Change Brady to a charity, or give it away for free.

[jay1799]

The first book I ever purchased was a Stephen King book. I was 16, working part time at a drug store and one day was flipping thru the paperback shelf and found a copy of “The Gunslinger”. The cover intrigued me, and after reading a page or two, I decided to purchase it. Up until that time, my experience with books had always been in school. This was back in about 1989. I remember fondly reading for my own enjoyment for the very first time.

I still wasn’t an ‘avid reader’. That did not start until college…freshman year, the spring of 1992 to be exact. And probably what prompted it was a girl; the first love of my life. However, that love blossomed around a Stephen King book. I fondly remember laying in bed with her torn copy of ‘Skeleton Crew” in hand reading chapters to each other. We would switch back and forth between who performed the reading. Yes, one could say that any old book may have sparked a deep love of reading in such a setting, but for me…the memory is intertwined with a Stephen King book.

I remember that first summer break from college, devouring books such as The Dead Zone, It and The Tommyknockers. I remember looking in the front cover of one of your books and seeing such a huge list of books written by the only real favorite author I had at the time and thinking…I will never be able to read that many books. During that summer, a High School friend of mine , seeing my new found hobby, mentioned a book called "The Stand" to me. I was intrigued, but at the same time a little apprehensive when he informed me it was 1200 pages long. I think back to that moment now and laugh.

Well, I read The Stand that summer. And that sealed my fate. From that moment on, Stephen King was my favorite author, and The Stand was my favorite book, and I was a constant reader.

I would never dare to say that “I am your number 1 fan” (wink), but during the passing years I have read a fairly large number of your works. I always kept an eye out for a new novel by my favorite writer. I have also re-read many of my favorites. The Dark Tower series especially. Oh, how if I had known all those years ago how long I would wait to read some conclusion of Roland and Jake…I probably would have waited to pick up that very first book. But in a way, I am glad I did not wait. Without it, who knows if I would have ever found the hobby I have so enjoyed over the years.

Thru the past few decades, I found other writers and fell in love with other writing styles. My book case has grown, and even turned digital, and I grew from merely a constant reader of one into an avid reader of many. My collection of books covers many genre’s and authors now, some widely known, some barely, and even some classics intermixed in for good measure.

By now, you must be wondering why I am writing this. I guess… I needed to write it to remember the good times I had with Stephen King books, and the impact they have had on my life as possible closure. I will be honest, when I first heard about this new ‘essay’ and read some of the positions you were taking, I was horrified. I could not believe that someone that should understand the basic premise of the First Amendment could so decide that the Second Amendment should be trampled upon.

I hear that really you only support government bans on ‘so called assault weapons’ and ‘so called large magazines’, however that is a pretty bad imo, and a big step for someone to take that again… should understand the dangers of incrementally removing a Right. It would be like saying, I am in favor of protecting the first amendment, except I think the government should ban any depictions of horror, gore or violence in books and movies. I mean, no one really needs to watch a horror movie...right?

Then, when I calmed down a bit, I decided that I wanted to actually read what it was you actually said, but when I looked at where the proceeds were going, it was like a slap in the face. You decided not to give the proceeds to some charity benefiting victims of violence, but to The Brady Campaign, a political entity whose sole purpose is to remove the Second Amendment right to everyday Americans. Just look to some of the things that Sarah Brady has said, such as “I don’t believe gun owners have rights” and “We must get rid of all guns”. She makes it quite clear in her words what she wants, and it is the incremental removal of a sacred right, until it is left in tatters and is no longer a right at all.

You say that you want to provoke a constructive debate, however by promoting that the proceeds will go to a political entity that is very much a member of the political discourse, you are not provoking a constructive debate at all, but instead are chooses sides along political lines in a very political way.

I ask you to reconsider this decision… as while that is in place I most certainly will not purchase this essay….ever. And as much as it pains me to say it, I will no longer be a Constant reader of yours, in fact I wont be a reader of yours at all. While I possibly could have forgiven you for simply having a difference of opinion on a political matter, I can not in good conscious continue to read your books while you choose to support such a political organization while attempting to disguise it as ‘a way to provoke a constructive debate’, for when you have already drawn the line in the sand and chosen your side…the debate is already closed.

I have no way to know if you will actually read this, but since I have no other way to inform you of how I feel, this is my only recourse.
Signed,
A former Constant Reader that is now disillusioned

[PatInTheHat]

"I could not believe that someone that should understand the basic premise of the First Amendment could so decide that the Second Amendment should be trampled upon. "

Tool:glare:.

"...for when you have already drawn the line in the sand and chosen your side…the debate is already closed. "

Hypocrite:n:.
(I so like these little talks, don't you:geek:?)

Next.

[exzel]

While I concur that the decision to make people donate to the Brady Campaign was a bone-headed move to the Nth degree, in order to read the essay, refusing to read past and future fiction works of King is a bit drastic IMO. I have also voiced my opinion on the donation recipient controversy. But I have decided to purchase the essay anyway this weekend, in order to publicly voice my opinion on it. And I will also make a donation to an entity that is more in line with my thinking to offset the Brady donation, or donate to a charity that supports the families of the Sandy Hook tragedy (I even called AT&T wireless the other night and asked if there was some way to donate all of my rollover minutes, over 5,000 of them, to some charity that would benefit victims of such tragedies. The rep said not at this time but he would run the idea up the flagpole to see what happens). Personally I won’t stop reading Kings works or movies based on them… as everyone is allowed to make mistakes now and them. Hopefully it’s a live and learn experience, and doesn’t get repeated going forward.

[jay1799]

While I concur that the decision to make people donate to the Brady Campaign was a bone-headed move to the Nth degree, in order to read the essay, refusing to read past and future fiction works of King is a bit drastic IMO. I have also voiced my opinion on the donation recipient controversy. But I have decided to purchase the essay anyway this weekend, in order to publicly voice my opinion on it. And I will also make a donation to an entity that is more in line with my thinking to offset the Brady donation, or donate to a charity that supports the families of the Sandy Hook tragedy (I even called AT&T wireless the other night and asked if there was some way to donate all of my rollover minutes, over 5,000 of them, to some charity that would benefit victims of such tragedies. The rep said not at this time but he would run the idea up the flagpole to see what happens). Personally I won’t stop reading Kings works or movies based on them… as everyone is allowed to make mistakes now and them. Hopefully it’s a live and learn experience, and doesn’t get repeated going forward.

Your opinion that it is drastic to refuse to read any further King fiction is a personal one. I have no problem with you holding that opinion.

Myself? I choose to use my entertainment dollars how I choose to, and if something so differs from my personal beliefs, my conscious wins out.

I understand that is not the case for everyone, but it is for me.

I look at it as if someone is very Pro-choice, and an entertainer was supporting Pro-life causes, people have a choice to not support that entertainer anymore. Look at Chick Fil A. There were plenty of previous customers that chose to no longer patronize their establishments when they found out that they support organizations that they disagreed with.

Would it be any different if SK was sending the proceeds to the NRA? In my opinion, it would not. He would be choosing sides in a political debate, when he says he is trying to provoke a constructive debate.

[jay1799]

"I could not believe that someone that should understand the basic premise of the First Amendment could so decide that the Second Amendment should be trampled upon. "

Tool:glare:.


Resorting to name calling? How does that help your case in any way? Really?



"...for when you have already drawn the line in the sand and chosen your side…the debate is already closed. "

Hypocrite:n:.
(I so like these little talks, don't you:geek:?)

Next.

I am not saying that I wrote an essay to 'provoke a constructive debate'. Do you not see how that is different? And how SK is thus, not provoking a constructive debate, but choosing sides in said debate? When the proceeds are supporting an organization that is part of the political discourse, it is simply encouraging further polarization and not debate.

[Todash]

Of course it's your right to decide how your money is spent. Absolutely it's your right. But King is not a moderator in a debate with an obligation to remain neutral. He does, in fact, have a dog in this fight. It would be disingenuous of him to pretend otherwise.

The essay might surprise some people, since, regardless of what he believes, the actions he suggests are just slightly left of center (rather than the hard nose liberal stance some people seem to be expecting). Regardless, you can encourage debate without pretending you don't care about the outcome. I believe that is an intellectually honest stance and would be rather offended if he tried to pretend to be neutral.

There is more than one way to look at this, you see.

[Moderator]

With any debate, wouldn't you agree that the majority of people have already chosen a side but could possibly change their opinion once they've heard the other side of the debate? Not necessarily, but the option for that possibility is there and that is the purpose of a debate. Wouldn't you also agree that most people are probably already aware of which side of the fence Steve was on? He did his research and still came to pretty much the same conclusions he had before writing the essay but he does raise some interesting questions for both sides to consider. If you have no interest in contributing to an organization you feel is against your principles even when given a possible alternative is absolutely your choice and I do understand what you're saying even while I disagree with it. There may at some point down the line once his contractual agreement with Amazon has expired be an opportunity to make the essay available at no charge but for now, that's not an option.

[PatInTheHat]

Resorting to name calling? How does that help your case in any way? Really?



I am not saying that I wrote an essay to 'provoke a constructive debate'. Do you not see how that is different? And how SK is thus, not provoking a constructive debate, but choosing sides in said debate? When the proceeds are supporting an organization that is part of the political discourse, it is simply encouraging further polarization and not debate.
And just who in the hell said I even had a case:eyebrow:?...you like what, assume you know my position, my "case"?...you ain't even got the first clue my friend, and I'd bet my big toe on it.
Butt to answer your question, it just plain makes me and my precocious inner mental juvenile delinquent feel good is all, though to be completely honest & accurate, that really wasn't name calling, nah that was more of a labeling..well there's been a lot of that goin' on lately, and I just like to stay hip is all:cool2:.
See if it was name calling, I would have said something akin to, 'Tool, and a cheaply made outsourced one at that.'...now ya see the difference, butt then I realize now you don't know me and my personal posting proclivities, so please allow me to apologize, s:down:rry...SN:rofl:RT..not a freakin' chance:biggrin2:.
Oh, and I believe you tripped over disingenuousness, eh, it happens.

[jay1799]

With any debate, wouldn't you agree that the majority of people have already chosen a side but could possibly change their opinion once they've heard the other side of the debate? Not necessarily, but the option for that possibility is there and that is the purpose of a debate. Wouldn't you also agree that most people are probably already aware of which side of the fence Steve was on? He did his research and still came to pretty much the same conclusions he had before writing the essay but he does raise some interesting questions for both sides to consider. If you have no interest in contributing to an organization you feel is against your principles even when given a possible alternative is absolutely your choice and I do understand what your saying even while I disagree with it. There may at some point down the line once his contractual agreement with Amazon has expired be an opportunity to make the essay available at no charge but for now, that's not an option.

So his contract prevents him from sending the proceeds to a charity instead of a political organization? He could have sent the proceeds directly to the Sandy Hook victims.

http://www.nptrust.org/alert/charities-providing-relief-for-victims-of-the-sandy-hook-tragedy

Was this not an option? Was it not something considered?

In my opinion, it would have been a much better choice of where to send the proceeds. It is not political, and it is going directly to the families.

And if as you say, that in any debate...all have already chosen their sides. Than why would SK even say that he hopes to 'provoke a constructive debate'. Just come out and say...hey, here is how I think. Take it or leave it.

But again, my biggest problem is not that my former favorite author disagrees with me on something. That, would simply be impossible. It is his choice of organizations that he chose to send these proceeds.

As I said, it would have been just as egregious if he had chosen to send the money to the NRA. They are both political organizations, who are very much adding to the polarization of the discussion. They both have lobbying arms. They both are not charities.

If he cant post it free for all on his website....then send the proceeds to a charity.

[jay1799]

And just who in the hell said I even had a case:eyebrow:?...you like what, assume you know my position, my "case"?...you ain't even got the first clue my friend, and I'd bet my big toe on it.
Butt to answer your question, it just plain makes me and my precocious inner mental juvenile delinquent feel good is all, though to be completely honest & accurate, that really wasn't name calling, nah that was more of a labeling..well there's been a lot of that goin' on lately, and I just like to stay hip is all:cool2:.
See if it was name calling, I would have said something akin to, 'Tool, and a cheaply made outsourced one at that.'...now ya see the difference, butt then I realize now you don't know me and my personal posting proclivities, so please allow me to apologize, s:down:rry...SN:rofl:RT..not a freakin' chance:biggrin2:.
Oh, and I believe you tripped over disingenuousness, eh, it happens.


Ah. I see. You are really just a troll, and are not here for discussion at all. I am glad I was able to identify the one early one. As there is always at least one.

Good day to you.

[~Ally~]

There may at some point down the line once his contractual agreement with Amazon has expired be an opportunity to make the essay available at no charge but for now, that's not an option.

Will it be made public how many copies of the essay are/have been purchased? I'm just curious due to the proceeds being donated.

[Moderator]

So his contract prevents him from sending the proceeds to a charity instead of a political organization? He could have sent the proceeds directly to the Sandy Hook victims.

http://www.nptrust.org/alert/charities-providing-relief-for-victims-of-the-sandy-hook-tragedy (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nptrust.org%2F alert%2Fcharities-providing-relief-for-victims-of-the-sandy-hook-tragedy)

Was this not an option? Was it not something considered?

In my opinion, it would have been a much better choice of where to send the proceeds. It is not political, and it is going directly to the families.

And if as you say, that in any debate...all have already chosen their sides. Than why would SK even say that he hopes to 'provoke a constructive debate'. Just come out and say...hey, here is how I think. Take it or leave it.

But again, my biggest problem is not that my former favorite author disagrees with me on something. That, would simply be impossible. It is his choice of organizations that he chose to send these proceeds.

As I said, it would have been just as egregious if he had chosen to send the money to the NRA. They are both political organizations, who are very much adding to the polarization of the discussion. They both have lobbying arms. They both are not charities.

If he cant post it free for all on his website....then send the proceeds to a charity.

First, he was under no obligation to publicly reveal what he chose to do with the proceeds from the piece or even to give them away at all, but yes, several charities that assisted Sandy Hook victims and organizations devoted to finding ways to promote reasonable solutions to gun control were all considered. Your questions have been answered elsewhere in other threads on this topic so the information is readily available for you to find.

Your points are taken but it is not going to change the here and now of how the essay is being distributed.

[Todash]

Ah. I see. You are really just a troll, and are not here for discussion at all. I am glad I was able to identify the one early one. As there is always at least one.

Good day to you.
Pat is actually not a troll, not at all. He is a bit peculiar (I wouldn't say that, but I imagine he'll take it as a compliment, which is indeed the spirit in which it is intended) and expresses himself in unconventional ways, but as far as I can tell, he never says anything for the purpose of getting a rise out of someone, which is the definition of a troll. He is, in fact, one of the most consistent people I've ever known.

He may be a bit more terse than usual right now, but those of us who are regulars on this board have had a tough time of it lately and have been fielding a lot of incoherent anger and fuzzy logic. It tries one's patience.

[Moderator]

Will it be made public how many copies of the essay are/have been purchased? I'm just curious due to the proceeds being donated.

It wasn't our intention but it hasn't been SOP for any other piece, fiction or non-fiction, that Steve publishes to release sales numbers. I don't think he'd have an issue with doing so, but can't speak for him so would have to get back to you.

[fushingfeef]

You are really just a troll, and are not here for discussion at all. I am glad I was able to identify the one early one. As there is always at least one.

You mean all these years I've been talking to a...(gulp)...TROLL? AAAAUUGGGGH!!!!:laugh:

First, some people don't like what Steve says. Then, some people accuse him of profiting from a tragedy. Then when it turns out he's not profiting from a tragedy, some people don't like who he's donating to.

Man, if Steve would just do what these people wanted, the world would be so much a better place and no one would be gettin' shot or nothin'. :glare:

I read SK because he's a damn good storyteller. Last time I checked, he still was. My ability to enjoy his works does not hinge on my agreement (or disagreement) with his beliefs. If your ability to enjoy his works hinges on this, then it's your loss. Yes, SK loses a constant reader this way, but it could be worse. At least neither of you lost a child like twenty parents in Connecticut did.

[hossenpepper]

I am not saying that I wrote an essay to 'provoke a constructive debate'. Do you not see how that is different? And how SK is thus, not provoking a constructive debate, but choosing sides in said debate? When the proceeds are supporting an organization that is part of the political discourse, it is simply encouraging further polarization and not debate.

So, your entertainment dollars you eluded to in the post previous this need to find a comfortable place and the fact that 99 cents is going to something you find uncomfortable, is terrible? Yet sending those dollars to a fictional story that is about death and other things that SK writes about presents no moral dilemma for you? But a political organization with which you disagree is an outrage to your senses?

That makes me curious as to what your point in posting this was in the first place? As you essentially say here, it is more SK's job to stimulate a debate, and not give an opinion. Your job is apparently the opposite. Why is SK responsible for his words in a public forum, yet you are not?

