| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/29/2012 12:53:39 PM · #1176 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Cory:
the biggest joke here is that you seem to think the shooter decided to do this because guns were available. Again, super soaker + gas. |
The fact that this and other rampage killers nearly always choose guns rather than super soakers demonstrates the folly of your claim. |
To be fair, I believe Cory's position is that since the guns are available, naturally they'll be used, but that if there were no readily-available guns the dementos would just substitute some other, more available, means of destruction, such as supersoaker flamethrowers or whatever's the red herring du jour.
Personally I think that's not a given (I think there'd be less mayhem if there were no guns) but his *logic* isn't impeachable, or at least not in the way you've just tried to do it. |
I agree, guns are used because they are easy to get and efficient. I'm sue if strict gun laws are passed then people will resort to knives or what the next efficient means of inflicting damage is. the point isn't to curb the behavior, its to curb the fact that too many die too easily at the hand of a gun. they do far for damage than any benefit to society they provide. |
|
|
|
12/29/2012 01:05:34 PM · #1177 |
Cory, if your going on about this being a freedom issue, and you see gun control as restricting your freedom, I'd like to know where you draw the line?
At what point does public safety trump personal freedom. Should people be able to buy grenades? How about land mines to protect their property from trespassers? What about mortars? You can see where I'm going with this, so honestly, and respectfully, where do you draw the line at what types of weapons should be restricted, and which should not and why is that where you draw the line?
ETA: I just also want to point out that the USA (and any other 1st world country), have many laws which restrict freedoms already. You do not have the freedom to run a red light, to steal, etc. Are you against all laws that restrict freedoms?
I ask this honestly and respectfully, because if it turns out that you are an anarchist, then I would completely understand your position on this.
Message edited by author 2012-12-29 13:08:41. |
|
|
|
12/29/2012 01:08:07 PM · #1178 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Cory, if your going on about this being a freedom issue, and you see gun control as restricting your freedom, I'd like to know where you draw the line?
At what point does public safety trump personal freedom. Should people be able to buy grenades? How about land mines to protect their property from trespassers? What about mortars? You can see where I'm going with this, so honestly, and respectfully, where do you draw the line at what types of weapons should be restricted, and which should not and why is that where you draw the line? |
again the second amendment doesn't say "guns", its says "arms". our lawmakers need to decide how restrictive that can be. no one is taking away the second amendment, we just want limits on the amount or firepower someone can use on another person. |
|
|
|
12/29/2012 01:09:05 PM · #1179 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
I've been staying out of this. And I'll continue to, but I just ran across this and thought it might make some of you happy to see... //www.dmgd.org/ |
hmmm, that explains why i don't hunt :P |
|
|
|
12/29/2012 01:10:37 PM · #1180 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Cory, if your going on about this being a freedom issue, and you see gun control as restricting your freedom, I'd like to know where you draw the line?
At what point does public safety trump personal freedom. Should people be able to buy grenades? How about land mines to protect their property from trespassers? What about mortars? You can see where I'm going with this, so honestly, and respectfully, where do you draw the line at what types of weapons should be restricted, and which should not and why is that where you draw the line? |
again the second amendment doesn't say "guns", its says "arms". our lawmakers need to decide how restrictive that can be. no one is taking away the second amendment, we just want limits on the amount or firepower someone can use on another person. |
I agree 100%, and I would favour very strict regulations on guns/ammo etc. Luckily, I live in Canada, whose laws are stricter than our friends to the south. I'm just trying to understand Cory's obvious passion about this issue. |
|
|
|
12/29/2012 01:18:21 PM · #1181 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
I agree 100%, and I would favour very strict regulations on guns/ammo etc. Luckily, I live in Canada, whose laws are stricter than our friends to the south. I'm just trying to understand Cory's obvious passion about this issue. |
i understand his position, i used to take it and still do on a number of issues. he doesn't want any more erosion of our rights, the US has decided that restricting the rights of its people is better for its own safety rather than looking at and addressing the causes of such behavior.
i take the stance that gun ownership isn't a right, its a privilege that is partially afforded by the second amendment. we have shown that we don't deserve the privilege, just like why we have other restrictions on things many feel ought to be freely available, e.g. drugs, junk food, explosives.
no one wants regulation but if i cant trust my fellow man to play nicely i need our lawmakers to force them too.
