mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest
Rational Gun Debate Options
Tovarish
Posted: Saturday, December 22, 2012 6:32:40 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 11,101
Neurons: 39,933
Location: Booligal, New South Wales, Australia
Let me say up front, I do understand why the emotions are running so high in the US, so I do not mean to detract from the situation you are in.

Australia is the largest island contrary to some ratings, hence we have a massive coast line to protect.

We do have a gun problem here, and only this week Customs Agents at the air ports and docks have been charged with

illegally looking the other way or assisting the importation of drugs and hand guns.

These people importing the guns do not hold a Shooters License, they are bikers, drug dealers and ethnics out side the general population.

After the Port Arthur massacre our then Prime Minister, Liberal/National Party (right wing to make it clearer)

brought in an amnesty on unlicensed guns, and a buy back schemes, banned military and some heavy magazine long arms.

I do not understand the need to own a military weapon?

I do not understand the politics of Right wing want guns, Left wing want gun control, what has any of this to do with politics?



Daveski
Posted: Saturday, December 22, 2012 6:42:20 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/17/2012
Posts: 1,711
Neurons: 5,066
Location: Caer Sidi
I don't want to sound flippant, but you are not going to get a rational argument about several topics on a predominantly American bulletin board. Those topics include evolution, abortion, social realism & gun control. Believe me, I've tried.
Jyrkkä Jätkä
Posted: Saturday, December 22, 2012 6:44:31 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 43,131
Neurons: 594,898
Location: Helsinki, Southern Finland Province, Finland
I'm a former military officer, still a reservist.
I have two guns, an attack rifle and a FN pistol, tagged for me, and kept in the Army base.
I have no firearms in my home, and can't see any reason why I would have them.
twinsonic
Posted: Sunday, December 23, 2012 12:26:51 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/18/2009
Posts: 356
Neurons: 1,322
As an American, I agree with you. There is no reason to own military (assault) weapons. This was debated in my newspaper's online letters to the editor not long ago. One man said he used them to shoot coyotes. I say "poppycock!" He might have used them, but he didn't need them for that purpose! He liked them. There is the thing. Americans like "big" guns. Powerful guns. Unnecessarily big and powerful guns.

I was just shocked today to read in my local paper that while school employees cannot bring concealed weapons on campus, licensed non-employees can! Why would the law allow anyone to carry a concealed weapon on school property I can't imagine! I can't imagine why the courts say it is a legal right to! Why would anyone want to? Attempts to ban them have failed. Maybe that will change, although not as a result of my representative, who wants teachers to be armed!

I am not anti-gun. My late husband owned them. We had a big ugly gun safe in the house, and he keep the guns unloaded in the safe. He had a concealed permit, as he repaired ATMs part-time on call. He also enjoyed target practice.
He had no issue with a background check, or registration. But, not assault weapons. They are just "toys" for some of the "boys." Right along with the $260,000 SWAT truck my police dept. just bought themselves! We are a small community, not a high crime area. It has a rotating gun turret on top and all. Just the kind of thing that they'll show off at county fairs and use whenever they possible can get away with it. More "boys with their toys."

Oh, I know some will disagree and defend the use of military weapons for the general public. But, they will soon enough lose the right to own them. Oh, I gave my husband's guns to my brother, a longtime NRA member, who doesn't have assault weapons.
Tovarish
Posted: Sunday, December 23, 2012 12:50:37 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 11,101
Neurons: 39,933
Location: Booligal, New South Wales, Australia
TS, thank you again, some straight answers, and you know I'll want more!!!

Why is it political? what on earth has party politics got to do with weather you agree or disagree with gun laws?
Romany
Posted: Sunday, December 23, 2012 6:41:48 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 17,685
Neurons: 57,282
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
Tov -

I think its because the issue revolves around the American Constitution. So those who support gun laws are seen to be those of the more conservative party, while those who don't support them are seen as kind of Left Wing. (Is that right?)

I mentioned on another thread that I found it somewhat confounding that on any issues at all there seems only to be a two way split on how Americans react and so everything becomes political. If you say you are either for or against something then you get put into either one or the other Political box.