Perhaps it is because yours are childish, whiny tripe?

But hey that is MY OPINION. :smile2:

[PatInTheHat]

Ah. I see. You are really just a troll, and are not here for discussion at all. I am glad I was able to identify the one early one. As there is always at least one.

Good day to you.
Oh puhleeeze, you make me blush you scamp you:blush:
But yeah okay, maybe I mighta started out as one way back in da day, but now I've been elevated to the grand exulted position of, Troll House Nookie, yeah I know, pretty :cool2: huh?.
And here for the discussion???...you couldn't handle the discussion, but if you had any freakin' idea how many bullsh!t 'discussions' I've had, over how many years, and with plethora o' like minded dolts (yeah okay, that might could be considered name callin':rolleyes:), over their expertise in nothin' but bitchin' moanin' & groanin' over this stupid silly crap y'all just make up in your collective conspiracy minded fertile imaginations, that you obviously Do Not Understand in anywhere close to it's entirety, nor want to I'm bettin', then you just might wonder why I even gave you the privilege of my presence...no, no need to thank me, your drivel is more than enough.
And ya know somethin' else, it's clucks like you that have been busy tryin' oh so hard to #$%@ it up, and for years, now it's coming to a head and we'll all end up payin' the price for all the moronic nonsense y'all pull out of your azzzzz, so ya happy now?...oh I know I am:glare:.
And a most swell day to you too sir, and you know what they say about them doors, yeah, yeah that's right, they swing both ways...:oo:..hmm, which reminds me of a dog I once had.....

[Charms7]

Oh puhleeeze, you make me blush you scamp you:blush:
But yeah okay, maybe I mighta started out as one way back in da day, but now I've been elevated to the grand exulted position of, Troll House Nookie, yeah I know, pretty :cool2: huh?.
And here for the discussion???...you couldn't handle the discussion, but if you had any freakin' idea how many bullsh!t 'discussions' I've had, over how many years, and with plethora o' like minded dolts (yeah okay, that might could be considered name callin':rolleyes:), over their expertise in nothin' but bitchin' moanin' & groanin' over this stupid silly crap y'all just make up in your collective conspiracy minded fertile imaginations, that you obviously Do Not Understand in anywhere close to it's entirety, nor want to I'm bettin', then you just might wonder why I even gave you the privilege of my presence...no, no need to thank me, your drivel is more than enough.
And ya know somethin' else, it's clucks like you that have been busy tryin' oh so hard to #$%@ it up, and for years, now it's coming to a head and we'll all end up payin' the price for all the moronic nonsense y'all pull out of your azzzzz, so ya happy now?...oh I know I am:glare:.
And a most swell day to you too sir, and you know what they say about them doors, yeah, yeah that's right, they swing both ways...:oo:..hmm, which reminds me of a dog I once had.....

Who is writing this stuff down? I need to be keeping a PITH Expressions Journal! Priceless! Thank you, Pat, for making each and every day even more filled with sunshine than it already is! "Your drivel is more than enough." Why can I never think of these things at just the right moment? I'm in your debt for the years of postings you so lovingly provide the rest of us SKMBers! I mean that from the bottom of my heart, and you know it. You had a dog that swung both ways? My son's pooch is so confused ever since he "got fixed" he'll swing any way you let him! I mean, stuffed toys, potted plants, once he got ahold of a still warm blow dryer and let me tell ya. He wasn't prepared for the sizzle he received from that embrace! All I can say is keep those posts coming, my friend. <3

[Lily Sawyer]

Ah. I see. You are really just a troll, and are not here for discussion at all. I am glad I was able to identify the one early one. As there is always at least one.

Good day to you.

Who, PatIntheHat? The Hatman's a troll?? -Where've I been living, under a rock?

Pat may be a lot of things, but being a troll is not in his repertoire.

[Lily Sawyer]

Oh puhleeeze, you make me blush you scamp you:blush:
But yeah okay, maybe I mighta started out as one way back in da day, but now I've been elevated to the grand exulted position of, Troll House Nookie, yeah I know, pretty cool, huh?
And here for the discussion???...you couldn't handle the discussion, but if you had any freakin' idea how many bullsh!t 'discussions' I've had, over how many years, and with plethora o' like minded dolts (yeah okay, that might could be considered name callin'), over their expertise in nothin' but bitchin' moanin' & groanin' over this stupid silly crap y'all just make up in your collective conspiracy minded fertile imaginations, that you obviously Do Not Understand in anywhere close to it's entirety, nor want to I'm bettin', then you just might wonder why I even gave you the privilege of my presence...no, no need to thank me, your drivel is more than enough.
And ya know somethin' else, it's clucks like you that have been busy tryin' oh so hard to #$%@ it up, and for years, now it's coming to a head and we'll all end up payin' the price for all the moronic nonsense y'all pull out of your azzzzz, so ya happy now?...oh I know I am:glare:.
And a most swell day to you too sir, and you know what they say about them doors, yeah, yeah that's right, they swing both ways.....hmm, which reminds me of a dog I once had.....

First - and probably the best - laugh of the day. You're better than Maggie Smith, Falmouth.
♥ :love:

[jay1799]

First, he was under no obligation to publicly reveal what he chose to do with the proceeds from the piece or even to give them away at all, but yes, several charities that assisted Sandy Hook victims and organizations devoted to finding ways to promote reasonable solutions to gun control were all considered. Your questions have been answered elsewhere in other threads on this topic so the information is readily available for you to find.

Your points are taken but it is not going to change the here and now of how the essay is being distributed.

I agree. He was under no obligation to publicly reveal what he chooses to do with the proceeds. But he DID make a public statement. And a political one at that, while at the same time attempting to say that he was writing it to 'provoke a constructive debate'.

And I would love to be pointed in the direction of the 'answers to my questions' The only thing I could find was a post I believe from you where it was made clear that he did not want anyone to think he would be profiteering off of this tragedy.

That again, is quite different than making a political statement, by sending the funds to a political organization instead of a charity.

[hossenpepper]

Who, PatIntheHat? The Hatman's a troll?? -Where've I been living, under a rock?

Pat may be a lot of things, but being a troll is not in his repertoire.

In all fairness, his appearance is troll-like and his cat is the size of a large one...

[jay1799]

Pat is actually not a troll, not at all. He is a bit peculiar (I wouldn't say that, but I imagine he'll take it as a compliment, which is indeed the spirit in which it is intended) and expresses himself in unconventional ways, but as far as I can tell, he never says anything for the purpose of getting a rise out of someone, which is the definition of a troll. He is, in fact, one of the most consistent people I've ever known.

He may be a bit more terse than usual right now, but those of us who are regulars on this board have had a tough time of it lately and have been fielding a lot of incoherent anger and fuzzy logic. It tries one's patience.

That is understandable. However, I didnt come in here calling everyone names. I didnt come in here spitting fire and anger.

I believe I have been quite well tempered in this discussion. If you are just going to dismiss anyone who disagrees with Mr. King on this matter with vitriol and anger, then I question why? Is it to close of debate? To attempt to drive off any dissenters? That is not conducive to a discussion either. As can be seen in several other posts above, that I dont need to quote nor respond to directly.

[jay1799]

So, your entertainment dollars you eluded to in the post previous this need to find a comfortable place and the fact that 99 cents is going to something you find uncomfortable, is terrible? Yet sending those dollars to a fictional story that is about death and other things that SK writes about presents no moral dilemma for you? But a political organization with which you disagree is an outrage to your senses?

That makes me curious as to what your point in posting this was in the first place? As you essentially say here, it is more SK's job to stimulate a debate, and not give an opinion. Your job is apparently the opposite. Why is SK responsible for his words in a public forum, yet you are not?

Perhaps it is because yours are childish, whiny tripe?

But hey that is MY OPINION. :smile2:

The amount of money is irrelevant. As far as the specific material King writes about, It does not bother me. If it did, I never would have read it or enjoyed it. I really dont understand what it has to do with the discussion of where the proceeds of this essay are sent to.

As to WHY I am writing it?

I would say to try to understand the contradictory nature of on one hand saying that he published it to "provoke a conversation" but then on the other hand, adding to the polarization of the discussion by donating the proceeds to a lobbying organization that is part of the political discourse...ie, part of the polarization problem.

Just because you may personally agree with the Brady campaign, you should be able to see that. They are a lobbying group. They are part of the political discourse. They are part of the problem. As I said, it would have been equally egregious if he had donated the proceeds to the NRA while at the same time hiding behind a statement that he wants to 'provoke a discussion'

I guess, after contemplating it for a few days, I was hopeful that the decision was one made in haste, or ignorance, or naivety or other misunderstanding or error. Or not by Mr. King at all, but by an inexperienced staffer. Maybe I was wrong on that matter. However, that would make it worse in my opinion. Because then his statement of wanting to 'provoke a conversation' was a bold faced lie, and what he merely wanted to do all along was press his political opinion on his readers, under false pretenses.

Basically, it is either to provoke a conversation, or it is not. Currently, his statement and his actions are contradictory.

[not_nadine]

If you read some of the other threads, jay1799 you will see that there has been quite a flurry of new members in the past week.
That is wonderful, but it seemed they all just joined to complain.
I think that everyone was just getting weary of it.

Hope you stick around, this is really a great group of folks. :smile2:

[Lily Sawyer]

In all fairness, his appearance is troll-like and his cat is the size of a large one...

You mean you and Pat hung out with Buster Brown and didn't invite me??

Sheesh. I'd have baked a cake and all.

[atomicinchworm]

That is understandable. However, I didnt come in here calling everyone names. I didnt come in here spitting fire and anger.

I believe I have been quite well tempered in this discussion. If you are just going to dismiss anyone who disagrees with Mr. King on this matter with vitriol and anger, then I question why? Is it to close of debate? To attempt to drive off any dissenters? That is not conducive to a discussion either. As can be seen in several other posts above, that I dont need to quote nor respond to directly.

Because you can disagree with him. No one is saying you must (though you haven't even read the piece and cannot reasonably have an opinion on it).

To say you are no longer reading anything SK releases in the future because you disagree with him on this one point, is childish at best, ignorant at worst.

If you don't want to read it, fine. If you don't want to donate to the Brady Campaign that is your deal. But to come in like a child stomping your feet because you didn't like what he said (even though you have no idea what he said), crossing your arms, and saying you won't read the bad man's stories anymore is really tiring and NOT CONDUCIVE TO AN ACTUAL DISCUSSION.

[hossenpepper]

That is understandable. However, I didnt come in here calling everyone names. I didnt come in here spitting fire and anger.


Hmmm... interesting... "I will never read you tripe again you socialist un-american idiot" was the gist of your statement, yet this is to be seen as "pleasant" and "insightful"?

Here is an example:

Statement: "You, sir, fellate goats most aggressively"

Much classier than "You blow goats and love it!!", but the sentiment is the same. Trying to curtsy as you slap people DOES NOT work here among this bright, educated collective and, regardless of context, will be met with kick back EVERY TIME here. If you don't like it, exercise the precious freedom you used to try to veil your asinine statements and don't interact if you feel so slighted.


I believe I have been quite well tempered in this discussion. If you are just going to dismiss anyone who disagrees with Mr. King on this matter with vitriol and anger, then I question why? Is it to close of debate? To attempt to drive off any dissenters? That is not conducive to a discussion either. As can be seen in several other posts above, that I dont need to quote nor respond to directly.

Again, your attempt to be "civil" started with a threat to never read him again, etc. etc., spoken in an air of absolution. This is "reasonable" and "proper" in your mind? Is it any surprise you would be essentially narcissistic about this? Dissenter? LOL... really? How about martyr? You poor soul.

Debate is fine, but you're not debating. You're coming in, sh!tting the bed and then saying "What?!? You guys don't want to lay in this without protest?"

Please, get over yourself. You have every right to your opinion, and all of us to ours about both this issue and your statements. If you put yourself to the public in any forum, you can be criticized, with vitriol and ridicule and it is protected by the First Amendment. This was just this week affirmed in a local trial pitting two "shock jocks" against each other.

In other words, I can say your post sucks. :wink2:

I am also, due to your views, not going to read anymore of your writing. America is awesome!

[Todash]

The amount of money is irrelevant. As far as the specific material King writes about, It does not bother me. If it did, I never would have read it or enjoyed it. I really dont understand what it has to do with the discussion of where the proceeds of this essay are sent to.

As to WHY I am writing it?

I would say to try to understand the contradictory nature of on one hand saying that he published it to "provoke a conversation" but then on the other hand, adding to the polarization of the discussion by donating the proceeds to a lobbying organization that is part of the political discourse...ie, part of the polarization problem.

Just because you may personally agree with the Brady campaign, you should be able to see that. They are a lobbying group. They are part of the political discourse. They are part of the problem. As I said, it would have been equally egregious if he had donated the proceeds to the NRA while at the same time hiding behind a statement that he wants to 'provoke a discussion'

I guess, after contemplating it for a few days, I was hopeful that the decision was one made in haste, or ignorance, or naivety or other misunderstanding or error. Or not by Mr. King at all, but by an inexperienced staffer. Maybe I was wrong on that matter. However, that would make it worse in my opinion. Because then his statement of wanting to 'provoke a conversation' was a bold faced lie, and what he merely wanted to do all along was press his political opinion on his readers, under false pretenses.

Basically, it is either to provoke a conversation, or it is not. Currently, his statement and his actions are contradictory.

I understand what you are saying and why you are saying it, but it assumes that one cannot have a known position and yet want to open up dialog on the subject. I think they are two separate issues. In fact, if he did not have a position, he likely wouldn't care about opening up a dialog on the subject. Example: there is some disagreement, I believe, on whether Bigfoot is real. I do not have a position. I have no dog in the fight. So ... I'm neutral, but that's because I don't care enough to research the topic and make a call one way or the other. Therefore, while I would be a supposedly ideal person to open up the subject for debate, I probably never will, precisely because I don't care.

When I'm irritated with my husband and talk to him about it, I have a definite position, but I'm not a shrewish harpy. I really want to hear "his side." But to pretend that I don't have an opinion of my own would just be silly. And, really, wrong.

I think perhaps the content of the essay, more than the choice of beneficiary, indicates the intent of it. As far as donating to Sandy Hook victims, while that is a worthwhile cause, it unfortunately does not do a thing to prevent gun violence, and the entire point of this whole thing is that we need to figure out how to reduce gun violence. I challenge anyone who does not like the Brady Campaign to come up with some other organization whose goal is to prevent gun violence and that also would be acceptable to those who don't like the Brady Campaign. My thinking is that ANY organization whose goal is to prevent gun violence would be deemed unacceptable by such people.

[Moderator]

I agree. He was under no obligation to publicly reveal what he chooses to do with the proceeds. But he DID make a public statement. And a political one at that, while at the same time attempting to say that he was writing it to 'provoke a constructive debate'.

And I would love to be pointed in the direction of the 'answers to my questions' The only thing I could find was a post I believe from you where it was made clear that he did not want anyone to think he would be profiteering off of this tragedy.

That again, is quite different than making a political statement, by sending the funds to a political organization instead of a charity.

Don't have time before the Board closes to do so, but they're there. If you still haven't found them by Monday, let me know.

[~Ally~]

Sheesh. I'd have baked a cake and all.

Ack, fuhgeddabout them two...bake one of those extra special Depp~Fiennes cakes and come hang out with me instead. Raawwwrrrr! :cool2:

jay1799; I felt your initial post was very well written and thought out, but I was disappointed to read that a Constant Reader would no longer read King because of where the proceeds of the essay will go. I understand your reason for not wanting to buy the essay on principle, but to revolt against King's works as a whole seems extreme. But hey, each to their own.

Ooh, and PITH...:love:

[jay1799]

Don't have time before the Board closes to do so, but they're there. If you still haven't found them by Monday, let me know.

The board closes?

I guess that means any posts I make this weekend will be held up under moderation "Cause I am still a newb". No biggie, but I guess I will know that it is not for censorship.

[PatInTheHat]

That is understandable. However, I didnt come in here calling everyone names. I didnt come in here spitting fire and anger.