Message edited by author 2012-12-29 13:19:33. |
|
|
|
12/29/2012 01:44:30 PM · #1182 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
To be fair, I believe Cory's position is that since the guns are available, naturally they'll be used, but that if there were no readily-available guns the dementos would just substitute some other, more available, means of destruction, such as supersoaker flamethrowers or whatever's the red herring du jour.
Personally I think that's not a given (I think there'd be less mayhem if there were no guns) but his *logic* isn't impeachable, or at least not in the way you've just tried to do it. |
The belief (not logic) has already been disproven by a dearth of alternative mayhem where such gun laws have been enacted. |
|
|
|
12/29/2012 02:30:08 PM · #1183 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
again the second amendment doesn't say "guns", its says "arms". our lawmakers need to decide how restrictive that can be. no one is taking away the second amendment, we just want limits on the amount or firepower someone can use on another person. |
Correct. The constitution does NOT spell out any right to an assault weapon or extended magazine. It says arms, period, and for the specific purpose of defending the states. No militia of gun-toting citizens is capable of defending the U.S. from any foreign power that could get past our military today. To do so would require tanks, missiles and advanced fighter jets that we already recognize as beyond the rights of common citizens. The threat that prompted this amendment is neither currently valid nor countered by its provision, and claims of frequent self-defense use based on survey extrapolations do not come anywhere close to real world figures, which are vastly outnumbered by guns stolen or used maliciously by legal owners. Pointing out rare anecdotal instances of defensive gun use or rogue cops is as silly as pointing out a Powerball winner to justify lottery tickets as a sound investment.
The greatest threat now comes from the guns in our own hands– with more American casualties on an annual basis than both Middle East wars and 9/11 combined. The deaths are usually so spread out and commonplace that we've become desensitized to the toll, and only take notice of mass attacks. When many people are killed at once it makes national headlines, and when the victims are innocent children in a place that we normally associate as a safe environment, THEN we get calls for action. If even a tenth of the annual toll took place at once, such action would be immediate and sweeping, drowning out the plaintive cries of fanatics clinging to a right already rendered moot by military technology. Handguns and rifles are useless in an ICBM fight, and we have no reason to fear government oppression in a form that would require shooting at the same soldiers we so effusively praise for their service or the police we honor for their sacrifices. |
|
|
|
12/29/2012 02:36:48 PM · #1184 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
To be fair, I believe Cory's position is that since the guns are available, naturally they'll be used, but that if there were no readily-available guns the dementos would just substitute some other, more available, means of destruction, such as supersoaker flamethrowers or whatever's the red herring du jour.
Personally I think that's not a given (I think there'd be less mayhem if there were no guns) but his *logic* isn't impeachable, or at least not in the way you've just tried to do it. |
The belief (not logic) has already been disproven by a dearth of alternative mayhem where such gun laws have been enacted. |
Either possibility is possible.
While I do appreciate your argument, no other country has ever been in this situation, there's a hundred reasons why the US is unlike any of the places you would cite ("from my cold dead hands", sheer quantity of weapons, cultural mixing pot (read more tension/trouble), American caviler attitudes, highest incarceration rate in the world, etc), but in the end even you really have to admit the proposition is absolutely a social experiment. Given that people are given to bouts of unpredictability, and given the complexity of the system with which we propose to experiment upon (the US population), I think it's fair to say that none of us can really say that we have any solid understanding of how this would play out. So to say something has been "disproven" is really somewhat less sound that my position that we aren't terribly likely to succeed in stopping violence, if only because I'm giving room for error, and you are trying to be so absolute about it.
And for the record my argument is, precisely as Mike guessed - that I'm just against more laws that follow in the line of what seems to be the theme du jour. (DMCA, Patriot Act, the creation of HLS and TSA, etc.. While good intentioned, and staffed by people who I am sure are each individually meritorious, as an organization they are ineffective at best, and downright invasive at worst) Basically, all of these programs cost huge money, and make marginal positive impacts - we're not exactly flush with cash as a nation, and more felons, more enforcement, more $$$ everywhere, and less tax paying citizens adds up to a pretty bad idea IMO.
But, tell me, Shannon - How would your detailed plan work, how would this be implemented and enforced? How will we pay for it? How many prisoners will be created (or do you envision monetary fines?) Give me a compelling story of how your idea would play out..
|
|
|
|
12/29/2012 02:41:17 PM · #1185 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
It says arms, period, and for the specific purpose of defending the states. No militia of gun-toting citizens is capable of defending the U.S. from any foreign power that could get past our military today.
|
Christ. I know this has been explained like, 50 times in this thread. How is it that you have still failed to grasp that the 2nd amendment was not a protection measure against forces from abroad, but rather forces from within!