For an outsider though, the 'enshrined in the Constitution' argument is difficult to get hold of. The Constitution was written a long time ago when America was a different place altogether and didn't have a large, standing Army. There was a need, therefore for citizen-militia and it was for these that the gun laws were put into place.

But America now spends more on military than any other country and has an enormous standing Army, Navy, Marines contingent. There is no longer any need for citizen-militia.
that
While 'living the Bible' would entail never eating shell fish; sleeping seperately from one's husband when menstruating, and stoning one's own child to death, people realise these stricture were intended for a different time and place and most most modern Christians now ignore them. Yet the 'right to bear arms' which also was necessary in another time and in other circumstances still carries on.

And I guess it is because it has become politicized that it becomes an argument in which people are not open to changing their minds, because that would also, for them, entail changing their politics. This also contributes to why the subject is so touchy and surrounded by such violent and vehement rhetoric: this is not just an argument about whether or not a person supports a certain law. Its an argument that is indivisible from that persons whole persona and political consciousness.

Hope2
Posted: Sunday, December 23, 2012 9:30:55 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/6/2012
Posts: 4,907
Neurons: 16,769
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Tov,

It does not answer your question about why these assault guns are needed by the people to protect their bodies in public and their homes in private (the supposed reasons for the right to bear arms) but it does give some interesting facts about assault rifles iin the US in today's paper.

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1306239--u-s-gun-enthusiasts-pack-shows-to-buy-assault-weapons

Apparently there were restrictions on assault weapons but they were allowed to expire under George W. Bush. They are paying $1500 for a gun, which cost $400 last year, to get one now because they figure the rules will be tightened again. (Aside - The NRA is calling for armed guards in all schools, as Ex mentioned. When money is not even available to pay good teachers, now they want to add this expense? And the shooter would probably just sneak up and kill the armed guard first anyhow.)

Interestingly, the attendees at the shows were overwhelmingly white men, with some women and very few ethnic minorities.

Quote -

"ALLENTOWN, PENN./KANSAS CITY—U.S. gun enthusiasts thronged to shows around the country on Saturday to buy assault weapons they fear will soon be outlawed after a massacre of schoolchildren in Connecticut prompted calls for tighter controls on firearms.

At gun shows in Pennsylvania, Missouri and Texas there were long lines to get in the door, crowds around the dealer booths, a rush to buy assault weapons even at higher prices and some dealers selling out."

Quote 2 -

"Thousands of guns shows are held in the United States every year. Under federal law, licensed dealers must conduct a background check before selling to a buyer at a gun show.

But in what critics call a “loophole,” which some gun control advocates hope to close, unlicensed collectors and other private sales do not require a background check.

While most people interviewed at the shows were not in favour of gun controls, not everyone opposed some regulation.

Bruce Abernathy walked away with an assault rifle after sitting through a 30-minute background check at the Texas show.

“There should be more strict background checks,” said Abernathy, a Dallas resident. He said there should be a 30-day waiting period to buy weapons and a thorough background check that includes five references."
End of quotes.

A thirty minute check. Really?!

I promised to read up on the sacrosanct US second amendment.

The second amendment calls for 'a well regulated militia' as well as 'the right to bear arms'. The key word is REGULATED. Proper safety and written instruction and tests, and the purchase of liability insurance, as well as proper background checks and a waiting period would be indicated. We regulate cars, another device we agree needs oversight, so why not guns?

Maybe we should have MAG - (like MADD) - Mothers Against Guns.

All these high-powered assault rifles squirreled away in hall closets in the US are a ticking time bomb. Thomas Jefferson would never have approved.





Epiphileon
Posted: Sunday, December 23, 2012 9:43:13 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,287
Neurons: 166,581
Tovarish wrote:
I do not understand the politics of Right wing want guns, Left wing want gun control, what has any of this to do with politics?


Ideologically the right wing would claim it is because government should not be legislating what is a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution, and/or, the government is overstepping its role.

Romany wrote:
I think its because the issue revolves around the American Constitution. So those who support gun laws are seen to be those of the more conservative party, while those who don't support them are seen as kind of Left Wing. (Is that right?)