Ya know me neither, then I met you, you seem to be the common denominator..well, only 'cause there ain't nothin' common 'bout me:rolleyes:
And you think that's spittin' anger huh?...*SN:laugh:RT*, 'k, but hey, you go ahead and call me whatever ya want, no really I'm totally down with it, why me very own Mama called me an imbecile just last night:laugh:..she's so damn cute:love: And truly, I'



I believe I have been quite well tempered in this discussion. If you are just going to dismiss anyone who disagrees with Mr. King on this matter with vitriol and anger, then I question why? Is it to close of debate? To attempt to drive off any dissenters? That is not conducive to a discussion either. As can be seen in several other posts above, that I dont need to quote nor respond to directly.
First, tempered, who cares (well yeah I'm sure somebody does, many probably, but I could give a good hoot), content however, now that guaranteed a reaction, and if you can't cop to that you really are full of it.
And let me tell ya somethin' else, since assuming ass'umptions seems to be your big forte', why do you ass'ume I agree with Mr. King, I mean I'm sure I do, to at least some degree, but maybe, & quite possibly, not all that much...I got no idea, I got no Kindle.
Got nothin' to do with our gracious & most generous benefactor's opinion (ohhh was that one slick suck up huh:y:), here or anywhere else, it's really got more to do with the constant barrage of pouty petulant Parrots squawkin' for their crackers I've been hearing and reading, almost constantly, ever since this administration came in, and the whole time Willie the Weiner was in office, in the nineties with the first assault rifle bans, the ones with no real teeth, but the ones that made a whole lotta people, people I personally know, a whole lotta money, because this is what the crap you spouted out is all about, asshats & jagoffs making cold hard cash on selling cold hard death, not about your GODDAMN "RIGHTS" YOU ARE IN NO DANGER OF LOSING.
Oh yeah, well then give me one plausible scenario just how that's gonna take place, just one.

[Moderator]

The board closes?

I guess that means any posts I make this weekend will be held up under moderation "Cause I am still a newb". No biggie, but I guess I will know that it is not for censorship.

Info in the FAQ, but short answer is it closes at 4 PM Eastern and reopens on Sunday but posts don't get moderated until Monday.

[GNTLGNT]

...I need to invest in a "Troll Chow" company, and build a huge bridge...coz they WILL come...I usually never tire of spirited debate, but I gotsta to say I am weary to my bones of all this....to each their own, and otherwise, as the reknowned Mr. Bunker would say..."stifle yourself!"....this is my home away from home, and now it's being over-run by "outlanders"....I seriously respect everyone's viewpoints, but the fringe element that just "relocated" here is on my last nerve...nobody twisted your damn arms to read the essay, or to be a fan of King's works AND you have no say in where the dollars go!...say your piece and move along...I don't care for where the money went either, but I ponied it up to see what the man had to say...I found it well done, and I'm a "gunner"...all this blah, blah, blah is doing nothing but detracting from the basis of this Board-appreciation of one another and Steve's work...steppin' off the stump now and headin' for the silo of chow...

[jay1799]

Ack, fuhgeddabout them two...bake one of those extra special Depp~Fiennes cakes and come hang out with me instead. Raawwwrrrr! :cool2:

jay1799; I felt your initial post was very well written and thought out, but I was disappointed to read that a Constant Reader would no longer read King because of where the proceeds of the essay will go. I understand your reason for not wanting to buy the essay on principle, but to revolt against King's works as a whole seems extreme. But hey, each to their own.

Ooh, and PITH...:love:

Thanks.

Trust me, it was not an easy decision, and not one I made lightly. It is also why it took me a few days to formalize my thoughts and write the post that I did.

But, when someone not only wants my civil rights violated, but is actively supporting an organization whose sole goal is to violate the civil rights of tens of millions of Americans and their families...then I have to make a Stand against it.

One can disagree that the right of self-defense is a basic civil right, but I would simply disagree with that person; and no one should be infringing upon my choice as to the best way to protect myself, my property, and my family.

My own and my families safety and security are just as important to me, as I am sure are Mr. Kings. I would never expect to tell him that whatever safety and security measures he chooses to utilize are improper, as long as he personally is not harming others. He should grant me, and the tens of millions of legal American gun owners that same courtesy.

I may have drifted off course a bit in this post, however the ultimate statement is the same. The support of an organization whose main goal is to disarm millions of Americans by slowing eroding away a Constitutionally protected right, until it is no longer a right at all...goes against anything I believe in. I implore Mr. King to reconsider this decision.

[Moderator]

As he noted in his essay, he is not suggesting that all guns be banned or that the Second Amendment be repealed.

[Todash]

Thanks.

Trust me, it was not an easy decision, and not one I made lightly. It is also why it took me a few days to formalize my thoughts and write the post that I did.

But, when someone not only wants my civil rights violated, but is actively supporting an organization whose sole goal is to violate the civil rights of tens of millions of Americans and their families...then I have to make a Stand against it.

One can disagree that the right of self-defense is a basic civil right, but I would simply disagree with that person; and no one should be infringing upon my choice as to the best way to protect myself, my property, and my family.

My own and my families safety and security are just as important to me, as I am sure are Mr. Kings. I would never expect to tell him that whatever safety and security measures he chooses to utilize are improper, as long as he personally is not harming others. He should grant me, and the tens of millions of legal American gun owners that same courtesy.

I may have drifted off course a bit in this post, however the ultimate statement is the same. The support of an organization whose main goal is to disarm millions of Americans by slowing eroding away a Constitutionally protected right, until it is no longer a right at all...goes against anything I believe in. I implore Mr. King to reconsider this decision.

Tell me, do you think that slander and libel should be protected under the 1st Amendment? That you should be allowed to shout "BOMB" in an airport with no repercussions? That we should allow public nudity in all places and at all times?

When I had civics class as a high school freshman, we were having a pretty involved discussion about freedoms (15-year-olds do have opinions and care about such things, actually) and our teacher let us fight it out for a while, and then he said one thing that left room for smaller arguments but stopped the bigger ones in their tracks. "As a US citizen, I have a lot of rights. I have the right to stand and swing my fist if I want to. But my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins."

Look at the statistics of gun deaths and overall homicides in the US compared with other comparable countries. Those numbers being so high? That's my nose.

[jay1799]

As he noted in his essay, he is not suggesting that all guns be banned or that the Second Amendment be repealed.


That makes no difference. He is endorsing the incremental removal of a civil right.

Would you be in favor of limiting voting? How about limiting freedom of speech? The right to a fair trial? Privacy rights? They are all civil rights.

Again, he can think whatever he wants. It is his choice to believe anything. He could come out tomorrow and say that the experiment to grant 18 yr olds has failed. They only care about their iphones, and twitter and following the latest celebrity doings blindly without thought. Raise the voting age to 21. It is not like I am doing away with voting. I am just restricting it further! And that would be his right to say such under the first amendment.

I would be against that as well. And if he was donating the proceeds to an organization that wanted to restrict the voting rights of millions of Americans, I would choose to no longer support him either, especially if he was at the same time saying..."Hey, I am just trying to open up a dialog here"

[Patricia A]

Stephen King is no different from the rest of "we the people" in that he can do what he wants with his paycheck, after legal obligations, applicable fees and taxes of course.

He also shares the right to tell the truth as he has found it, or to lie. Stephen King has proven himself time and time again to be an honest broker, but we have the right to believe what he says or not, or to not give a rats-thin-ass, and to say so. Hopefully we will present more with fact than stubborn ideology, but we don't have to. We have the right to be tools.

And in conclusion, I submit that (LOL@mysoapbox.com) we all have the right to boycott products and services etc., for what ever reason we choose. We also have the right to sneak into Walmart in middle of the night, once in a blue moon to buy fine pistachios (not the dyed red ones either) despite boycotting said establishment. None the less, good luck to all of those who say they'll never read King again, he's just too good to quit, better even than guilty pistachios at midnight.

[Moderator]

That makes no difference. He is endorsing the incremental removal of a civil right.

Would you be in favor of limiting voting? How about limiting freedom of speech? The right to a fair trial? Privacy rights? They are all civil rights.

Again, he can think whatever he wants. It is his choice to believe anything. He could come out tomorrow and say that the experiment to grant 18 yr olds has failed. They only care about their iphones, and twitter and following the latest celebrity doings blindly without thought. Raise the voting age to 21. It is not like I am doing away with voting. I am just restricting it further! And that would be his right to say such under the first amendment.

I would be against that as well. And if he was donating the proceeds to an organization that wanted to restrict the voting rights of millions of Americans, I would choose to no longer support him either, especially if he was at the same time saying..."Hey, I am just trying to open up a dialog here"

What I hear you saying is that you believe that he is contradicting himself in asking for debate on the subject because he chose an organization that advocates for more sensible gun laws to donate his share of the proceeds. As I see it, the only thing that will make you happy is for him to see things exactly as you do. You are obviously stuck on the fact that he supports the Brady Campaign which is advocating for more sensible gun laws, not banning them outright, and in your opinion you also see that as being a block to having any discussion in spite of the fact that there are many who have been able to do just that. I would suggest that it is you who has the problem having a dialog or to consider anything other than what you perceive as your right to own any gun that you choose. That IMO is the truth underneath all the rhetoric about erosion of Second Amendment rights. Personally, I believe that allowing people to have any gun they choose violates my rights to personal safety.

[PatInTheHat]

give me one plausible scenario just how that's gonna take place, just one.


Thanks.

Trust me, it was not an easy decision, and not one I made lightly. It is also why it took me a few days to formalize my thoughts and write the post that I did.

But, when someone not only wants my civil rights violated, but is actively supporting an organization whose sole goal is to violate the civil rights of tens of millions of Americans and their families...then I have to make a Stand against it.

One can disagree that the right of self-defense is a basic civil right, but I would simply disagree with that person; and no one should be infringing upon my choice as to the best way to protect myself, my property, and my family.

My own and my families safety and security are just as important to me, as I am sure are Mr. Kings. I would never expect to tell him that whatever safety and security measures he chooses to utilize are improper, as long as he personally is not harming others. He should grant me, and the tens of millions of legal American gun owners that same courtesy.

I may have drifted off course a bit in this post, however the ultimate statement is the same. The support of an organization whose main goal is to disarm millions of Americans by slowing eroding away a Constitutionally protected right, until it is no longer a right at all...goes against anything I believe in. I implore Mr. King to reconsider this decision.
And I implore you to stop being a freakin' tool, or a fool full of stool, butt then to be completely fair & honest, which, I really wouldn't know.
Oh and this kinda crap right here, "One can disagree that the right of self-defense is a basic civil right", that you seem to have quite fondness for, is just flat out disingenuous obfuscating at it's absolute bullsh!tiest, and I would say mega huge kudos & gianormous props for that oh yes I would I would I most certainly would, well I would that is, if it was at all original and had even a miniscule modicum of merit, but we both know it sure as hell doesn't, don't we?
Never did Toolbox, I've been hearing the same garbage for decades now.
See I live in gun country, guns everywhere, better than a pocket full o' ducats & a fist full of doubloons, why they don't even come in calibers they come in denominations here in The Mighty BlueGrass, got one grocery store and five gun shops within a ten mile radius of my front door, I've traded & dealt in firearms, most everyone I know has at one time or another, bulletin boards in the hardware, grocery and feed store are full of 'em (especially around Christmas ho ho 'ho), so don't confuse me with an urban high rise liberal east coaster, or a tofu and seaweed snackin' socialist west coaster, or whatever those stupid geographic labels are supposed to be about, nah, I'm a middleville Hillbilly that couldn't give one good hoot about what guns you own or how many, honest, I personally could care less if you owned an aircraft carrier with it's own fighter wing attachment, can ya hear me now???
Yeah I've heard the your artificially nasty flavored fear mongering before, ad nauseum since the mass produced Saturday Night Special flooded our nations streets back in 70's and became quite famous, before you I'd bet my last doobie:oo:..oh yeah babes, if ya knew me at all, that would let ya know I'm quite serious.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWBoeY0AAec
Even these good ol' southern redneck boys from back in the hey day beginnings of cheaply made, mass produced, mostly foreign made, high profit margin, stupid ignorant moronic tools of senseless death, they knew the real deal of what was, and still is going on, so your either a player or a sucker, either or, still a bad actor in a lousy play, and yeah, that's my opinion.

[jay1799]

What I hear you saying is that you believe that he is contradicting himself in asking for debate on the subject because he chose an organization that advocates for more sensible gun laws to donate his share of the proceeds. As I see it, the only thing that will make you happy is for him to see things exactly as you do. You are obviously stuck on the fact that he supports the Brady Campaign which is advocating for more sensible gun laws, not banning them outright, and in your opinion you also see that as being a block to having any discussion in spite of the fact that there are many who have been able to do just that. I would suggest that it is you who has the problem having a dialog or to consider anything other than what you perceive as your right to own any gun that you choose. That IMO is the truth underneath all the rhetoric about erosion of Second Amendment rights. Personally, I believe that allowing people to have any gun they choose violates my rights to personal safety.

And I could make the same argument against hate speech, and why it should be a violation of law to say horrible things that can lead to deranged individuals committing horrible acts. However, hate speech, is a protected right in this country. It falls under a protected civil right.

Just because someone owns an AR15 or an AK47 with a 30 round magazine, does not mean they are going to go out and shoot a bunch of people, thus violating your right to personal safety. Millions of Americans own such type firearms. MILLIONS. How many deaths are attributed to such firearms every year? Less than 500 the last time I looked. Less than a baseball bat.

And yes, I should be able to choose what type of firearm works best for me and my family when defending ourselves. I am Pro-choice in this matter. Choices are always better. I am not trying to infringe on your choice. That is what you are doing.

However, I can have a discussion on the subject all you want. I was trying to keep the discussion roughly on the topic of the thread. ie, supporting a charity and not supporting a political lobbying group. Especially one that wants to violate the civil rights of millions of Americans.

[Moderator]

In your opinion which is not shared by all Americans.

[jay1799]

Oh and this kinda crap right here, "One can disagree that the right of self-defense is a basic civil right", that you seem to have quite fondness for, is just flat out disingenuous obfuscating at it's absolute bullsh!tiest, and I would say mega huge kudos & gianormous props for that oh yes I would I would I most certainly would, well I would that is, if it was at all original and had even a miniscule modicum of merit, but we both know it sure as hell doesn't, don't we?
.

It is quite difficult to actually comprehend anything that you type Pat. But, I assume that you disagree that self defense and even gun ownership are civil rights?

I am open for that discussion if you are, but I doubt that you would be a willing participant in such a debate, nor one that actually debates clearly.

However, I will start off with the easiest way to argue it. The US Supreme Court has ruled in Heller vs DC that armed self defense is a right of all Americans. Furthermore, the right of armed self defense was incorporated to the states under the 14 Amendment in Mcdonald vs Chicago, which is the route ALL civil rights in this country have been applied to states.

If you think that the right of armed self defense is not a civil right, you simply have not been following supreme court case law in the last 5 years or so. You can disagree with it if you want, but it is...the law of this land. It would be like arguing for segregation after Brown vs the Board of Eduction.



In your opinion which is not shared by all Americans.
And desegregation was not an opinion shared by all Americans either. It did not make it any less of a civil right, guaranteed under The Constitution, and upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States, and incorporated to all states under the 14th Amendment...just like armed self defense.

[Moderator]

Nor was the right for women to vote and many other amendments but those are not issues that we are talking about. We are talking about gun control and the bans that are being suggested are not new ones. It's been done before.

You might want to read the whole decision of the Supreme Court:

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, states: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited..." It is "... not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
"Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time". We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'"
The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent "... to consider... prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons."

[jay1799]

Nor was the right for women to vote and many other amendments but those are not issues that we are talking about. We are talking about gun control and the bans that are being suggested are not new ones. It's been done before.

You might want to read the whole decision of the Supreme Court:

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, states: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited..." It is "... not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
"Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time". We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'"
The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent "... to consider... prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons."


Sure, the bans were done before. They were also done beore Heller or Mcdonald were ruled on. And they also were proven to be ineffective in preventing crime or lowering mass shootings. Remember, Columbine happened during the last 'AWB'.

As far as Scalia's opinion in Heller, it supports my case much more than yours. AR-15's are one of the most common rifles in use at this time. Semi auto handguns are most certainly the absolute most common firearm in use at this time. There is nothing 'unusual' to these types of firearms, it is nothing more than a semi automatic rifle...and the most important part that most anti-gunners overlook when they quote heller is the part I bolded.

And no one is saying that someone that has already lost their civil rights...ie, felons or those deemed mentally insane...should someone get their civil rights back. I am in full support of that.

Lastly, a firearm is a firearm. Some hold more, some hold less, some use a magazine, some dont. The only thing that really makes one more dangerous than the other...is the intent of the person holding it.

However, I concede that no one(me nor you) really has any clue how SCOTUS would rule in some future case. Really, all we do know, is that armed self defense is a basic civil right in this country...affirmed and incorporated by The Supreme Court of the United States.

So why do you want to infringe on my civil rights? I have done nothing wrong. If you want to infringe on someone's civil rights, go after the criminals....they are the bad guys. Not me.

[Todash]

That makes no difference. He is endorsing the incremental removal of a civil right.

Would you be in favor of limiting voting?There are indeed limitations to voting, which differ from area to area. Some of those have withstood court challenge; some have not. That is how US law works. And of course no matter HOW involved and passionate you might be at the age of 17, you are not allowed to express that on a ballot.