I cannot tell you how honestly disappointed I am to see you writing stuff like this, given that I really want a good debate, but you seem to be addicted to such silly rhetoric. *shrug* not much I can do about that I suppose. |
|
|
|
12/29/2012 02:44:12 PM · #1186 |
Cory, couldn't we make the argument that less guns would be less of a financial burden on police forces? enough to offset any potential increases enacting more restrictive laws would contribute to?
|
|
|
|
12/29/2012 03:45:45 PM · #1187 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Cory, couldn't we make the argument that less guns would be less of a financial burden on police forces? enough to offset any potential increases enacting more restrictive laws would contribute to? |
Sure we could... Except for the fact that government spending doesn't really work this way in 99.9% of cases. |
|
|
|
12/29/2012 03:50:03 PM · #1188 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by scalvert:
It says arms, period, and for the specific purpose of defending the states. No militia of gun-toting citizens is capable of defending the U.S. from any foreign power that could get past our military today.
|
Christ. I know this has been explained like, 50 times in this thread. How is it that you have still failed to grasp that the 2nd amendment was not a protection measure against forces from abroad, but rather forces from within! |
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Sounds outward-looking as well to me, Cory. Covers both bases. Also note that we have the right to KEEP 'em, and the right to BEAR 'em. There is a difference. Hanging 'em on the wall, that's "keeping". Walking around outside with a loaded weapon, THAT'S "bearing".
Curiously enough, the right to BEAR arms is actually pretty regulated in this country. Even if the people who cause this mayhem are "keeping" their arms legally, they are "bearing" them illegally. Since we've already agreed we can limit the right to "bear" arms, why can't we limit the right to "keep" them as well?
Just thinking out loud... |
|
|
|
12/29/2012 04:40:01 PM · #1189 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." |
The other leg of that statement that gets less scrutiny is the phrase "A well regulated militia". When the constitution was written most towns had militias that were a cross between today's volunteer fire department (civic minded outdoorsmen) and the chamber of commerce (an organization of business men angling for civic prominence). Militias were call up to face enemies external and internal before the advent of a standing army and national guards.
Today when we think of militias we are more likely to think of whackadoodles running around the woods of Michigan, with tints of neo nazi aryan surepmacy praying for the end of the world crazyness. There may be well regulated militias out there but they don't make the news.
State militias have not really been in use since the civil war. there are no well regulated militias that are necessary to state security, those that exist are largely aimed at toppling the state. So given that the second amendment begins with a predicate phrase that is no longer valid, what validity does the sentence have? |
|
|
|
12/29/2012 07:09:08 PM · #1190 |
Rocket Launchers returned in LA Gun buyback
"Det. Gus Villanueva said the launchers were “stripped-down shells” without the technical parts needed to discharge a projectile." <-- thankfully |
|
|
|
12/29/2012 07:22:25 PM · #1191 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by mike_311:
Cory, couldn't we make the argument that less guns would be less of a financial burden on police forces? enough to offset any potential increases enacting more restrictive laws would contribute to? |
Sure we could... Except for the fact that government spending doesn't really work this way in 99.9% of cases. |
Assuming you are right, one could assume that the funds expended to deal with this issue could be directed to some other worthwhile endeavour... or don't you believe that is feasible.
Ray |
|
|
|
12/29/2012 09:24:01 PM · #1192 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by scalvert:
It says arms, period, and for the specific purpose of defending the states. No militia of gun-toting citizens is capable of defending the U.S. from any foreign power that could get past our military today.
|
Christ. I know this has been explained like, 50 times in this thread. How is it that you have still failed to grasp that the 2nd amendment was not a protection measure against forces from abroad, but rather forces from within! |
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Sounds outward-looking as well to me, Cory. Covers both bases. Also note that we have the right to KEEP 'em, and the right to BEAR 'em. There is a difference. Hanging 'em on the wall, that's "keeping". Walking around outside with a loaded weapon, THAT'S "bearing".
Curiously enough, the right to BEAR arms is actually pretty regulated in this country. Even if the people who cause this mayhem are "keeping" their arms legally, they are "bearing" them illegally. Since we've already agreed we can limit the right to "bear" arms, why can't we limit the right to "keep" them as well?