No Romany that's backwards, as I said to Tov Republicans claim it is because of the 2nd amendment, but I am fully convinced if it were not for the money from the gun industry and lobbies, they would not be so vehement about it. The fact that this party is usually the more vehemently opposed to decriminalizing marijuana, shows just how much of their stance is really ideological.

I usually stay out of these discussions as they do usually end up as emotional diatribes, each side dragging up evidence to support their position. The problem is there is evidence for both sides of the issue.

I also think that any trans-oceanic cultural comparisons are completely pointless, I mean really multi-millenial vs barely 2 centuries? I'm not even sure that comparisons with Canada can be considered legitimate as the settlement and independence of Canada came about in very different ways than that of the U.S.

In other words, guns and their control are an intensely culturally influenced affair, the U.S. has a sufficiently unique culture that any debate on this issue must be conducted within the parameters of that culture.

I also think gun ownership and gun control laws are different things.

Now from my personal perspective, I find myself in a position that does not seem to allow me to support gun ownership laws, without being guilty of hypocrisy. Currently I do not own a single gun, mostly because I don't hunt, I don't have any livestock to protect, and I do not live in a high crime area; however, if I were to win a couple million dollar lottery, or my academic career had not been terminated unexpectedly long ago, things would be considerably different.

Twenty five or so years ago, I attended a colloquium at the university I attended entitled "Science, Technology, and Human Values", largely this had to do with given the current state and rate of change among these variables, what were the expectations for the future of Homo Sapiens? The consensus across the presentations of investigators from, I think 8 or 10 different disciplines was, grim to extremely grim, to outright extinction. One thing shown to be nearly a certainty was, various degrees of the collapse of civilization, sometime within the next few centuries with increase in probability tied to the progress of time. This is not wild eyed "survivalist" ranting but cold, hard, extrapolation, based on known behavior of complex systems and the problems of exponential growth. I've tried to explore this area before on the forum, but the discussion did not get far. If anyone wants to see a discussion on the issue let me know, I'd be glad to try again, however, for the purpose of my point in this thread, this is a reasonable expectation.

Now as to why I think it would be hypocritical of me to support gun ownership laws. If I had the means, I would buy a largish piece of hilltop property with restricted accessibility, build to the degree possible a self sufficient, multifamily dwelling, and equip it with anti-intrusion technology ranging from non-lethal, to mini-guns, and anti-tank/helicopter weapons. The situation would have to look a lot worse for me to include the last two, but certainly I would have an arsenal of what is currently legally available. The arsenal would also be an extremely secure room. I think you get the idea though.

I would however, support much more restrictive gun control laws, and severe punishments for infractions.
Something along the lines of...
Use a gun in a crime, 10 years in prison minimum, revocation of right to own guns, no exceptions.
Kill someone with a gun in the commission of a crime, death by automated firing squad.
Allow someone to use your gun, through insecure storage, to kill anyone, complete forfiture of all property, revocation of right to own guns.

And folks, I am definitely not a Republican.







almostfreebird
Posted: Sunday, December 23, 2012 11:07:01 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/22/2011
Posts: 2,812
Neurons: 7,024
Location: Japan
Epiphileon wrote:

I also think that any trans-oceanic cultural comparisons are completely pointless, I mean really multi-millenial vs barely 2 centuries? I'm not even sure that comparisons with Canada can be considered legitimate as the settlement and independence of Canada came about in very different ways than that of the U.S.








I second that.







Tovarish
Posted: Sunday, December 23, 2012 4:21:56 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 11,101
Neurons: 39,933
Location: Booligal, New South Wales, Australia
Well that tells me doesn't it? Trans-oceanic cultural comparisons-----no less.

Epi you put it so eloquently that I cannot take offense, well maybe just a little as the site we are in is Knowledge and Culture.

A site where we compare Cultures and possibly learn from each other, the conversation stops very suddenly when the age of the country is an issue.

The 'Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire' can Italy learn something from one of the newer civilizations?, quite possibly.
Daveski
Posted: Sunday, December 23, 2012 6:25:03 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/17/2012
Posts: 1,711
Neurons: 5,066
Location: Caer Sidi
Wasn't the first French Republic only founded around 1792? I don't know what their gun crime statistics are though. They drive like maniacs in France, I think vehicular homicide probably kills more French people than guns.
Epiphileon
Posted: Sunday, December 23, 2012 6:42:17 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,287
Neurons: 166,581
Tovarish wrote:
Well that tells me doesn't it? Trans-oceanic cultural comparisons-----no less.

