotty said:

Both, because a black American should have just as much right to as a white American.

Of course.  That's not in dispute.  What that means in practical terms is the issue,

13 hours ago, Scotty said:

I haven't seen any real effort from the government to help heal that rift. When Kaepernik first took a knee to protest the poor treatment of black Americans, no one said "Hey, you know what? You're right, you're not being treated as equals, how about we try to fix that?" and instead the government's actions only make that worse.

You wouldn't.  Because Kaepernik wasn't doing anything new.  The US became drenched in the race issue since early into Obama's first term.  Kaepernik did not add any new insights to the discussion.  He simply made race that much more inescapable (and preserved his "starting quarterback" status through the 2016 NFL season.  He's out of work now because he put in a dismal performance)

There's no easy fix.  Inner city blacks are poor.  The poor get lesser treatment regardless of skin color.  That's not changing any time soon.  If I'm black and I'm conditioned to see any slight as racism, slights that occur to me because I am poor will look like racism.  This is not to say that there is no racism in the US but that not everything perceived by blacks as racism need be racism.

13 hours ago, Scotty said:

This is where the paradox of Race comes into play, people talk about White and Black as two races, but we're all Human, one race. How can both be true? And to even consider subspecies of Human invites questions of which is superior. And most often, those who think themselves superior to others, has to be overcompensating for something, but they're in a position of power, they can use that power to twist people's perspectives, they'll put pressure on those they feel inferior and they'll do so in such a way that any pushback will be seen as proof that they're inferior. It's the same tactic that bullies use in school, antagonize someone while the teacher isn't looking  and then play angel when that student retaliates.

The high black participation in many sports argue for an advantage to blacks in some kinds of athleticism.

No matter how we slice it, no two humans are equal, let alone two races.  We have to navigate advantages and deficits in upbringing, education and talent every day.  There is no way to make things come out even that doesn't do more harm than good.

Bullies are also something that are always going to be there as long as humans are humans.  Some people with power will abuse that power, and some abusers delight in harming others.

13 hours ago, Scotty said:

I think it still applies though, It would certainly make me feel better if gun owners tried to put forth possible methods for curbing gun violence without compromising their rights. But instead we have gun owners lobbying for deregulation of silencers and armor piercing rounds, which we've already discussed that there's no such thing as a silencer. If gun lobbyists like the NRA only want to think about how much easier they can make it for people to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights and not try to solve the problem of gun violence, then there's no way things could get any better.

This is the first time I have seen gun legislation that expands rather than contracts the rights gun owners have.  The trajectory of the last 40 years of gun legislation has been toward more restrictions. 

Questions to ask are what actual "silencers" and what "armor piercing" ammunition are being allowed.  Past gun legislation has famously played fast and loose with the definition of "assault weapon" and "assault rifle." because they were scare words for a while.  I do not know definitions are being massaged in this case but it is a common opposition tactic.

13 hours ago, Scotty said:

It happened again this past Saturday, and the only reason it wasn't more prominent was because there was no violence, but it still happened. And I think lack of coverage offers more commentary about a nation's priorities than round the clock coverage. The problem is, some may say that if you ignore something, it'll eventually go away. But going back to the bully analogy, bullies don't like being ignored, and will step up their efforts to get you to react, or they'll find someone else to antagonize, the first outcome only makes things worse, and the second doesn't solve the issue at all, just passes it on to someone else.

Who initiated violence last time neo-nazis and KKKers marched?  The extreme-left "anti-fascist" activists.  They were absent this time, and a non-violent demonstration resulted.

Activists hate being ignored too.  Activism also escalates provocation until its desires are met.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2017 at 8:48 PM, Vorlonagent said:

I completely agree with Martin Luther King's dream of judging people by the content of their character not the color of their skin.  But people are people and human brains make decisions on more than objective logic.

It's also important to recognize that the color of their skin can be determined a great deal more easily and quickly - and, frequently, accurately - than the content of their character.

On the other hand, it's only one data point.

 

On 10/11/2017 at 10:43 PM, Scotty said:

I think it still applies though, It would certainly make me feel better if gun owners tried to put forth possible methods for curbing gun violence without compromising their rights.

A couple proposals I have seen:

* The Eddie Eagle program, which is a preschool-level gun-safety program summarized in four words: No, Stop, Go, Tell. Studies have proven that 5-year-olds can learn the program, and afterward are much less likely to play with guns they happen to find than their peers who haven't gone through the program. This obviously would reduce accidental shootings by such children, but since it's an NRA program (they created it, they publish it, they frequently fund it and sometimes even take it to the kids themselves) it obviously is evil and will brainwash the children into being homicidal maniacs.

* Mandatory add-on sentence for anyone convicted of a felony, if they used a gun in the commission of that felony. This, again, is favored by the NRA, and therefore is evil (probably racist, since convicted felons are disproportionately black).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

The high black participation in many sports argue for an advantage to blacks in some kinds of athleticism.

In 2012, there were 350 black players in the NBA.  There were 411 black neurologists and 690 black cardiologists.  Therefore blacks must have some sort of advantage in specialty medicine, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, CritterKeeper said:

In 2012, there were 350 black players in the NBA.  There were 411 black neurologists and 690 black cardiologists.  Therefore blacks must have some sort of advantage in specialty medicine, no?

The Moderator: While it is of course permissible to present a data point to refute an opposing claim, please attempt to do so without either undertones of sarcasm or irritation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now