How about limiting freedom of speech?You mean like restricting your ability to commit libel or slander? The criminalizing of inciting panic in a public place? The restriction of freedom of expression to certain venues? The determination that some things, in fact, are obscene from a legal standpoint? The criminalization of child pornography?


The right to a fair trial?Unless you're in Gitmo. Or Texas.


Privacy rights?You mean those things you pretty much have none of at work?


They are all civil rights.And they all, each and every one, down to the very last, have limitations.

The "no restrictions should be allowed" argument is demonstrably, clearly, plainly without merit. Your fist, my nose. My fist, your nose. That's how it works. That's how it has always worked.

[exzel]

You might want to read the whole decision of the Supreme Court:

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, states: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited..." It is "... not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
"Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time". We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'"
The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent "... to consider... prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons."

Isn’t the main problem in the Miller case was that by the time SCOTUS heard the case, Miller was dead and nobody argued his side?

And I might be wrong, but when it comes to semi-automatic rifles, I believe no case involving them has yet reached the US Supreme Court, so therefore the issue remains unresolved, and will remain unresolved until a law restricting once again comes into play and it is challenged all the way up to the SCOTUS.

We keep hearing nobody wants to take away your guns. But I believe the recent pattern of history dictates differently. A century ago there were very few laws at all regarding guns. Up until the mid-1930’s anyone could order a Thompson submachine gun from the Sears catalogue for about $200. Then there were laws restricting certain types of weapon. Then cam laws against importation and manufacturing. Then came laws restricting who could own them. Then we get laws restricting where you could carry them. Then came laws involving background checks. Anyone see a pattern here? Perhaps this is the time to finally take a stand against the constant assault against the second amendment.

Chief Justice Kozinski of the 9th Circuit (and offspring of holocaust survivors) dissenting in a case in 2003, wrote:
"My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed-where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

[Patricia A]

I may be straying from the original intent of this thread but I don't know where else to post this, and I wanted to share an observation.

When ever Steve's personal beliefs outrage the rabid right I get this little surge of angry people selling their Stephen King books to the store where I work. Sometimes, but rarely we get absolutely beautiful, highly desirable, nearly complete collections of his work. (Obviously I work in a used bookstore).
In a greedy ba$tard kind of way I am THRILLED when Steve makes with the home truths, because after the angry surge comes the hungry influx of 3 times as many people who want to buy his books, either for the first time or to start reading his stories again.

Another aside and as a matter of fact, I hooked a fella up with a full set of The Dark Tower paperbacks Monday. He said he had forgotten how good his books were until he heard some "clown" at work talking ****e about King's personal beliefs.
He told me he started the stories several years back and thought it was high time he finished them. He said he wanted the whole set because he wanted to start the whole journey all over from the beginning. I was happy to help him do that.
Ka being a wheel at work here, it's a beautiful thing.

[GNTLGNT]

It is quite difficult to actually comprehend anything that you type Pat.


...right back 'atcha there squire...at least Pat is trying to make his point in his own inimitable style, whilst you continue hell-bent on a dead-end course to piss everybody off, just because they don't agree with YOUR viewpoint...wake up bunkie, we outnumber you....

[Moderator]

Because exzel and jay1799, I do not believe that anyone except the military should have ever had those types of weapons. I do not believe in the slightest that taking away those weapons is against your civil rights as you are still allowed to have guns to defend yourself. I further believe that the proliferation of these weapons and the easy access to obtaining them is a major contributing factor and a self-fulfilling prophecy for the fear-based thinking and paranoia that has also become prevalent in our society. By owning and promoting ownership of these types of weapons you, just as much as criminals, are creating a situation that is endangering the general population by escalating the alleged "need" for them. You are not the solution, you are a part of the problem and by refusing to accept that until something is done to reduce the amount and types of weapons and ammunition that can so easily massacre large numbers of innocent victims and by continuing to make them accessible to the general public, you are indeed violating my civil rights and the general welfare of the country to expect a safe and secure environment in which to live. In spite of my personal convictions against guns, I would support your right to own certain ones but not the ones being discussed for future bans as I see it as a slippery slope to escalating to even more dangerous ones.

[GNTLGNT]

Because exzel and jay1799, I do not believe that anyone except the military should have ever had those types of weapons. I do not believe in the slightest that taking away those weapons is against your civil rights as you are still allowed to have guns to defend yourself. I further believe that the proliferation of these weapons and the easy access to obtaining them is a major contributing factor and a self-fulfilling prophecy for the fear-based thinking and paranoia that has also become prevalent in our society. By owning and promoting ownership of these types of weapons you, just as much as criminals, are creating a situation that is endangering the general population by escalating the alleged "need" for them. You are not the solution, you are a part of the problem and by refusing to accept that until something is done to reduce the amount and types of weapons and ammunition that can so easily massacre large numbers of innocent victims and by continuing to make them accessible to the general public, you are indeed violating my civil rights and the general welfare of the country to expect a safe and secure environment in which to live. In spite of my personal convictions against guns, I would support your right to own certain ones but not the ones being discussed for future bans as I see it as a slippery slope to escalating to even more dangerous ones.

....Hear, Hear!!!!....

[exzel]

Ms. Mod and the majority here… The second amendment gives me no right. I have such a right “BY RIGHT.”

A right cannot be legislated. It can only be lost for improper application by one so possessing by murder, violence or threat of violence and so forth.

After much reflection and research, I am reaching the point that so-called “compromise” is becoming little more than “Salami Tactics”[1] utilized by our current administration and special interest groups (like the Brady Campaign) to diminish our rights under the constitution.

[1]Salami tactics, also known as the salami-slice strategy, is a divide and conquer process of threats and alliances used to overcome opposition. With it, an aggressor can influence and eventually dominate a landscape, typically political, piece by piece. In this fashion, the opposition is eliminated "slice by slice" until one realizes (too late) that it's gone in its entirety. In some cases it includes the creation of several factions within the opposing political party and then dismantling that party from the inside, without causing the "sliced" sides to protest. Salami tactics are most likely to succeed when the perpetrators keep their true long-term motives hidden and maintain a posture of cooperativeness and helpfulness while engaged in the intended gradual subversion.

[jay1799]

There are indeed limitations to voting, which differ from area to area. Some of those have withstood court challenge; some have not. That is how US law works. And of course no matter HOW involved and passionate you might be at the age of 17, you are not allowed to express that on a ballot.

You mean like restricting your ability to commit libel or slander? The criminalizing of inciting panic in a public place? The restriction of freedom of expression to certain venues? The determination that some things, in fact, are obscene from a legal standpoint? The criminalization of child pornography?

Unless you're in Gitmo. Or Texas.

You mean those things you pretty much have none of at work?

And they all, each and every one, down to the very last, have limitations.

The "no restrictions should be allowed" argument is demonstrably, clearly, plainly without merit. Your fist, my nose. My fist, your nose. That's how it works. That's how it has always worked.

Yes. There are limitations. And we already have them. And they should all fall into the exact quote you use at the end. The old, "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose"

Am I asking for the right to shoot anyone anywhere? Of course not. We have laws against murder.

My right to OWN an item however and use it lawfully to defend myself does not effect 'your nose' at all, unless you are the one coming at me to hurt me and I am using a firearm to defend myself. And in that case, you are the one swinging a fist, and I am defending myself.

[jay1799]

Isn’t the main problem in the Miller case was that by the time SCOTUS heard the case, Miller was dead and nobody argued his side?

And I might be wrong, but when it comes to semi-automatic rifles, I believe no case involving them has yet reached the US Supreme Court, so therefore the issue remains unresolved, and will remain unresolved until a law restricting once again comes into play and it is challenged all the way up to the SCOTUS.

We keep hearing nobody wants to take away your guns. But I believe the recent pattern of history dictates differently. A century ago there were very few laws at all regarding guns. Up until the mid-1930’s anyone could order a Thompson submachine gun from the Sears catalogue for about $200. Then there were laws restricting certain types of weapon. Then cam laws against importation and manufacturing. Then came laws restricting who could own them. Then we get laws restricting where you could carry them. Then came laws involving background checks. Anyone see a pattern here? Perhaps this is the time to finally take a stand against the constant assault against the second amendment.

Chief Justice Kozinski of the 9th Circuit (and offspring of holocaust survivors) dissenting in a case in 2003, wrote:
"My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed-where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

Yes. Miller was dead. And there was no defense at all. It was basically The Government against no one. But I did not want to get into the whole....Miller isnt applicable because no one was there to defend the case.

It could certainly be argued as such in front of SCOTUS. I have no idea how that would go.

But overall exzel, I agree with you. And I saw when I reviewed the other thread, that you were one basically arguing the same point I am.

[Lily Sawyer]

Because exzel and jay1799, I do not believe that anyone except the military should have ever had those types of weapons. I do not believe in the slightest that taking away those weapons is against your civil rights as you are still allowed to have guns to defend yourself. I further believe that the proliferation of these weapons and the easy access to obtaining them is a major contributing factor and a self-fulfilling prophecy for the fear-based thinking and paranoia that has also become prevalent in our society. By owning and promoting ownership of these types of weapons you, just as much as criminals, are creating a situation that is endangering the general population by escalating the alleged "need" for them. You are not the solution, you are a part of the problem and by refusing to accept that until something is done to reduce the amount and types of weapons and ammunition that can so easily massacre large numbers of innocent victims and by continuing to make them accessible to the general public, you are indeed violating my civil rights and the general welfare of the country to expect a safe and secure environment in which to live. In spite of my personal convictions against guns, I would support your right to own certain ones but not the ones being discussed for future bans as I see it as a slippery slope to escalating to even more dangerous ones.

I don't believe that the more zealous American Gunners have argued their point well by demonstrating that buying a gun empowers them. Against what? Adam Lanza's mother exercised her right to own and operate guns. That didn't work out well for her. The surge in gun sales and ammunition immediately following the Sandy Hook tragedy was appalling for two reasons: it was a slap in the face to the victims who died and their families, and it ensured that police departments across the U.S. are now experiencing bullet shortages. The fewer bullets available, the less time spent training. And that in turn lowers local law enforcement's effectiveness.

And I don't trust Wayne LaPierre further than I can throw him - and neither should NRA members. He's an opinion flipper of the tallest order and will say anything to retain his position of power. http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/01/30/1515911/senator-catches-nra-head-in-epic-flip-flop/?mobile=nc

[jay1799]

...right back 'atcha there squire...at least Pat is trying to make his point in his own inimitable style, whilst you continue hell-bent on a dead-end course to piss everybody off, just because they don't agree with YOUR viewpoint...wake up bunkie, we outnumber you....

And that is the way you want to 'rule the world'?? With the power of the majority?

I hate to burst your bubble, but we are not a true democracy. We are a Constitutional republic for the very reason you are describing. ie, the power of the large to roll over the small. It is the reason we have so many checks and balances in our government. And why we have a Bill of Rights, and why Amending those rights are not simply due to a majority in congress...but an overwhelming majority of the states.

However, I would argue that 80 million gun owners is not exactly 'small'

Now maybe you are simply stating it in regards to here...at this forum. And that is quite alright. I did not exactly think I would be welcomed with open arms. But I am a vocal person. I speak my mind. So I made the decision to come here and state my viewpoint.

[exzel]

Hmmm… So because I only favor one of the "trio of reasonable measures to curb gun violence" proposed by King, I am part of the problem, not the solution? Sounds more like a verdict than rational discussion.

[Moderator]

Ms. Mod and the majority here… The second amendment gives me no right. I have such a right “BY RIGHT.”

A right cannot be legislated. It can only be lost for improper application by one so possessing by murder, violence or threat of violence and so forth.

After much reflection and research, I am reaching the point that so-called “compromise” is becoming little more than “Salami Tactics”[1] utilized by our current administration and special interest groups (like the Brady Campaign) to diminish our rights under the constitution.

[1]Salami tactics, also known as the salami-slice strategy, is a divide and conquer process of threats and alliances used to overcome opposition. With it, an aggressor can influence and eventually dominate a landscape, typically political, piece by piece. In this fashion, the opposition is eliminated "slice by slice" until one realizes (too late) that it's gone in its entirety. In some cases it includes the creation of several factions within the opposing political party and then dismantling that party from the inside, without causing the "sliced" sides to protest. Salami tactics are most likely to succeed when the perpetrators keep their true long-term motives hidden and maintain a posture of cooperativeness and helpfulness while engaged in the intended gradual subversion.

It's all perspective, isn't it? I see the Brady Campaign and other like organizations as defending my views. I see Wayne LaPierre as the voice of the NRA POV diminishing my opportunities for a safe environment in which to live. In spite of the vast amount of research that supports gun control as being the biggest factor in reducing gun violence, those who oppose any limits do not see it and you could make the same claim with your research to support your view. I'm inclined to go along with the President's recent quote, "We don't have to agree on everything to agree it's time to do something."

[Moderator]

Hmmm… So because I only favor one of the "trio of reasonable measures to curb gun violence" proposed by King, I am part of the problem, not the solution? Sounds more like a verdict than rational discussion.

As long as those guns and ammunition are still available for anyone who makes it past or around the other measures, then we still have a problem.

[GNTLGNT]

And that is the way you want to 'rule the world'?? With the power of the majority?

I hate to burst your bubble, but we are not a true democracy. We are a Constitutional republic for the very reason you are describing. ie, the power of the large to roll over the small. It is the reason we have so many checks and balances in our government. And why we have a Bill of Rights, and why Amending those rights are not simply due to a majority in congress...but an overwhelming majority of the states.

However, I would argue that 80 million gun owners is not exactly 'small'

Now maybe you are simply stating it in regards to here...at this forum. And that is quite alright. I did not exactly think I would be welcomed with open arms. But I am a vocal person. I speak my mind. So I made the decision to come here and state my viewpoint.

...no, to be quite honest...if I were Ruler of the World, people would smelt pelt at 50 paces to decide thir differences...and you are entitled to share your opinion, but not besmirch another member...

[Todash]

Yes. There are limitations. And we already have them. And they should all fall into the exact quote you use at the end. The old, "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose"

Am I asking for the right to shoot anyone anywhere? Of course not. We have laws against murder.

My right to OWN an item however and use it lawfully to defend myself does not effect 'your nose' at all, unless you are the one coming at me to hurt me and I am using a firearm to defend myself. And in that case, you are the one swinging a fist, and I am defending myself.

So laws against murder are a sufficient protection against being murdered? Because we have laws against home invasion, burglary, rape, assault, and so on too. By your logic, those laws should be sufficient to protect us all, and therefore you don't need a gun. See how silly that sounds?

Laws against murder do nothing to prevent murder. They only punish the offenders. Sadly, the victim is an eternal one.

Regardless, I am not talking only about the right to not be killed. I'm talking about the INALIENABLE rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Because our country is so much more dangerous than other comparable countries, and because guns make it so as evidenced by available data, my right to a reasonable level of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is arguably unnecessarily infringed upon by this country's very poorly controlled access to guns.

Every resident of the United States has the right to have a reasonable expectation that they are not living in the most homicidal affluent country in the world. That right is currently being infringed upon.

[jay1799]

Because exzel and jay1799, I do not believe that anyone except the military should have ever had those types of weapons. I do not believe in the slightest that taking away those weapons is against your civil rights as you are still allowed to have guns to defend yourself. I further believe that the proliferation of these weapons and the easy access to obtaining them is a major contributing factor and a self-fulfilling prophecy for the fear-based thinking and paranoia that has also become prevalent in our society. By owning and promoting ownership of these types of weapons you, just as much as criminals, are creating a situation that is endangering the general population by escalating the alleged "need" for them. You are not the solution, you are a part of the problem and by refusing to accept that until something is done to reduce the amount and types of weapons and ammunition that can so easily massacre large numbers of innocent victims and by continuing to make them accessible to the general public, you are indeed violating my civil rights and the general welfare of the country to expect a safe and secure environment in which to live. In spite of my personal convictions against guns, I would support your right to own certain ones but not the ones being discussed for future bans as I see it as a slippery slope to escalating to even more dangerous ones.

And I see your way of thinking as a slippery slope for the removal of all private firearm ownership. Now, of course, that maybe just what you want.

But then, as is often is said, the only people that will have guns, will be the bad guys. Defensive uses of firearms are estimated to be around 600,000-1 million per year. Some say it is higher, some say it is lower. But this is a median number. Disarmament will lead to 1 million more victims of crime(homicide and other crime) every year. A policy of disarmament victimizes Americans far more than them owning semi automatic rifles.

Take a look at Chicago for a good example of how disarmament of the civilian population goes. It has gotten so bad, that the police force is no longer even responding in person to 'minor' crimes....per policy.

They are living in basically a lawless society, and the people have basically no way to defend themselves because of out of control 'gun controls'

As far as civilians never have been being allowed to own them....what guns are you referring to? A civilian AR15 or a military M16? There is a pretty big difference.