Epi you put it so eloquently that I cannot take offense, well maybe just a little as the site we are in is Knowledge and Culture.

A site where we compare Cultures and possibly learn from each other, the conversation stops very suddenly when the age of the country is an issue.

The 'Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire' can Italy learn something from one of the newer civilizations?, quite possibly.


Damn Tov I'm sorry, I thought I'd better go back and edit that to be more clear, but then got busy, and just got back. I was going to say that I in no way wished to discourage commentary from other cultures, from that perspective, that is a good thing; however, I just do not think that solutions that have worked in other countries will work here. It is also not just a matter of age, although that is a factor. I just think that there is a significant amount of cultural inertia behind the issue of gun ownership in this country that does not appear to have been present in other countries.

These factors, I think, need to be given far more consideration, and absolutely need to be addressed in the search for a rational solution to the problem.

Really Tov d'oh! I do sincerely apologize for the way that sounded to you and anyone else who may have been offended.
Epiphileon
Posted: Sunday, December 23, 2012 6:55:47 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,287
Neurons: 166,581
Daveski wrote:
Wasn't the first French Republic only founded around 1792? I don't know what their gun crime statistics are though. They drive like maniacs in France, I think vehicular homicide probably kills more French people than guns.


uh, yea, but by whom? The country wasn't basically invaded and taken over by a bunch of foreigners like this one was. Hell we were still battling the natives into the very end of the 19th century. The battle of Wounded Knee was in 1890. America was raised on guns, not saying its a good thing, obviously not, but it is a fact, and it must be addressed in any rational debate on the issue today.
TL Hobs
Posted: Sunday, December 23, 2012 7:01:00 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/16/2009
Posts: 1,399
Neurons: 6,101
Location: Kenai, Alaska, United States
Let me begin by saying that I own several guns for hunting (even though I quit hunting) and/or bear protection when out in the wilderness. Also, I live in a place where it is not uncommon to see women wearing a pistol while shopping for groceries and no permits are required to carry a gun, concealed or otherwise.

But, I feel that the argument over gun control is fostered by those who manufacture guns and ammunition for they, after all, are the ones who benefit the most by the argument. I know neighbors who have rushed to purchase more guns because of the debate, and possible threat to lose the opportunity to buy more guns. If I were smart, I would buy stock in the gun companies.

If there was an easy solution to the problem of mass killings, then it would have been solved long ago. Some mass killings in Africa were done with machetes. I think I would rather be shot than hacked to pieces, but I prefer neither.

Daveski
Posted: Sunday, December 23, 2012 8:03:51 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/17/2012
Posts: 1,711
Neurons: 5,066
Location: Caer Sidi
Epiphileon wrote:
Daveski wrote:
Wasn't the first French Republic only founded around 1792? I don't know what their gun crime statistics are though. They drive like maniacs in France, I think vehicular homicide probably kills more French people than guns.


uh, yea, but by whom? The country wasn't basically invaded and taken over by a bunch of foreigners like this one was. Hell we were still battling the natives into the very end of the 19th century. The battle of Wounded Knee was in 1890. America was raised on guns, not saying its a good thing, obviously not, but it is a fact, and it must be addressed in any rational debate on the issue today.


Well, the Franks & the Nazis would probably disagree about who has invaded France in the past. Anglo Saxon England was invaded by the Danes & the Normans. Not sure of the relevancy of your point.

I honestly am not sure about the 'But America was born out of the barrel of a Colt 45' argument any more. It isn't really relevant to the 21st century.
Tovarish
Posted: Sunday, December 23, 2012 8:48:53 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 11,101
Neurons: 39,933
Location: Booligal, New South Wales, Australia
The Australian Aboriginal people also think they were invaded by the British, not colonized,

they the Aboriginal people, were here for around 40,000 years before that.

So how long is a piece of string?

Back to topic A, the discussion on guns, if we cant learn from each other, we are re-inventing the wheel.