Just thinking out loud... |
Don't you think that thinking they will follow the rules when they apply to "keeping" when they don't at all pay attention to the laws that already exist around "bearing" seems a bit naive?
I mean, the Sandy Hook shooter broke something like 41 laws (some of those are multiple counts of the same law)... Can you really say that the 42nd law would have really deterred him? |
|
|
|
12/29/2012 09:28:36 PM · #1193 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by mike_311:
Cory, couldn't we make the argument that less guns would be less of a financial burden on police forces? enough to offset any potential increases enacting more restrictive laws would contribute to? |
Sure we could... Except for the fact that government spending doesn't really work this way in 99.9% of cases. |
Assuming you are right, one could assume that the funds expended to deal with this issue could be directed to some other worthwhile endeavour... or don't you believe that is feasible.
Ray |
Really, I think we already have too many laws that aren't enforced well - and that we spend quite enough on enforcement as it is... Effectively, I think we have too darn many laws already.
We've become a society that thinks legislation solves problems. I just don't buy it - seems that all it usually does is create more red tape and create jobs.
|
|
|
|
12/29/2012 09:33:10 PM · #1194 |
| My goodness Cory. Every law is like that. Thats why we have law enforcement. |
|
|
|
12/29/2012 09:38:15 PM · #1195 |
| One day, we will all be six feet under and upside down. My question to you all is when you decide what hill you will die on and who will you take with you and why?! Adam Lanza answered this question very clearly. He sent us all a message that should require our respectful silence and introspective thought far more than the insolence of disrespectful and unrewarding words. |
|
|
|
12/29/2012 09:41:03 PM · #1196 |
Originally posted by yanko:
My goodness Cory. Every law is like that. Thats why we have law enforcement. |
Not sure if I take your meaning. I'm saying that the laws we have are sufficient to cover almost every situation imaginable. The last law that I heard of being passed that made good sense was when the Navajo Nation passed a law outlawing methamphetamine (they are not subject to federal law).. Otherwise, I think that law enforcement is already overloaded, underfunded (and they get a shitload of money already, but "need" more), and has more than a sufficient number of laws which they can enforce as needed.
How will new laws without new enforcement help? And if you suggest that we just need to pay more for enforcement, I'd like to point out that this alone without new laws would likely be as successful as any new law would be with more enforcement.
Effectively, very few shooters are obtaining their guns in a legal manner today, and it seems that we're arguing that more laws will somehow discourage them from obtaining weapons. Just don't add up from where I'm standing. |
|
|
|
12/29/2012 09:42:56 PM · #1197 |
Originally posted by hihosilver:
One day, we will all be six feet under and upside down. My question to you all is when you decide what hill you will die on and who will you take with you and why?! Adam Lanza answered this question very clearly. He sent us all a message that should require our respectful silence and introspective thought far more than the insolence of disrespectful and unrewarding words. |
Seems to me that I'd rather not make that decision for myself - but if I had to I'd most certainly be dieing to "leave" behind those who I love - nothing is worth dying for other than those who you love - at least not in my world. |
|
|
|
12/29/2012 09:46:46 PM · #1198 |
| Yet another law I would like to see added to the current laws: When these psychotics decide to go down in history by murdering innocents, let their names never be mentioned. These monsters seek fame, let us deny them their wish. History should wipe their names and faces from its pages. |
|
|
|
12/29/2012 09:54:27 PM · #1199 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Yet another law I would like to see added to the current laws: When these psychotics decide to go down in history by murdering innocents, let their names never be mentioned. These monsters seek fame, let us deny them their wish. History should wipe their names and faces from its pages. |
I would possibly support that law... Frankly if you want to regulate something, starting with the media would be a good one... Of course, that's under "freedom of the press" so it's probably just as improbable that any law would be effective in achieving the desired end. |
|
|
|
12/29/2012 09:56:10 PM · #1200 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Yet another law I would like to see added to the current laws: When these psychotics decide to go down in history by murdering innocents, let their names never be mentioned. These monsters seek fame, let us deny them their wish. History should wipe their names and faces from its pages. |
What does that accomplish? I do agree that we shouldn't sensationalize serial killers and give them nicknames while they are still out there killing people. Thoses are the ones seeking that fame, IMO. |
|