An AR15 is nothing more than a magazine fed semi automatic rifle. There are literally hundreds of models of this type of firearm. Literally with tens of millions in civilians hands. And considering their very infrequent use in crime or homicide(as stated, a blunt instrument kills more people per year than a magazine fed semi automatic rifle), then statistically...magazine fed semi automatic firearms are one of the safest instruments to defend oneself with available today. Heck, more people die every year from hands and feet than by a semi automatic rifle...or ANY rifle for that matter. Should we cut off peoples hands and feet as well? /rollseyes

Notes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/12/20/heres-the-chart-that-supporters-of-a-federal-assault-weapons-ban-wont-want-to-see/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324761004578286413095565762.html

[Moderator]

What conveniently gets ignored when opponents of gun control cite the statistics about Chicago and other areas with stricter gun controls is the fact that although they have strict gun laws, surrounding areas do not and they can be legally purchased elsewhere and then brought into Chicago, etc. Which confirms my argument that as long as they are legally available anywhere, proponents of unrestricted gun rights are part of the problem by not doing more to prevent access to them.

[~Ally~]

And I see your way of thinking as a slippery slope for the removal of all private firearm ownership. Now, of course, that maybe just what you want.

Stop trying to put words in other peoples mouths! If that is what she wanted then she would bloody well come out and say so. She has been more than clear/concise in stating her opinion so where your above suggestion came from I have no idea, but it's not appreciated. One question, since I really can't be bothered to go back through the thread and check...have you read SK's essay?

[jay1799]

It's all perspective, isn't it? I see the Brady Campaign and other like organizations as defending my views. I see Wayne LaPierre as the voice of the NRA POV diminishing my opportunities for a safe environment in which to live. In spite of the vast amount of research that supports gun control as being the biggest factor in reducing gun violence, those who oppose any limits do not see it and you could make the same claim with your research to support your view. I'm inclined to go along with the President's recent quote, "We don't have to agree on everything to agree it's time to do something."

BOTH are simply adding to the political discourse on this issue. Both are political lobbying organizations.

Whether you agree with one sides views or not, both are the exact same thing, and neither are 'unbiased'.

As far as 'gun control' being the biggest factor in reducing gun violence....please cite these statistics.

Gun violence is no different than any violence. The causes of violence are socioeconomic factors. The tool that someone used to commit a violent act is not the cause of the violent act. Until those wanting 'gun control' realize this, they will always be 'gun grabbers' and not 'violence solvers'

If you want to lower violence....any violence, you need to actually deal with the underlying issues that actually cause violence,

ie,
Gang Activity
The Drug War
Lack of Education
Lack of job opportunities
Crime
Lack of stable family units
Lack of mental health treatments

Work on those problems if you want to actually 'lower violence' in this country. I know that is harder. And it is why it is easier for a politican to stand in front of a poster board full of guns and say 'she is tough on violence and crime' because she wants to outlaw a bunch of firearms. But she is actually contributing to the problem of crime, thus increasing violence, by disarming citizens.

[jay1799]

but not besmirch another member...

And when did I do that? Pat? Maybe you should be looking at him instead of me when you are saying someone is 'besmirching another membet'

Or do I not count as a member in your eyes, because I am new?

[exzel]

And what often gets conveniently ignored in regards to the high murder rate in Chicago, is the fact that we don’t discuss that in part -- Chicago’s high murder rate could be attributed to law-abiding citizens not allowed to carry guns and defend themselves. Or that if ownership of a majority of firearms were made illegal, guns would just be smuggled into the country in much greater numbers to fill the demand of criminals -- just like drugs which are illegal?

[hossenpepper]

Now, speaking to the latest reincarnation of OPMM, GL, etc. etc., your "thread" long ago called for this, but I have been off my game as of late.

Today, I shall eat a burrito for lunch. Not just any normal burrito, but a delicious Taco Bus jumbo burrito. I tell ya folks, these things are amazing. They are truly authentic Mexican. The Bus is becoming famous here in good old Pinellas County, Florida. Now, it is normally a downtown St. Pete thing only, but I made a call and got them to come near me due to the large number of businesses and industrial parks in a concentrated area. They posted flyers around on folks' cars last week saying they are coming today, and NO ONE is more excited than me!! I tell ya what, I am tickled pink and green if ever I was.

Now this may seem off topic, but you see when the thinly veiled attempt to "debate", wrapped in the illogical and dismissive-to-reality blanket of the neocon mind, rares its fugly head in the middle of more salient thinkers, it is simply time in that thread to

BURRITOTIZE IT!! :y:

Now I got my bone to pick with you Mod and Jordan. I asked nicely for a burrito and/or possum themed emoticon from the smiley list, but NADA!!!! Help a guy out here, OK?? But back to the nonsense tripe spewing from the "rite" ( I use that spelling to denote the faith based version of "logic" espoused in right wing views [and purported to be opinion, not some form of pseudo-religious canon] such as " I gots my rights from the (G)god(s), not some damn guv'ment" or whatever nonsense my favorite remaining, yet not new, neocon was blathering on about earlier)... have a burrito!! After all, logic dictates that if you're chewing on a big fat burrito, it is almost impossible for you to speak more silliness. Let the deliciousness of it permeate you and settle your ire. Burritos have this power...

Besides, a debate isn't what you want. It's simply to let us all know how silly WE are and show us mercy and rain pity upon us; the genesis of which lies in golden cities of lore from whence thee came. Magical bergs these, bereft of any divergence; paved only with the flagstones of the truly learned and intellectual. Such micro-cephalics as the typical SKMBer to which you refer, could never dare dream to understand the vast complexities of your advanced thoughts and ways. To the uninitiated as us, we are too simple to see the depth inherent. Rather only interpreting such pontifications as paranoia. Oh, how wrong thy words have collectively proved us to be.

As such, burritos for all. And to all, a gassy night. :wink2:

[jay1799]

So laws against murder are a sufficient protection against being murdered? Because we have laws against home invasion, burglary, rape, assault, and so on too. By your logic, those laws should be sufficient to protect us all, and therefore you don't need a gun. See how silly that sounds?

Laws against murder do nothing to prevent murder. They only punish the offenders. Sadly, the victim is an eternal one.

Regardless, I am not talking only about the right to not be killed. I'm talking about the INALIENABLE rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Because our country is so much more dangerous than other comparable countries, and because guns make it so as evidenced by available data, my right to a reasonable level of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is arguably unnecessarily infringed upon by this country's very poorly controlled access to guns.

Every resident of the United States has the right to have a reasonable expectation that they are not living in the most homicidal affluent country in the world. That right is currently being infringed upon.


And laws against legal gun owners owning a gun.....somehow will reduce crime? Somehow stop criminals from obtaining a gun? Somehow stop murder?

All this does is take away guns from good people, not bad people. You are restricting the way good people defend themselves, their families and their loved ones. Thus, it is creating different victims, and removing the choice of someone on the best way to defend themselves and their loved ones.

[Sepia and Dust]

Ms. Mod and the majority here… The second amendment gives me no right. I have such a right “BY RIGHT.”

A right cannot be legislated. It can only be lost for improper application by one so possessing by murder, violence or threat of violence and so forth.

You have no natural right to own a firearm, any more than a deer has a natural right to shoot back at hunters. You have the natural right to defend yourself if attacked--as does the deer--but not to any particular bit of technology. Your right to have firearms was granted by the Second with the current restrictions to that right affirmed by the lawful courts.

[Moderator]

And laws against legal gun owners owning a gun.....somehow will reduce crime? Somehow stop criminals from obtaining a gun? Somehow stop murder?

All this does is take away guns from good people, not bad people. You are restricting the way good people defend themselves, their families and their loved ones. Thus, it is creating different victims, and removing the choice of someone on the best way to defend themselves and their loved ones.

No, it will not guarantee that crimes with guns will not be committed and people killed. Any more than people who have guns to defend themselves are guaranteeing that they will not be killed either by a criminal or just as likely, by accidentally being shot by themselves or someone else in their household. At what point, though, do you say this weapon is all I need? I couldn't do it with a simple handgun, I needed a semi-automatic and I had to make sure that I had a LOT of ammunition that could be rapidly fired because I'm not a good enough shot to take down the intruder, but that might not be enough either, so I'm going to need something even more powerful. At what point does this escalation stop? Keep making those guns and ammunition legal, keep giving gun manufacturers the incentive to produce them because they are making a whole lot of money doing it, and you're sure to prove your point instead of trying to do something constructive to stop the cycle.

[Todash]

Ms. Mod and the majority here... The second amendment gives me no right. I have such a right "BY RIGHT." You have no natural right to own a firearm, any more than a deer has a natural right to shoot back at hunters. You have the natural right to defend yourself if attacked--as does the deer--but not to any particular bit of technology. Your right to have firearms was granted by the Second with the current restrictions to that right affirmed by the lawful courts.

Sepia and Dust is correct. You have no, nada, zip, zero "natural right" to own a gun. There are indeed natural rights, such as the right to defend yourself. That falls under the umbrella of the natural, or inalienable, rights, upon which the United States was founded: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[Sepia and Dust]

No, it will not guarantee that crimes with guns will not be committed and people killed. Any more than people who have guns to defend themselves are guaranteeing that they will not be killed either by a criminal or just as likely, by accidentally being shot by themselves or someone else in their household. At what point, though, do you say this weapon is all I need? I couldn't do it with a simple handgun, I needed a semi-automatic and I had to make sure that I had a LOT of ammunition that could be rapidly fired because I'm not a good enough shot to take down the intruder, but that might not be enough either, so I'm going to need something even more powerful. At what point does this escalation stop? Keep making the those guns and ammunition legal, keep giving gun manufacturers the incentive to produce them because they are making a whole lot of money doing it, and you're sure to prove your point instead of trying to do something constructive to stop the cycle.

What does it really matter? If the fellow is going to shoot somebody, he will do it with any of those guns you mentioned. If he's not going to, then he could have the biggest gun in the state and nobody would ever get shot with it.

Now... my question is what happens to all the guns that got upgraded to bigger, badder models. Does he keep them or sell them cheaply to vendors and pawnshops?

[PatInTheHat]

And when did I do that? Pat? Maybe you should be looking at him instead of me when you are saying someone is 'besmirching another membet'

Or do I not count as a member in your eyes, because I am new?

*SN:laugh:RT*
I haven't even begun to besmirch, hell this is barely early dinner table fare 'round here (you most likely couldn't handle a late supper:oops:), but oh if you were only blood family, I mean then you could probably really tell:biggrin2:.
I actually really am quite the sweety, Sweety:love:...yeah well:rolleyes:.

[hossenpepper]

Burrito? Burrito anyone? On my way to hit the Taco Bus if anyone wants in...

Miss Mod... burrito and/or possum emoticon?? Pleeeeeaassssseeee...:oo:

[exzel]

You have no natural right to own a firearm, any more than a deer has a natural right to shoot back at hunters. You have the natural right to defend yourself if attacked--as does the deer--but not to any particular bit of technology. Your right to have firearms was granted by the Second with the current restrictions to that right affirmed by the lawful courts.

The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. These limitations serve to protect the natural rights of liberty and property. They guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

Am I missing something here?

[Moderator]

What does it really matter? If the fellow is going to shoot somebody, he will do it with any of those guns you mentioned. If he's not going to, then he could have the biggest gun in the state and nobody would ever get shot with it.

Now... my question is what happens to all the guns that got upgraded to bigger, badder models. Does he keep them or sell them cheaply to vendors and pawnshops?

Make the gun manufacturers buy them back and then recycle the parts or sell them intact only to military and law enforcement? :dunno:

[Sepia and Dust]

Make the gun manufacturers buy them back and then recycle the parts or sell them intact only to military and law enforcement? :dunno:

I was thinking something along those lines, as well, but wasn't sure about the logistics. Don't they make battery manufacturers buy back used battery cores?

[Out of Order]

Burrito? Burrito anyone? On my way to hit the Taco Bus if anyone wants in...

Miss Mod... burrito and/or possum emoticon?? Pleeeeeaassssseeee...:oo:

It's almost lunch time for me.............:y:

[Todash]

Miss Mod... burrito and/or possum emoticon?? Pleeeeeaassssseeee...:oo:

I don't think you're quite ready for that level of responsibility.

[Sundrop]

I may be straying from the original intent of this thread but I don't know where else to post this, and I wanted to share an observation.

When ever Steve's personal beliefs outrage the rabid right I get this little surge of angry people selling their Stephen King books to the store where I work. Sometimes, but rarely we get absolutely beautiful, highly desirable, nearly complete collections of his work. (Obviously I work in a used bookstore).
In a greedy ba$tard kind of way I am THRILLED when Steve makes with the home truths, because after the angry surge comes the hungry influx of 3 times as many people who want to buy his books, either for the first time or to start reading his stories again.

Another aside and as a matter of fact, I hooked a fella up with a full set of The Dark Tower paperbacks Monday. He said he had forgotten how good his books were until he heard some "clown" at work talking ****e about King's personal beliefs.
He told me he started the stories several years back and thought it was high time he finished them. He said he wanted the whole set because he wanted to start the whole journey all over from the beginning. I was happy to help him do that.
Ka being a wheel at work here, it's a beautiful thing.

I hear ya!
And I have a list of needful books. If you can help a gal out, I'd be most appreciative ♥

[GNTLGNT]

And when did I do that? Pat? Maybe you should be looking at him instead of me when you are saying someone is 'besmirching another membet'

Or do I not count as a member in your eyes, because I am new?

...oh please, I woulda "smirched" you old or new, coz you just need smirchin'....

[Sundrop]

I kinda sorta don't mind when you "smirch"...... ♥

[exzel]

I hear ya!
And I have a list of needful books. If you can help a gal out, I'd be most appreciative ♥

I’ve got lots and lots of used paperbacks that I give away to people in order to turn them on to the writings of SK. I would be glad to help a gal out if you want (and you aren’t averse to accepting gifts from the devil that is :devil:)

[Sepia and Dust]

The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. These limitations serve to protect the natural rights of liberty and property. They guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

Am I missing something here?

The Bill of Rights serves to protect the citizenry from the government. Some were derived from natural rights, others were placed specifically to contravene then-current European practices, while others were added to maintain an empowered and informed society.

Freedom of expression is a natural right; freedom from quartering soldiers is an example of then-current practices; and freedom of the press is a way to ensure an informed society. The right to bear arms is an example of creating an empowered society.


Personally, I use the Raccoon Rule to determine which rights are Natural Rights--if you tease a wild raccoon and it bites you, nobody will blame the raccoon. It has the natural right to be free from your molestations, and it's your own damn fault if it chews off your finger.

They also have the right to assemble (but not in my garbage cans), to express themselves (anger, hunger, fear, whatever), and to not be exposed to cruel or unusual punishment (torture), making these things Natural Rights. They do not have rights to a free press, rights to use any particular technology, or rights to prevent soldiers from camping out in their woods, so these would not be Natural Rights.

I ain't touching Freedom of Religion.

[Sundrop]

I’ve got lots and lots of used paperbacks that I give away to people in order to turn them on to the writings of SK. I would be glad to help a gal out if you want (and you aren’t averse to accepting gifts from the devil that is :devil:)


Thanks for the offer!....I'll never turn down a gift of SK
I've made deals with the devil before.....got the red hair to prove it....LOL ♥

[jay1799]

Now this may seem off topic, but you see when the thinly veiled attempt to "debate", wrapped in the illogical and dismissive-to-reality blanket of the neocon mind, rares its fugly head in the middle of more salient thinkers, it is simply time in that thread to


I will ignore your splendid writing on a meat and bean filled flour tortilla, however this part caught my attention.

A Neocon? You think I am a Neocon, because I support the 2nd Amendment?

Do you know what a Neocon is?

Well, let me tell you a bit about me, since you are obviously fond of labeling people without knowing anything about them.

I am a non-interventionist. I was firmly against the Iraq war, and still am.
I am pro-military, but not a super large military. Our military should be used for our self-defense, and not a club to hold over foreign powers who may disagree with us.
I am Pro choice.
I am Pro gay marriage
I am pro the legalization of drugs.
I am pro individual choice.
I am pro the free market.

I am pro The Bill of Rights
I am pro The US Constitution.

If I had to label myself something, I would call myself a libertarian. But I prefer to call myself an individual.

However, the reason I am soooo pro The Bill of Rights and The Constitution, is because it is the only law of this land. It is the contract 'The People' have with its government. And it is our job to ensure that the government adheres to that contract. We....are the watchers and the judge of our government, because we are also the ones that grant them the job of administering our nation.

So no. I am very far removed from a neocon. But nice try.

[Amphiaraus]

The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. These limitations serve to protect the natural rights of liberty and property. They guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

Am I missing something here?