Thats OK Epi, it didn't sound like your usual postings.
Daveski
Posted: Sunday, December 23, 2012 9:00:05 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/17/2012
Posts: 1,711
Neurons: 5,066
Location: Caer Sidi
Tovarish wrote:
The Australian Aboriginal people also think they were invaded by the British, not colonized,


I have an alibi for that; I wasn't born then.
Epiphileon
Posted: Sunday, December 23, 2012 9:05:24 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,287
Neurons: 166,581
Daveski wrote:

Well, the Franks & the Nazis would probably disagree about who has invaded France in the past. Anglo Saxon England was invaded by the Danes & the Normans. Not sure of the relevancy of your point.
That is because my point is about the dynamics of the formation and development of a culture, which occurred in this country in radically different ways than it did in Europe. These must be addressed as part of any workable solution, there is ample evidence around the globe of the abject failures of attempts to change some aspect of a societies behavior without addressing it's underlying cultural underpinnings.

I honestly am not sure about the 'But America was born out of the barrel of a Colt 45' argument any more. It isn't really relevant to the 21st century.

Well neither am I, first as I've never heard that particular one, and as well it would be in error, if it could be said that the United States was born out of any type of barrel, it would be the barrel of a musket. But in actuality the U.S. was born out of some very radical ideas about a newer, perhaps, better form of government. My statement about America being raised on guns, was meant to emphasize how deeply embedded in the culture is gun ownership. And as this is the 21rst century in which we are attempting to bring about a change to this cultural variable, I'd say that aspect of it, is relevant.
Daveski
Posted: Sunday, December 23, 2012 9:19:00 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/17/2012
Posts: 1,711
Neurons: 5,066
Location: Caer Sidi
Epiphileon wrote:

That is because my point is about the dynamics of the formation and development of a culture, which occurred in this country in radically different ways than it did in Europe. These must be addressed as part of any workable solution, there is ample evidence around the globe of the abject failures of attempts to change some aspect of a societies behavior without addressing it's underlying cultural underpinnings.


Radically different? You didn't want to pay taxes to a despot like George III & went to war over it. And this is different to European countries' (& any other country on the planet) struggles over the past few centuries in what way exactly?

Epiphileon wrote:

But in actuality the U.S. was born out of some very radical ideas about a newer, perhaps, better form of government.


Newer, radical ideas? You could say the same for Iran. Weren't their ideas new & radical? Don't you have a senate like the Ancient Roman Republic? How new is the American system of government & how does this pertain to gun laws?

Epiphileon wrote:

My statement about America being raised on guns, was meant to emphasize how deeply embedded in the culture is gun ownership.


It could equally be said that gun ownership is embedded in many European cultures. My mother owns a shotgun, she lives in the country. Many of my relatives are farmers most of them own shotguns. Before WWI it was not unusual for British soldiers to take their firearms home with them on leave. In fact, in Victorian Britain it was quite easy for the general public to obtain a revolver or other firearms. What's your point?

Epiphileon wrote:

And as this is the 21rst century in which we are attempting to bring about a change to this cultural variable, I'd say that aspect of it, is relevant.


So why mention the comparatively recent origins of the US & compare them with older European countries in the first place then?

I am at a loss to what you are trying to state here.
Tovarish
Posted: Sunday, December 23, 2012 10:52:44 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 11,101
Neurons: 39,933
Location: Booligal, New South Wales, Australia
When I was a child, the stable's dunny had a 410 behind the door, called a 'Lady's Snake Gun', or child as maybe.

No one thought anything of having a gun behind the door for children to use, and it was hard to miss at such close range.
excaelis
Posted: Sunday, December 23, 2012 11:39:27 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/30/2010
Posts: 10,965
Neurons: 32,652
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Ther's only one thing worse than seeing a Brown Snake in the dunny, which is of course NOT seeing it.
Epiphileon
Posted: Monday, December 24, 2012 5:45:25 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,287
Neurons: 166,581
Daveski wrote:


I am at a loss to what you are trying to state here.

Obviously, and at this point I do not believe there is anything I can say to convince you, the point I'm making about addressing the cultural dynamics is valid, if you don't believe me, consult any reasonable modern work of cultural anthropology. As for whether the cultural development of the U.S. has been radically different than Europe's, well that seems pretty obvious to me, but I'll admit that could be due to a biased education. I have to say though that it amazes me that any European (or Brit) would argue this, I've always respected the greater age, and deep richness of the cultures across the pond. I will not argue this point any further it is causing significant topic drift.
The salient point to this discussion is that when attempting to address any complex problem within a society, knowing how that problem came to be, and using that knowledge to aid in forming a solution, is the most rational way to proceed.
Daveski
Posted: Monday, December 24, 2012 10:58:32 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/17/2012
Posts: 1,711
Neurons: 5,066
Location: Caer Sidi
Epiphileon wrote:
Daveski wrote:


I am at a loss to what you are trying to state here.

Obviously, and at this point I do not believe there is anything I can say to convince you, the point I'm making about addressing the cultural dynamics is valid,


By what criterion?

Epiphileon wrote:
if you don't believe me, consult any reasonable modern work of cultural anthropology.


Why? What is it culturally that makes America any different from the rest of humanity?

Epiphileon wrote:
As for whether the cultural development of the U.S. has been radically different than Europe's, well that seems pretty obvious to me,


Please enlighten me.

Epiphileon wrote:
but I'll admit that could be due to a biased education. I have to say though that it amazes me that any European (or Brit) would argue this, I've always respected the greater age, and deep richness of the cultures across the pond. I will not argue this point any further it is causing significant topic drift.


No, I don't see it. American culture can be just as rich as anything European. I really don't understand this argument. It makes no sense to me.

Epiphileon wrote:
The salient point to this discussion is that when attempting to address any complex problem within a society, knowing how that problem came to be, and using that knowledge to aid in forming a solution, is the most rational way to proceed.


The salient point? I don't think that this is such a complex problem as you seem to think it is.
leonAzul
Posted: Monday, December 24, 2012 3:08:05 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,589
Neurons: 31,076
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
Daveski wrote:

Radically different? You didn't want to pay taxes to a despot like George III & went to war over it. And this is different to European countries' (& any other country on the planet) struggles over the past few centuries in what way exactly?


At the risk of a derail, this is a red herring argument that was used to stir up support for independence. The more pressing concern that has remained a consistent motive for American foreign policy is the freedom to choose trading partners. What the Stamp Act represented was not so much an inconvenience as it was a heavy-handed reminder that the colonies were forced by a standing army and navy to trade only through London, and not directly with the Dutch, French, or Portuguese, never mind through their Caribbean ports.

It is that heavy-handed enforcement that contributed to the attitudes about self-reliance and personal defense against central authority that has informed the American mythos, and some very interesting precedents in the interpretation of the Second Amendment.

A critical look at the language reveals that it is about the right to form a well-regulated militia—to keep those who are capable of military service well-organized—which by necessity requires that weapons not be banned outright. This is very different from the claim that every citizen has the right to own any weapon without further obligations. In fact, inherent in it is that not only is the regulation of weapons not an infringement of a right, such regulation is to be expected and encouraged.
leonAzul
Posted: Monday, December 24, 2012 3:13:45 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,589
Neurons: 31,076
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
Tovarish wrote:

I do not understand the politics of Right wing want guns, Left wing want gun control, what has any of this to do with politics?


If you want to enact a law about something, it will eventually involve politics. This is unavoidable.
Daveski
Posted: Monday, December 24, 2012 4:12:50 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/17/2012
Posts: 1,711
Neurons: 5,066
Location: Caer Sidi
leonAzul wrote:
Daveski wrote:

Radically different? You didn't want to pay taxes to a despot like George III & went to war over it. And this is different to European countries' (& any other country on the planet) struggles over the past few centuries in what way exactly?


At the risk of a derail, this is a red herring argument that was used to stir up support for independence. The more pressing concern that has remained a consistent motive for American foreign policy is the freedom to choose trading partners. What the Stamp Act represented was not so much an inconvenience as it was a heavy-handed reminder that the colonies were forced by a standing army and navy to trade only through London, and not directly with the Dutch, French, or Portuguese, never mind through their Caribbean ports.