Yes. You've opted to confuse natural rights and positive rights. The Bill of Rights and Constituition confer positive rights, not natural rights. Positive rights are those rights conferred or guaranteed by a particular legal statute or system. As Sepia and Dust correctly pointed out ages ago, you have no more natural rights to own a gun than a deer has natural rights protecting it from being shot by a hunter.

But, of course, this acknowledgement kinda undermines the whole point of 'The Second Amendment is a Sacred Right' argument that more than a few keep tossing around as part of the iterative logic they pointlessly end up defending.

[exzel]

The Bill of Rights serves to protect the citizenry from the government. Some were derived from natural rights, others were placed specifically to contravene then-current European practices, while others were added to maintain an empowered and informed society.

Freedom of expression is a natural right; freedom from quartering soldiers is an example of then-current practices; and freedom of the press is a way to ensure an informed society. The right to bear arms is an example of creating an empowered society.


Personally, I use the Raccoon Rule to determine which rights are Natural Rights--if you tease a wild raccoon and it bites you, nobody will blame the raccoon. It has the natural right to be free from your molestations, and it's your own damn fault if it chews off your finger.

They also have the right to assemble (but not in my garbage cans), to express themselves (anger, hunger, fear, whatever), and to not be exposed to cruel or unusual punishment (torture), making these things Natural Rights. They do not have rights to a free press, rights to use any particular technology, or rights to prevent soldiers from camping out in their woods, so these would not be Natural Rights.

I ain't touching Freedom of Religion.

So are you saying I should ignore the wisdom of the Founding Fathers and use the Raccoon Rule as a measure of our Constitution? Wow, I’ve been bitten by the first amendment but never by the second. And by that logic and reasoning, I guess I might have to argue to voluntarily give up ones guns, and legislate against allowing such works as Rage to be published.

[exzel]

Thanks for the offer!....I'll never turn down a gift of SK
I've made deals with the devil before.....got the red hair to prove it....LOL ♥

LOL, then just PM me a list of your needful things. And I take it you won't mind too much if a couple of the paperbacks aren't in the absolute best of condition (all the brimstone down here is kinda rough on them :wink2:).

[Sepia and Dust]

So are you saying I should ignore the wisdom of the Founding Fathers and use the Raccoon Rule as a measure of our Constitution? Wow, I’ve been bitten by the first amendment but never by the second. And by that logic and reasoning, I guess I might have to argue to voluntarily give up ones guns, and legislate against allowing such works as Rage to be published.

I'm sure that your neighborhood has an adult program for reading comprehension.

[jay1799]

The Bill of Rights serves to protect the citizenry from the government. Some were derived from natural rights, others were placed specifically to contravene then-current European practices, while others were added to maintain an empowered and informed society.

Freedom of expression is a natural right; freedom from quartering soldiers is an example of then-current practices; and freedom of the press is a way to ensure an informed society. The right to bear arms is an example of creating an empowered society.


Personally, I use the Raccoon Rule to determine which rights are Natural Rights--if you tease a wild raccoon and it bites you, nobody will blame the raccoon. It has the natural right to be free from your molestations, and it's your own damn fault if it chews off your finger.

They also have the right to assemble (but not in my garbage cans), to express themselves (anger, hunger, fear, whatever), and to not be exposed to cruel or unusual punishment (torture), making these things Natural Rights. They do not have rights to a free press, rights to use any particular technology, or rights to prevent soldiers from camping out in their woods, so these would not be Natural Rights.

I ain't touching Freedom of Religion.

One thing many should understand is that the idea of 'armed self defense' being a natural right of humans was not created out of thin air back in 1789.

It was enshrined in writing as early as the Magna Carta back in 1215. And it was further enshrined in English common law, as well as the later English Bill of Rights.

However, the right of armed self defense is as old as humanity itself, since the first time someone picked up a sharpened stick to fend off an attack from another.

However, speaking directly from the standpoint of the American 2nd Amendment, much of its basis comes from William Blackstone's thoughts on Natural Laws, as well John Locke. Both theorized that the right of self-defense is a natural individual right.

It is more of a philosophical discussion than a legal one however. Bottom line, Armed self defense is the law of the land in this country. You can disagree with it personally, but that doesnt change the fact that it is the law.

[hossenpepper]

LOL... OK, Mr. 1799, a distinction without a difference. Par for the course. You spew right wing rhetoric regarding this topic. But OK, you like cigarettes and liquor, too. Funny how you supporting something you espouse such a difference from, yet speak in absolutes about what it means exactly to give the money to the Brady Foundation. Your viewpoints are above speculation and since they are so SPESHUL, isn't supporting something vile with your opinion. Double standard much? And for the record, you obviously do not understand what a neoconservative is. They are pure constructionists who do not believe in any but literal translations of the Constitution and the B.o.R. In regards to your assumptive BS way of expressing your "opinion", dismissiveness of any but your logic and staunch and steadfast absolute expressions towards the 2nd Amendment, you are (at least in terms of this subject), by a very clear and colorful match, a neocon.
And he sinks it from downtown... (imagine a crowd going wild)

By the way, the burrito was magical. And since you still don't get the point, that burrito made more sense, was of more use and overall meant more to the universe than your collective meanderings in this "thread". Hence BURRITOTIZATION!!!

Man it must be cool to be you and get to read a response from me. You're so lucky!! :tongue: **


**The previous comments were in no way meant to be snarky. Any resemblance to or perceived appearance of, snarkiness, is purely unintentional and coincidental.

[Sepia and Dust]

One thing many should understand is that the idea of 'armed self defense' being a natural right of humans was not created out of thin air back in 1789.

Self defense is, of course, a natural right. There is no natural right to owning any particular sort of weapon, though. I stand by my assertion that the right to keep and bear arms was included as a way to empower the citizenry.

Consider:

With a gun, if someone tries to harm me, I can defend myself and my family.

With a gun, if my region is invaded by a foreign force, I can help hold the fort until the military arrives.

With a gun, should the government refuse to stand for election, then I cannot fight off the US military. But I can assassinate a despot at 200 yards.

All three of these things were on the founders' minds when they drafted our Constitution. Each of these were a threat to the fledgeling nation, and citizen empowerment was their solution. Now, the last two aren't likely to happen within my lifetime, granted, but the right needs to be preserved for future need.

[Sepia and Dust]

**The previous comments were in no way meant to be snarky. Any resemblance to or perceived appearance of, snarkiness, is purely unintentional and coincidental.

Careful there, you're approching the burrito horizon. Make sure you don't fall into the salsalarity.

[hossenpepper]

You have one set of simple rights as a living creature on Earth. It is also the only responsibility you have. As Morgan Freeman put it in the movie "Lean on Me"...

"..all I gotta do is stay black and die..."

Anything, and I mean anything beyond the right to die is a PRIVILEGE. You may want to banty rooster about that simple fact, but make no mistake, the universe owes you not one thing. The only thing you are 100% assured to receive is death. All other "natural rights" are not rights, but rather needs you have, to exist as the type of living creature you are. Bears do not need guns, or swords or any type of food they want. They survive on what they are lucky enough to have pass their paths and are damn happy to do so. This is exactly why I characterize neocon thinking as "faith based". After all, the unfailing belief that you, as a human, are much more important than any other living creature in the universe and therefore your philosophy is above suspect, is the cornerstone of any faith based line of thought. Only after you disconnect faith from opinion can you even begin to see the fallibility of the very nature of this supposition in the first place.

Can I, a small minded feeb who "doesn't get it", begin to surmise the thoughts of such a complex thinker as you who feel this way, across the "series of tubes" that is the Internet? Oh yes, and quite easily. For you see, you wouldn't begin to even think you had any right to anything as a natural law of the universe if you didn't have an ingrained feeling of entitlement as "the dominant species". For bathing in those waters is EXACTLY where your entire thought process comes from if that is how you think in the first place.

So what are "rights" as we know them to be? Simple, not one single "right" you have, even to life itself, is ensured without some form of group security around you. What we humans call a society. Even hermit-dom relies on some form of societal support at some point. In other words, the structure of society is what allows your mind to justify, on a visceral level, the idea that you have a right to shelter, or food or anything besides, again, death. But let's qualify that... death isn't a right either. It is simply an inevitability, ensured by entropy of your cells and telomeres. So even death isn't a right, it is a state that will occur with 100% assurance. Simply put, what you call a "right" and see as a natural state of existence when it arises as you pass through time, is simply a need identified as increasing the perceived quality of that time. And these needs of import, elevated to a near religious status, become seen as a natural occurrence, bestowed upon each by the universe or God or whatever. Yet ask a dog about this, or a falcon, or a sea snail. They neither perceive or have any use for your "rights". Do we recognize theirs (animals) as we destroy them as a species, their required habitat, or eat one on a bun, slathered with ketchup? Of course not... we are the dominant species and have a right to DOMINION over them correct? Hmmm, yet another religiously rooted tome.

So rights, as we call them, are all rooted in the first societal protective group... religions. But what is society now? How does it protect its constituency? The universe reaches down and makes sure you are safe? That you have the guns you want? And can say what you want? Deserve a fair trial? No my friends, that is done by the collective agreement body that represents the greater society and its interests... the evil government. So rights, whether seen as some natural state or entitlement, are high-browed versions of desires we all have to whatever style of life you choose to lead. And these rights are both defined and secured by the government itself. If you think this is not true, then can you imagine why all societies as they advanced past a cave full of shivering primitives chose without fail, across all of human history, to form some form of governing body that defined and protected its society's rights and interests?

Let me answer for you: there is no other answer. Because we all recognize that if you get dropped in the jungle, surrounded by hungry animals, your rights mean jacksh!t to them. You can however, die. Because THAT is NATURAL.

This is why I say to you misguided right wing, libertarian or whatever other subtle version of the same thing you are calling yourself, folks to GET OVER YOURSELF. Separate faith from your opinion and this becomes clear. Don't and all you will ever do is argue against this and walk away declaring "that guy doesn't get it." Sorry to tell you but you don't get it as long as you think you or humans are anything special in the scheme of things beyond our own little worlds.

Rights are "natural" nonsense... owned. :biggrin2:

[jay1799]

Self defense is, of course, a natural right. There is no natural right to owning any particular sort of weapon, though. I stand by my assertion that the right to keep and bear arms was included as a way to empower the citizenry.

Consider:

With a gun, if someone tries to harm me, I can defend myself and my family.

With a gun, if my region is invaded by a foreign force, I can help hold the fort until the military arrives.

With a gun, should the government refuse to stand for election, then I cannot fight off the US military. But I can assassinate a despot at 200 yards.

All three of these things were on the founders' minds when they drafted our Constitution. Each of these were a threat to the fledgeling nation, and citizen empowerment was their solution. Now, the last two aren't likely to happen within my lifetime, granted, but the right needs to be preserved for future need.

Absolutely....they had more in mind than simple self-defense when they enshrined that the right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. Most certainly one of their biggest fears was tyrannical rule as well as defense of the state. They did not want a huge standing military for that very reason as well.

I would also add to the list that the 2nd Amendment was put in as a check on governments power. As an armed populace is the power. Disarm the populace, and the power shifts over to the government. The founders wanted us armed to the teeth.

[Lily Sawyer]

And for the record, you obviously do not understand what a neoconservative is. They are pure constructionists who do not believe in any but literal translations of the Constitution and the B.o.R. In regards to your assumptive BS way of expressing your "opinion", dismissiveness of any but your logic and staunch and steadfast absolute expressions towards the 2nd Amendment, you are (at least in terms of this subject), by a very clear and colorful match, a neocon.

Right Lite: (n) -The smaller, less-informed sub-group of the Republican party in the United States. Dependent on Faux News and Rush Limbaugh as its primary news sources, with alternative information culled from organizations such as the American Enterprise Institute, The Heritage Foundation, and Focus On the Family. Derives many principles from Randian theory and objectivist economics; most believers tend to be poorly-educated American conservatives willing to challenge dissenters without thorough understanding or education in either the topic of controversy or references supporting their argument(s).

[Sepia and Dust]

I would also add to the list that the 2nd Amendment was put in as a check on governments power. As an armed populace is the power. Disarm the populace, and the power shifts over to the government. The founders wanted us armed to the teeth.

I dunno. I think that an informed and empowered population is sufficient. More of our corrupt leaders have been removed by ballots than by bullets. Just as many, I think, have resigned simply because of political or societal pressure. The gun is the option of absolute last resort.

[Lily Sawyer]

[America's] founders wanted us armed to the teeth.

Really? Can you support that statement with documentation other than a general reference to the Second Amendment? I don't recall a portion thereof referring to the U.S. citizenry being "armed to the teeth", only a general reference to bearing arms: "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." (from http://constitutionus.com/#x2)

[Sepia and Dust]

You have one set of simple rights as a living creature on Earth. It is also the only responsibility you have. As Morgan Freeman put it in the movie "Lean on Me"...

"..all I gotta do is stay black and die..."


Sir, please step away from the Ayn Rand, and keep your hands where I can see them!

[exzel]

Really? Can you support that statement with documentation other than a general reference to the Second Amendment? I don't recall a portion thereof referring to the U.S. citizenry being "armed to the teeth", only a general reference to bearing arms: "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." (from http://constitutionus.com/#x2)

I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8

[kingricefan]

Self defense is, of course, a natural right. There is no natural right to owning any particular sort of weapon, though. I stand by my assertion that the right to keep and bear arms was included as a way to empower the citizenry.

Consider:

With a gun, if someone tries to harm me, I can defend myself and my family.

With a gun, if my region is invaded by a foreign force, I can help hold the fort until the military arrives.

With a gun, should the government refuse to stand for election, then I cannot fight off the US military. But I can assassinate a despot at 200 yards.

All three of these things were on the founders' minds when they drafted our Constitution. Each of these were a threat to the fledgeling nation, and citizen empowerment was their solution. Now, the last two aren't likely to happen within my lifetime, granted, but the right needs to be preserved for future need.

Yes, 'all three of these things were on the founders minds when they drafted our Constitution', but one thing that wasn't on their minds and hadn't even been produced yet was the rapid fire assault rifles and mega-clips of ammo- which is what needs to be banned. I think the Constitution would've been worded quite differently if these weapons were around back then. We don't want to take away your other firearms, get it? As Ms Mod stated many posts ago- why should the 'rights' of some people who own these types of weapons infringe on the 'rights' of the many who DO NOT WANT THESE WEAPONS AVAILABLE? I want to live in a society where I don't have to constantly be worrying about some nutcase coming into a movie theater where I or someone I love is watching a movie and open fire on a bunch of innocent folks or going into a school and killing innocent children who have their whole lives ahead of them. Everyday it's on the news. EVERYDAY! It has to STOP! Democracy rules here as does the majority and the majority of folk don't want these weapons anymore. Period.

[hossenpepper]

And as a PS to ,y "natural rights" post, specifically in regards to the founders... Name one that said we DIDN'T need a government. That fundamental truth was the one and only thing upon which they ALL agreed. They recognized that all things that defined the society would be defined in the laws and structure of thr government which created the "country" in the first place. For if it was a "natural state of things, all governments, societies and religions would be the same. Short of a singularity of truth being shouted and demanded by the universe around us, all of your precious "rights" and especially your opinions are simply man made, and therefore not interwoven into the fabric of the universe from which you sprang forth.

OK, now I am done.

Tonight I will eat pork chops and revel in the fact that I don't do it because I have a right to eat, but rather that I like the taste of pig and was able to vicariously outsmart it and eat it before it ate me.

[~Ally~]

I’ve got lots and lots of used paperbacks that I give away to people in order to turn them on to the writings of SK. I would be glad to help a gal out if you want (and you aren’t averse to accepting gifts from the devil that is :devil:)
Zel you are not the devil. Everybody knows she's female and she's *ahem*... me! :tongue: Seriously, though, you are one of the nicest people I've had the pleasure to converse with here. Sure your opinions may seem a bit whackadoodle at times--and you can say the same about us--but I respect that you believe in them enough to defend them. You've proven to me in the past you're a damn good man so stop trying to steal my :devil: from me...it's mine! :glare: :love: ya Zel.

[hossenpepper]

Sir, please step away from the Ayn Rand, and keep your hands where I can see them!

Oh I reject Rand fully. Her supposition derived from this truth is illogical at best. I simply meant to say that there are no "rights" except those defined by the collective of the society, expressed and ensured by its government. This in no way implies that one can bulldoze their way through life. In fact quite the opposite as there are NO RIGHTS, including the one to be a greedy a$$hole. It implies that all should humble themselves and be glad they are alive to debate if you have "rights" and no one is special or exceptional.

We are all meatbags sucking wind until we don't anymore. But that doesn't mean it's time for a hedonistic greedfest for those that can wriggle their way into a position to do so. The belief in individual exceptionalism is the opposite of what I described, and is the cornerstone of Rand's ideas that some should be privileged and others should beg to help them be so. The rejection of religious bases for human's rights may be common to Rand's thinking and my description, but I can assure you I am the opposite of that self indulgent nutjob.