As I said, it was all about taxes, whichever way you want to spin it.

leonAzul wrote:
It is that heavy-handed enforcement that contributed to the attitudes about self-reliance and personal defense against central authority that has informed the American mythos, and some very interesting precedents in the interpretation of the Second Amendment.

A critical look at the language reveals that it is about the right to form a well-regulated militia—to keep those who are capable of military service well-organized—which by necessity requires that weapons not be banned outright. This is very different from the claim that every citizen has the right to own any weapon without further obligations. In fact, inherent in it is that not only is the regulation of weapons not an infringement of a right, such regulation is to be expected and encouraged.


Other countries, even in Europe have had militias. Eventually they were not considered so important as regular armies could do the same job. I still don't see how this applies to 21st century America.
Maggie
Posted: Monday, December 24, 2012 5:16:18 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2009
Posts: 727
Neurons: 2,128
At the risk of creating controversy (what else is new on this forum), I would suggest that one of the reasons for the second amendment to the U.S. Constition is not so much to protect us from a foreign power, but to protect us from our own oppressive government. Based on our most recent presidential election, our nation is presently divided about 50/50. One of the first things a totalitarian regime does is to remove all weapons from the private citizenry in order to have an easier path to total control of its people. In the United States, that is NOT an option.

Though those of you on the left will find the idea amusing and ludicrous, it is not out of the realm of possibility, if we continue down our present path, for a block of states to ask for cessation. Before you do a 'knee jerk response' to such an idea, you might first use logic to consider the consequences of such a possibility. I personally think it might be the best option for at least half of the country for 25-30 states to leave this union and form a separate nation. We will be able to pay off our share of the national debt, and develop a prosperous and successful nation in which citizens take more personal responsibility, with an armed public who will NEVER be controlled by an oppressive central government.

Those of you in other countries (and those of you within the U.S. who are dependent on the government for your entire existence) may have never experienced this kind of freedom and are forgiven for your lack of understanding.
Jyrkkä Jätkä
Posted: Monday, December 24, 2012 5:24:19 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 43,131
Neurons: 594,898
Location: Helsinki, Southern Finland Province, Finland
Maggie,
how was your country divided when Bush was elected the last time?
Maggie
Posted: Monday, December 24, 2012 5:29:11 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2009
Posts: 727
Neurons: 2,128
Jyrkkä Jätkä wrote:
Maggie,
how was your country divided when Bush was elected the last time?


If those on the left felt strongly enough about cessation, then I think it would have been valid point for discussion. However, I don't think that the socialist bank would have requested such a division because they would have known they would have not have survived on their own.

Daveski
Posted: Monday, December 24, 2012 5:30:40 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/17/2012
Posts: 1,711
Neurons: 5,066
Location: Caer Sidi
Maggie wrote:
One of the first things a totalitarian regime does is to remove all weapons from the private citizenry in order to have an easier path to total control of its people.


This does explain a lot about Tony (liar, liar, pants on fire) Blair. Whistle

Maggie wrote:
Those of you in other countries (and those of you within the U.S. who are dependent on the government for your entire existence) may have never experienced this kind of freedom and are forgiven for your lack of understanding.


I dream of that kind of freedom. Anxious
Maggie
Posted: Monday, December 24, 2012 5:39:11 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2009
Posts: 727
Neurons: 2,128
Daveski wrote:
Maggie wrote:


[quote=Maggie]Those of you in other countries (and those of you within the U.S. who are dependent on the government for your entire existence) may have never experienced this kind of freedom and are forgiven for your lack of understanding.


I dream of that kind of freedom. Anxious


Ignorance is bliss.
Daveski
Posted: Monday, December 24, 2012 5:46:12 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/17/2012
Posts: 1,711
Neurons: 5,066
Location: Caer Sidi
Maggie wrote:
Daveski wrote:
Maggie wrote:


[quote=Maggie]Those of you in other countries (and those of you within the U.S. who are dependent on the government for your entire existence) may have never experienced this kind of freedom and are forgiven for your lack of understanding.


I dream of that kind of freedom. Anxious


Ignorance is bliss.