[GNTLGNT]

I kinda sorta don't mind when you "smirch"...... ♥

...I've been a bit crankier than usual of late...just tired of people poopin' on Steve and others, and then gettin' all huffy and out of sorts when I call em on it....but we'll smirch again soon luv...:wink2:

[Sepia and Dust]

Oh I reject Rand fully... I can assure you I am the opposite of that self indulgent nutjob.

Well said.

[Sepia and Dust]

As Ms Mod stated many posts ago- why should the 'rights' of some people who own these types of weapons infringe on the 'rights' of the many who DO NOT WANT THESE WEAPONS AVAILABLE?

...

Democracy rules here as does the majority and the majority of folk don't want these weapons anymore. Period.

That's not really the way things work in the US. Besides, the post you quoted was in response to a tangential point unrelated to the proposed semiautomatic ban.

[PatInTheHat]

**The previous comments were in no way meant to be snarky. Any resemblance to or perceived appearance of, snarkiness, is purely unintentional and coincidental.
Okay, so that part was maybe a little disappointing:laugh:..:oo:...PATRICK:glare:!!!...y eah 'k :blush:

[champ1966]

Jim Carrey has put himself in the firing line pun intendedI see

16772

[exzel]

Zel you are not the devil. Everybody knows she's female and she's *ahem*... me! :tongue: Seriously, though, you are one of the nicest people I've had the pleasure to converse with here. Sure your opinions may seem a bit whackadoodle at times--and you can say the same about us--but I respect that you believe in them enough to defend them. You've proven to me in the past you're a damn good man so stop trying to steal my :devil: from me...it's mine! :glare: :love: ya Zel.

Hey, don’t go pissin’ on my perceived persona (sorry for murdering alliteration)

And seriously… You the devil? (That’s like saying Ms. Mod has always been George W Bush’s biggest fan)

Sorry my dear, but that statement will cost you five “Our Father’s” and four “Hail Mary’s.” The kindness in your heart is legendary here. :love:

[Lily Sawyer]

I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8

Zel, none of these state that a citizen needs to be "armed to the teeth".
Patrick Henry would be sadly disappointed if I had to give him an answer to his question "are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?"
My answer would be "it's my opinion that no one outside law enforcement can truly be trusted with a gun of any sort."

It's no secret I'd push the Red Button on Todash's remote to repeal the Second Amendment.

[Moderator]

(That’s like saying Ms. Mod has always been George W Bush’s biggest fan)

Not unless you want a serious mouth washing. :glare: I've heard Dove has a particularly creamy texture leaving your tongue silky smooth. :smile2:

[Todash]

Tonight I will eat pork chops and revel in the fact that I don't do it because I have a right to eat, but rather that I like the taste of pig and was able to vicariously outsmart it and eat it before it ate me.

Many a farmer has thought that too, then discovered to their fatal detriment that they did not actually have the upper hand. Mind yer back, is all I'm saying. Mind yer back.

[Moderator]

And your baby back, salt back, fat back....

[hossenpepper]

...I've been a bit crankier than usual of late...just tired of people poopin' on Steve and others, and then gettin' all huffy and out of sorts when I call em on it...

And you are an avid gun supporter and have civilly expressed your disagreement with some of Steve's thoughts. But, the difference is that you did so as a mature adult, weighing in to spark deeper discussion. This is because you recognize that almost everything in life requires a compromise in the end, thus requiring a debate that opens thoughts that you and the other side may not have realized. The constant conspiracy crap gets old. The "I am gonna quit reading SK on some esoteric principle" does too.

I love Steve's writing, of course, and see it as much more than the brutal honesty of it most focus upon, but to use his type of genre to make a moral stand is kind of twisted if you think about it. It's like a priest nixing the writings of Paul of Tarsus because he feels Paul was too much of an a$$hole.

[exzel]

Zel, none of these state that a citizen needs to be "armed to the teeth".
Patrick Henry would be sadly disappointed if I had to give him an answer to his question "are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?"
My answer would be "it's my opinion that no one outside law enforcement can truly be trusted with a gun of any sort."

It's no secret I'd push the Red Button on Todash's remote to repeal the Second Amendment.

After reading the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, I guess my interpretation is somewhat different than yours.

And Lily, that’s what’s great about our country... we can express vastly different opinions and ideologies, and still be respectable, friendly and supportive. Keep fighting the good fight! We need people like you to keep us “whackadoodles” in check at times. :laugh:

(And be careful about pushing Todash’s buttons… you never know what to expect.) :wink2:

[Out of Order]

And your baby back, salt back, fat back....

Now you're just hamming it up..........

[champ1966]

And your baby back, salt back, fat back....

Oh Marsha you made me think of this awesome song :grinning:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xu-gYm0yRi4

[Lily Sawyer]

-Did someone say "baby back"?

I'm going to jones for barbecue all day long now.

(Thank you for your time and attention to this momentary thread hijack. As you were.)

[exzel]

Not unless you want a serious mouth washing. :glare: I've heard Dove has a particularly creamy texture leaving your tongue silky smooth. :smile2:

LOL... I spent 8 years in Catholic school... Catholic “Old” school. Dove would be rather refreshing after the nasty soap the nuns used on me.

[Todash]

(And be careful about pushing Todash's buttons... you never know what to expect.) :wink2:Ha! That's totally unfair. :biggrin2: In some ways I am remarkably consistent and predictable.

[jay1799]

I dunno. I think that an informed and empowered population is sufficient. More of our corrupt leaders have been removed by ballots than by bullets. Just as many, I think, have resigned simply because of political or societal pressure. The gun is the option of absolute last resort.

Most definitely the gun is a last resort. But our founders most certainly recognized the importance of maintaining the power in the peoples hands.

If one reads things such as the federalist papers and writings by our founders, it is quite apparent that 2A was meant as a check on our government, just as they wrote other checks and balances into our Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights does not grant one power to the government. They are all rights enshrined to the people, to keep our government in check and to oversee them.

Look at it this way. The only branch of government that has any oversight over the government is the legislative branch per The Constitution. They are the ones that can call up articles of impeachment(against ANY member of government in ANY branch...even their own). They are our first 'check' on government abuse of power. They are basically our elected watchdogs, police, and Jury. And it is no mistake that they are the ones most closely connected to 'The People'. The House represents the people on a per person basis. Then the Senate that represents each state on a state basis would be the one trying any impeachment case.

Now, after that...if the muck in Washington has gotten so great that 'the watchers' are not doing their job, we have the press and its associated freedoms. They are supposed to watch over government and tell The People if anything is wrong. Which goes down to the next right.

Our right to free speech, assembly, protest, and petition. This would be the next rung on the ladder. This is when we stand up and scream and yell and tell our government they are not doing their job and they better fix it or they are going to be voted out at the ballot box.

And then finally...yes, we come to the 2nd Amendment. And keeping the power in the peoples hands. This is your 'last resort' and I agree it is a last resort against tyranny, but the founders most definitely wanted us armed to the teeth for just such a situation. I mean, just look at the language they used and see which they thought most important. The first amendment states "congress shall make no law" vs 2A "shall not be infringed". To anyone with a grasp of the English Language, it should be clear that they most definitely wanted no government interference in our ability to be armed.

Just because 2A is our last resort is no reason to remove it.

Nor, does it mean that it was not meant as an additional check on the government, by keeping the power in the peoples hands.

[jay1799]

Yes, 'all three of these things were on the founders minds when they drafted our Constitution', but one thing that wasn't on their minds and hadn't even been produced yet was the rapid fire assault rifles and mega-clips of ammo- which is what needs to be banned. I think the Constitution would've been worded quite differently if these weapons were around back then. We don't want to take away your other firearms, get it? As Ms Mod stated many posts ago- why should the 'rights' of some people who own these types of weapons infringe on the 'rights' of the many who DO NOT WANT THESE WEAPONS AVAILABLE? I want to live in a society where I don't have to constantly be worrying about some nutcase coming into a movie theater where I or someone I love is watching a movie and open fire on a bunch of innocent folks or going into a school and killing innocent children who have their whole lives ahead of them. Everyday it's on the news. EVERYDAY! It has to STOP! Democracy rules here as does the majority and the majority of folk don't want these weapons anymore. Period.


Really?

They had freaking cannons. You dont think those were your 'so called assault weapons' of their day?

There was also the nock gun that fired 7 rounds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nock_gun

The Girandoni rifle had a magazine that could hold 20 rounds, and fire a lead ball with as much force as a modern .45 acp. This gun was actually brought on the Lewis and Clarke expeditions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle

And do you really believe that the founding fathers were so dumb that they did not recognize that firearm technology would change? Come on.

And no. Your rights are not infringed by me owning an AR15 with a 30 round clip. Not one bit. Not one iota.

As far as not wanting to go to a movie theater where some wacko is going to shoot up the place, I dont want that either. Who does?? But banning an inanimate object is not going to make you safer in anyway. Did NFA of the 1930's stop gansters from getting their hands on full automatic weapons?? Of course not!!

If you want to make the world safer from violence, work on fixing the actual causes of violence in society, not on the tool that someone chooses to use to commit an act of violence.

However, I will say this. On a per capita basis, your chances of being shot in a mass shooting are about as likely as being struck by lightning. Do you live in fear of being struck by lightning? Are you demanding that laws be put into place to prevent someone from opening up an umbrella while walking close to you in the rain ? http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund

The left likes to say that the gun industry is driven by fear. I hate to break the news to you, but the left pushes fear to institute gun control whenever they speak. Bottom line, your chances of being shot in this country are very low. Even more so if you are not a gang member living in a high crime urban area.

Additionally, historically, mass shootings are not on the rise. So anytime you hear Handgun Control Inc(the old name of Brady) say that they are, know that they are lying and are simply trying to instill fear in society to meet their goals and agenda of disarming the populace.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund

[PatInTheHat]

Most definitely the gun is a last resort. But our founders most certainly recognized the importance of maintaining the power in the peoples hands.

If one reads things such as the federalist papers and writings by our founders, it is quite apparent that 2A was meant as a check on our government, just as they wrote other checks and balances into our Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights does not grant one power to the government. They are all rights enshrined to the people, to keep our government in check and to oversee them.

Look at it this way. The only branch of government that has any oversight over the government is the legislative branch per The Constitution. They are the ones that can call up articles of impeachment(against ANY member of government in ANY branch...even their own). They are our first 'check' on government abuse of power. They are basically our elected watchdogs, police, and Jury. And it is no mistake that they are the ones most closely connected to 'The People'. The House represents the people on a per person basis. Then the Senate that represents each state on a state basis would be the one trying any impeachment case.

Now, after that...if the muck in Washington has gotten so great that 'the watchers' are not doing their job, we have the press and its associated freedoms. They are supposed to watch over government and tell The People if anything is wrong. Which goes down to the next right.

Our right to free speech, assembly, protest, and petition. This would be the next rung on the ladder. This is when we stand up and scream and yell and tell our government they are not doing their job and they better fix it or they are going to be voted out at the ballot box.

And then finally...yes, we come to the 2nd Amendment. And keeping the power in the peoples hands. This is your 'last resort' and I agree it is a last resort against tyranny, but the founders most definitely wanted us armed to the teeth for just such a situation. I mean, just look at the language they used and see which they thought most important. The first amendment states "congress shall make no law" vs 2A "shall not be infringed". To anyone with a grasp of the English Language, it should be clear that they most definitely wanted no government interference in our ability to be armed.

Just because 2A is our last resort is no reason to remove it.

Nor, does it mean that it was not meant as an additional check on the government, by keeping the power in the peoples hands.

Oh hey Black & Decker, I see your still keepin' up the drill:love:.
$Cha$Ch$ing$, yep, there goes another one..one hundred or so that is..good job, your quite the pistol:y:!

[hossenpepper]

However, I will say this. On a per capita basis, your chances of being shot in a mass shooting are about as likely as being struck by lightning. Do you live in fear of being struck by lightning?

Hmmm.... interesting point. See it is interesting to me because I live in Florida, where we have the most lightning strikes of any place in the world. You hear of people getting struck and killed here quite often, actually. So yes, if there is lightning, you don't go outside, especially near the beach. There is a good chance you will be struck because there is so much lightning.

:eyebrow:

Hmmm... so could that infer that when there is MORE of something, MORE events/stuff will happen involving that thing?

:dunno:

Well, it stands to reason if you're reasonable. If not, then perhaps logic isn't for you.

[jay1799]

Hmmm.... interesting point. See it is interesting to me because I live in Florida, where we have the most lightning strikes of any place in the world. You hear of people getting struck and killed here quite often, actually. So yes, if there is lightning, you don't go outside, especially near the beach. There is a good chance you will be struck because there is so much lightning.

:eyebrow:

Hmmm... so could that infer that when there is MORE of something, MORE events/stuff will happen involving that thing?

:dunno:

Well, it stands to reason if you're reasonable. If not, then perhaps logic isn't for you.

I just so happen to live in Florida as well.

And no. I dont live in fear of lightning. I think it would be unreasonable to live in fear of something that happens so infrequently.

But the question was not if you run outside swinging a golf club in a lightning storm, the question is whether you are demanding that the government passes a law that someone else cant even own a gulf club!

[Moderator]

When the number of deaths caused by golf clubs reaches the same level as those caused by guns, you might have an argument. How many mass murders have occurred in the past year with a golf club being used as the weapon? Hardly apples to apples wouldn't you say?

[jay1799]

When the number of deaths caused by golf clubs reaches the same level as those caused by guns, you might have an argument. How many mass murders have occurred in the past year with a golf club being used as the weapon? Hardly apples to apples wouldn't you say?

So is your concern murder or unintended deaths? And is your concern simply murder by gun...or all murders? Or just mass shootings where people used 'large capacity magazines' and 'assault weapons'??

I am confused. Because I thought you said the 'plan' is not to take all guns off the street, but just so called 'assault weapons and large capacity magazines'? But those that are killed by a rifle(any rifle), not just those done in mass shootings are actually less than those killed with blunt instruments per year.

So, if your goal is to just 'ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines' to reduce murder, you would actually be better off banning 'golf clubs' since murder by blunt object is higher than murder by 'assault rifle' per year. That is, assuming your thought process, that the item someone uses to commit a violent act is the cause of the violence.

Now, if your goal was to lower the overall murder rate by firearm, you would be much better off banning handguns. ALL handguns. Because the number that are murdered by handguns far far far outweighs the number killed by 'rifles'. By the thousands. In fact, it is the overwhelming majority. Again, assuming your thought process, that the item someone uses to commit a violent act is the cause of the violence.

So, if you really want to lower 'murder by firearm' why dont you ban all handguns instead of assault rifles that are used in a very small number of homicides every year?

But heck, if your goal is to lower the unintended death rate in this country, you should probably be asking our government to ban forks, as over 300,000 people die every year due to complications associated with obesity. That is...again, if the fork caused the person to eat too much...just like the gun caused a murder?

If your goal is to just lower 'mass shootings', I would say than that you really dont care about our overall murder rate in this country. As mass shootings are a very very small fraction of crimes. But, it has been proven before that 'assault weapon bans and magazine capacities' dont stop mass shootings. Remember, Columbine happened during the Clinton ban. Heck, Virginia tech, the guy did not use an 'assault weapon'. And mass shooting or killings are not a 'new' phenomenon that has only come about since the introduction of the AR15. The earliest mass shooting in the US? 1764. 1 teacher and 10 students dead. http://news.discovery.com/history/mass-shootings-history-121220.htm

Sadly, you will never prevent mass killings or even mass shootings. The best way to deal with the problem is to expand mental health access. I mean, look at all these guys that did these things. They are clearly off their rocker. I wouldn't want them to have access to a tank of propane, a motor vehicle, a gas can, a knife, an axe, or even a golf club...let alone a firearm. So go after the loonies and leave my civil rights alone.

[Moderator]

I was saying that your logic was flawed.

[hossenpepper]

I just so happen to live in Florida as well.

Good then you know about the lightning issue already. And I will agree it occurs way less here than gun violence. :wink2:


And no. I dont live in fear of lightning. I think it would be unreasonable to live in fear of something that happens so infrequently.

Sigh... You're nothing if not consistent with not thinking things all the way through before you speak. Most everything is relatively infrequent to the total entropy of the planet. But since we are talking about intentional acts, maybe this logic doesn't apply. That still doesn't explain the fear mongering about the evil guv'ment you have displayed here. That happens far LESS in the history of the human race than either gun violence or lightning strikes deaths, yet here you are, all afraid of the slippery slope these liberal scum are creating and making your life oh so much less free and enjoyable. Paranoid much. Which that is the most paralyzing fear there is. It drips from your posts.