I doubt it.
Jyrkkä Jätkä
Posted: Monday, December 24, 2012 5:52:12 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 43,131
Neurons: 594,898
Location: Helsinki, Southern Finland Province, Finland
Our lack of understanding,
really, Maggie?
Epiphileon
Posted: Monday, December 24, 2012 7:34:37 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,287
Neurons: 166,581
Daveski wrote:
Epiphileon wrote:
Daveski wrote:


I am at a loss to what you are trying to state here.

Obviously, and at this point I do not believe there is anything I can say to convince you, the point I'm making about addressing the cultural dynamics is valid,


By what criterion?

A natural science interpretation of reality, and a reasonable familiarity with the disciplines within such, that are relevant to the issue.


Epiphileon wrote:
The salient point to this discussion is that when attempting to address any complex problem within a society, knowing how that problem came to be, and using that knowledge to aid in forming a solution, is the most rational way to proceed.


The salient point? I don't think that this is such a complex problem as you seem to think it is.

Well Dave, neither do the people making simplistic attempts, at stop gap measures, that are doomed to fail. The fact that you think highly diverse cultures can implement similar solutions to problems, would seem to indicate that you would need to become much better versed in modern understandings of sociology, and cultural anthropology, before you could begin to understand it. Even with a fair degree of understanding of both socio-biology, and behavioral evolution, it would take me a considerable amount of effort to even begin to suspect what the major variables needing to be addressed were. However, I do know enough to know, these underlying issues must be addressed in any reasonable, rational, attempt to come to any hope of a solution.

The problem of explaining, or adjusting, individual human behavior, is quite complex, understanding the behavior of humans in even small social groups is even more complex, attempting to redirect the behavior of a cultural phenomenon within a population of over 300 million people, that is no simple matter. To treat it as such, when the consequences of failure is such horrors as we've known, would be utter folly. We ought be honor bound to apply every knowledge we have to the task of solving this problem including our understanding of cultural dynamics.

I do not know of any way to better explain what my point, you have been contending is, other than how I have over the last few posts. I'm sorry if I have not made it clear but, I will not spend anymore time on it.


Daveski
Posted: Monday, December 24, 2012 7:53:19 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/17/2012
Posts: 1,711
Neurons: 5,066
Location: Caer Sidi
Epiphileon wrote:


A natural science interpretation of reality, and a reasonable familiarity with the disciplines within such, that are relevant to the issue.


This doesn't actually mean anything though does it?

Epiphileon wrote:
The salient point to this discussion is that when attempting to address any complex problem within a society, knowing how that problem came to be, and using that knowledge to aid in forming a solution, is the most rational way to proceed.


The rational thing in this debate would be to discuss the possible limiting or outlawing of handgun & rifle ownership in the Continental United States.


Epiphileon wrote:
Well Dave, neither do the people making simplistic attempts, at stop gap measures, that are doomed to fail. The fact that you think highly diverse cultures can implement similar solutions to problems, would seem to indicate that you would need to become much better versed in modern understandings of sociology, and cultural anthropology, before you could begin to understand it.


This has bog all to do with sociology & cultural anthropology & you know it. Anyway, no one in their right mind studies sociology.

Epiphileon wrote:
Even with a fair degree of understanding of both socio-biology, and behavioral evolution, it would take me a considerable amount of effort to even begin to suspect what the major variables needing to be addressed were. However, I do know enough to know, these underlying issues must be addressed in any reasonable, rational, attempt to come to any hope of a solution.


There is a solution. It involves the limiting/banning of the personal ownership of handguns & rifles. It really is that simple.

Epiphileon wrote:
The problem of explaining, or adjusting, individual human behavior, is quite complex, understanding the behavior of humans in even small social groups is even more complex, attempting to redirect the behavior of a cultural phenomenon within a population of over 300 million people, that is no simple matter. To treat it as such, when the consequences of failure is such horrors as we've known, would be utter folly. We ought be honor bound to apply every knowledge we have to the task of solving this problem including our understanding of cultural dynamics.

I do not know of any way to better explain what my point, you have been contending is, other than how I have over the last few posts. I'm sorry if I have not made it clear but, I will not spend anymore time on it.



You are grossly overcomplicating the problem with meaningless rhetoric, specious arguments & the casuistry of psycho-babble. Nothing new there then.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.