But the question was not if you run outside swinging a golf club in a lightning storm, the question is whether you are demanding that the government passes a law that someone else cant even own a gulf club!

Wow it's like your perception is one of those juicer machines. I put in an orange and got avocado juice back. That isn't even close to what my "question" was. And I didn't ask a non-rhetorical question. I have asked nothing in regards to your posts that in any way did not already contain the answer. These questions aren't for me. I already understand this and how wrong your entire line of thought is. Those are for you.

If there was a "question" posed, it was quite simple: Do you think if there are more salmon there will be more salmon activity? How about meteors? How about marshmallows? Taylor Swift songs? And finally, *gasp* guns? <-- OH NOZ!!!

Complex idea I know, but just press your temples very hard and grunt and you will get it. Although sometimes when I do, I get the wind something terrible. Especially after a couple of burritos.

[hossenpepper]

I was saying that your logic was flawed.

But, but, but... that implies there was some... :tongue:

[jay1799]

I was saying that your logic was flawed.
How so? That asking my government to ban golf clubs to stop people running out in a lightning storm with them would stop people getting hit by lightning?

If so. I agree. That kind of logic is deeeeeply flawed. But it ain't my logic.

[PatInTheHat]

But the question was not if you run outside swinging a golf club in a lightning storm, the question is whether you are demanding that the government passes a law that someone else cant even own a gulf club!

Wow, now that right there is whatcha call some outstandingly & most ignorantly said bullsh!t, even for you, Snap-On...big time congrats on your almost original originality:love:...'golf clubs' HA!*SN:rofl:RT!*HA! good, eh, fair one!
FORE!!!

[Moderator]

How so? That asking my government to ban golf clubs to stop people running out in a lightning storm with them would stop people getting hit by lightning?

If so. I agree. That kind of logic is deeeeeply flawed. But it ain't my logic.

Seriously? Seriously? I really need to explain it? Because if that actually made sense to you, then I don't think any amount of my trying to explain it will suffice.

[hossenpepper]

The best way to deal with the problem is to expand mental health access. I mean, look at all these guys that did these things. They are clearly off their rocker. I wouldn't want them to have access to a tank of propane, a motor vehicle, a gas can, a knife, an axe, or even a golf club...let alone a firearm.

YES!!!! See you can make a salient point!!! This is a very valid discussion and really the true root of the problem. The unfortunate thing about this for your opinion is that it destroys it. Our history of enthusiasm for guns, wars, ethnic cleansing, slavery, violence , etc., is why we have these types of problems. But make no mistake, the ability to quickly make things dead via various explosive things, the primary one being guns, is a HUGE and ORIGINAL contributor to overall psyche of the aggressive American alpha type.

So kudos, kiddo! Good topical discussion point surrounding the real issue here.

But then you had to go and ruin it with this nonsense...


So go after the loonies and leave my civil rights alone.

:down:

[hossenpepper]

Seriously? Seriously? I really need to explain it? Because if that actually made sense to you, then I don't think any amount of my trying to explain it will suffice.

:rofl:

MM, you crack me the hell up!! I am literally LOLing to the point my coworker had to come see what was wrong. It's probably because I can actually visualize the look on your face while typing this out.

[Moderator]

:biggrin2:

[jay1799]

Good then you know about the lightning issue already. And I will agree it occurs way less here than gun violence. :wink2:

Sure. But I dont live in fear of it. /shrug



Sigh... You're nothing if not consistent with not thinking things all the way through before you speak. Most everything is relatively infrequent to the total entropy of the planet. But since we are talking about intentional acts, maybe this logic doesn't apply. That still doesn't explain the fear mongering about the evil guv'ment you have displayed here. That happens far LESS in the history of the human race than either gun violence or lightning strikes deaths, yet here you are, all afraid of the slippery slope these liberal scum are creating and making your life oh so much less free and enjoyable. Paranoid much. Which that is the most paralyzing fear there is. It drips from your posts.


Reallly?

Anyone know what the leading cause on non-natural death was in the 20th century?


War?

Nope

It was Democide is a term revived and redefined by the political scientist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_scientist) R. J. Rummel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._J._Rummel) as "the murder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder) of any person or people by a government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government), including genocide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide), politicide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicide) and mass murder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_murder)

In the 20th century, democide passed war as the leading cause of non-natural death

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide



Wow it's like your perception is one of those juicer machines. I put in an orange and got avocado juice back. That isn't even close to what my "question" was. And I didn't ask a non-rhetorical question. I have asked nothing in regards to your posts that in any way did not already contain the answer. These questions aren't for me. I already understand this and how wrong your entire line of thought is. Those are for you.

Oh Okay. You havent been able to back up anything that I can see. I have. With historical evidence and statistics.




If there was a "question" posed, it was quite simple: Do you think if there are more salmon there will be more salmon activity? How about meteors? How about marshmallows? Taylor Swift songs? And finally, *gasp* guns? <-- OH NOZ!!!

Complex idea I know, but just press your temples very hard and grunt and you will get it. Although sometimes when I do, I get the wind something terrible. Especially after a couple of burritos.
I believe more guns = less crime. And the statistics back it up. And with less crime, there is less murder. The statistics back that up as well. No time today to detail it all, but I will if you disbelieve it.

[kingricefan]

Really?

They had freaking cannons. You dont think those were your 'so called assault weapons' of their day?

There was also the nock gun that fired 7 rounds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nock_gun

The Girandoni rifle had a magazine that could hold 20 rounds, and fire a lead ball with as much force as a modern .45 acp. This gun was actually brought on the Lewis and Clarke expeditions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle

And do you really believe that the founding fathers were so dumb that they did not recognize that firearm technology would change? Come on.

And no. Your rights are not infringed by me owning an AR15 with a 30 round clip. Not one bit. Not one iota.

As far as not wanting to go to a movie theater where some wacko is going to shoot up the place, I dont want that either. Who does?? But banning an inanimate object is not going to make you safer in anyway. Did NFA of the 1930's stop gansters from getting their hands on full automatic weapons?? Of course not!!

If you want to make the world safer from violence, work on fixing the actual causes of violence in society, not on the tool that someone chooses to use to commit an act of violence.

However, I will say this. On a per capita basis, your chances of being shot in a mass shooting are about as likely as being struck by lightning. Do you live in fear of being struck by lightning? Are you demanding that laws be put into place to prevent someone from opening up an umbrella while walking close to you in the rain ? http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund

The left likes to say that the gun industry is driven by fear. I hate to break the news to you, but the left pushes fear to institute gun control whenever they speak. Bottom line, your chances of being shot in this country are very low. Even more so if you are not a gang member living in a high crime urban area.

Additionally, historically, mass shootings are not on the rise. So anytime you hear Handgun Control Inc(the old name of Brady) say that they are, know that they are lying and are simply trying to instill fear in society to meet their goals and agenda of disarming the populace.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund

Right back atcha: REALLY? Can you show me somewhere in the history of our country that someone took a cannon into a school where little Miss Fanny Mae was teaching her class of 10 or 12 kids from the outlying farms and just blew their butts to h*ll and back? Or how about Miss Fanny Mae just blissfully shopping down at the local 'findings' store, looking at material to make curtains for her one room cabin down by the river and getting blown up? Cannons were used in WAR! They weren't used by nutbags who took them into public areas to use for mass killings. That's a pretty broad example you're trying to use to boost your point. No, I don't live in fear of being struck by lightning. But, being struck by lightning is either an act of God or nature, take your pick. Being shot up by someone with a rapid firing assault weapon is not. So, no I don't live in fear of being shot up in a movie theater, but it IS in the back of mind at times when I am out in public- due to the fact that these types of things keep happeneing. Just like it's in the back of my mind to look up when I hear a low flying jet pass overhead since 9/11/2001. My point is simply that we as a society shouldn't have to have something like this in the back of our minds. It's ridiculous and ludicrous, because the people who own these weapons feel it is their right to have them. So, by your reasoning- since the little kids at the school were not living in a high crime area or weren't gang members they shouldn't have ended up being shot and killed, and yet THEY WERE. Think about that- little innocent kids, at school, not gang members, in a small town in Conneticut, now dead. Why? It sure wasn't from someone bringing a cannon to school, now was it? Seems that the more people that get killed in these types of shootings, the harder that the owners of these types of weapons hold onto their own guns. Just doesn't make sense to me.
Oh, if someone wants to blissfully run up and down the coastal sand with an umbrella in their hand during a rainstorm, then more power to them. They aren't hurting anybody but themselves if they get struck by lightning. They aren't KILLING anyone but themselves. But, if I'm standng next to them and they do it, then I'm going to say something to them, probably call them some choice name, and move away. Can't really do that when someone's got an assault weapon pointed at you, can ya? So, I don't think I will be able to convince you otherwise and you certainly aren't going to convince me that assault weapons are ever going to be par-for-the-course in everyday American life (even tho it seems to be the case that they are now). We can agree to disagree, but don't question my intelligence or my thinking- I never said the founding fathers were 'dumb', just that perhaps they didn't have the foresight to see what is happening today in respect to assault weapons when they wrote one of the most beautiful documents in history, the Constitution. Have a nice day and enjoy your time here.

[Moderator]

I do disbelieve your claim that more guns equals less crime or that there are statistics to back that up that could not be disputed. And, yes, I've seen the statistics that gun violence has gone down as sales have gone up. But the other piece of this is that the number of gun owners has also gone down--it's just that the people who already own guns are buying more of them. And yet you are trying to convince me that there isn't a fear mentality among the more vocal gun rights advocates and that it's something liberals are making up. If the punchline wasn't in such bad taste, it might make for a good joke a la how many _______ does it take to screw in a lightbulb--how many guns does it take to make a gun rights activist feel safe?

I'd also like to point out that you have joined the SKMB with the only reason being to protest your belief that Stephen's full disclosure that his share of the 99 cent purchase price (he doesn't get all 99 cents) of "Guns" will be donated to the Brady Campaign is keeping people (although logic says that would only be those who are opposed to that organization) from debating the topic of gun rights vs. gun control and yet here we are at over 140 posts in this thread alone related to the essay. And if you've still stuck to your gu....errr principles, you haven't any firsthand knowledge of what Steve actually discussed in his essay. He wrote the essay giving his opinions about the issue after having done research, realizing that there would be some who would never read it because they'd already formed an opinion for one reason or the other about his motives or conclusions, but hoping there could still be discussions. I'd say he's accomplished his intention.

[PatInTheHat]

Sure. But I dont live in fear of it. /shrug




Reallly?

Anyone know what the leading cause on non-natural death was in the 20th century?


War?

Nope

It was Democide is a term revived and redefined by the political scientist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_scientist) R. J. Rummel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._J._Rummel) as "the murder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder) of any person or people by a government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government), including genocide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide), politicide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicide) and mass murder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_murder)

In the 20th century, democide passed war as the leading cause of non-natural death

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide


Oh Okay. You havent been able to back up anything that I can see. I have. With historical evidence and statistics.


I believe more guns = less crime. And the statistics back it up. And with less crime, there is less murder. The statistics back that up as well. No time today to detail it all, but I will if you disbelieve it.

Well it sure is wonderful to see ya still around sellin' stupid senseless death like a well programed tool, you da man Stan:unclesam:...:oo:oh my, I'm so terribly sorry, well, I just know how much you get distressed & flustered when I get too familiar, so I beg pardon, you Manly Stanley you:love:

[Todash]

I believe more guns = less crime. And the statistics back it up. And with less crime, there is less murder. The statistics back that up as well. No time today to detail it all, but I will if you disbelieve it.

I suppose it depends on how you define "more crime," but yes, I disbelieve it. Certainly more guns = more gun deaths, including more homicides. The statistics back that up. (I've already detailed it in at least one relevant thread in the debates section of the forum.)

[AnnaMarie]

I do disbelieve your claim that more guns equals less crime or that there are statistics to back that up that could not be disputed

look at countries with less guns (Canada, UK ). Crime rates are not higher. Definitely murder is not higher. Absolutely mass murders are not higher. These things do happen here, but rarely. And a mass shooting here was two dead (more injured).

[jay1799]

-snip for post length-


You are correct. Lightning is an act of nature(or god if you wish). A mass shooting is not(at least in my opinion). It is..an act of one person. Typically a deranged and mentally unstable person. I mean, come on...what normal rational human being goes into a school and blows away little kids? With a gun, with a bomb, with anything!

These acts of mass violence do not represent the tens of millions of Americans that own any type of firearm legally and safely. So why infringe on the civil rights of the very many, when it is the act of the very few that are committing these types of crimes?

If AK47's were waking up on their own in the middle of the night, loading themselves, and going on shooting sprees without a person behind the trigger, I would agree with you. But they are not. It still takes a person behind the firearm to kill. When we went thru the dark times of drunk driving(20-30 years ago), we did not ban beer and cars. We did not limit the amount of beer or booze a person could buy at a time, did we? I can still walk into a liquor store and buy a keg, or 10 kegs. And cases and cases of bottles of booze. What did we do with drunk driving? We worked on the crime, and get this....enforced the law. We have cops out now routinely stopping people that seem drunk. We have PSA's talking about the dangers of drinking and driving. We did not reinstitute prohibition, because prohibition on anything does not work. Nor will a prohibition on guns.

The number one connection these mass shooters have is mental instability. We made it much more difficult to involuntarily commit a person back in the 1970's. Why did we do that? Because it was violating a person's civil rights. These are the types of things that have to be weighed in a free society. But when you start having more and more people with severe mental problems, not have some place to go(either voluntarily or involuntarily) then you have problems when they go 'full tilt'. Other countries in the world make it much easier to involuntarily commit a person(sometimes at the expense of civil rights). Other countries do alot more in keeping those that are really a danger to themselves and others....either under lock and key or supervised or under full time or even partial treatment.

If you want to see where the failure is start by looking at Addington vs Texas and O'Connor vs Donaldson.

And of course, I am all for protecting people with mental illnesses civil rights as well. However, one must realize that with that, comes certain risks to society. Living with risks is an inherent danger in living in a free society.

From the Mcdonald decison......in the words of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito


Municipal respondents maintain that the Second Amendment differs from all of the other provisions of theBill of Rights because it concerns the right to possess a deadly implement and thus has implications for public safety. And they note that there is intense disagreement on the question whether the private possession of guns in the home in-creases or decreases gun deaths and injuries.
The right to keep and bear arms, however, is not the only constitutional right that has controversial public safety implications. All of the constitutional provisions that impose restrictions on law enforcement and on the prosecution of crimes fall into the same category. See, e.g., Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U. S. 586, 591 (2006) (“The exclusionary rule generates ‘substantial social costs,’ United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897, 907 (1984), which sometimes include setting the guilty free and the danger-ous at large”); Barker v. Wingo, 407 U. S. 514, 522 (1972) (reflecting on the serious consequences of dismissal for a speedy trial violation, which means “a defendant who may be guilty of a serious crime will go free”); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 517 (1966) (Harlan, J., dissenting); id., at 542 (White, J., dissenting) (objecting that theCourt’s rule “[i]n some unknown number of cases . . . will return a killer, a rapist or other criminal to the streets . . . to repeat his crime”); Mapp, 367 U. S., at 659. Municipal respondents cite no case in which we have refrained from holding that a provision of the Bill of Rights is binding on the States on the ground that the right at issue has dis-puted public safety implications.

Or, in another's words...


Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

You bring up 9-11. What did we do after 9-11 to 'try to stop' it from happening in the future? We went to war with terrorists. ie, the people committing the heinous. acts. We beefed up security going onto a plane. We armed air marshals and some pilots. We also did some other things...like 'The Patriot Act' which I would argue was not the right thing to do, but that is a different story.

Agree with those actions or not, but what those that think we should ban this or that firearm are really saying....is that after 9-11, we should have banned box cutters. /rollseyes

[hossenpepper]

So, not to be so simplistic in the face of such overwhelming intellect, but 1799, you seem to have a laundry list defending the ownership of the magazines and gun types. Let's, of argument's sake, remove the problem you have with being so oppressed by limiting these things. Let's pretend that you will never need to fight off the guv'ment (though, it is coming any day now). And finally let's admit that those types of guns aren't really for hunting.

Now if you have cleared your mind of these preconceptions and hang-ups you have, think very hard. Now give us ANY reason why these things are necessary. How does it actually diminishes your rights to not be able to have them? I am not interested in the"chip away" argument or any debate on the 2nd Amendment. I am asking why these types of guns/magazines are necessary to the point they require constitutional protection.

I am riveted waiting for your answer.

And PITH, you manx you, keep your shorts on... I know how enticing the Internet can be...

[Moderator]

Not to mention the simplistic understanding of mental health issues. First I want to say that not all mentally ill people will become violent and harm others. The major reason why so many mentally ill people are not receiving help has nothing to do with their being committed. There are many including paranoid schizophrenics who do not have to be institutionalized if they're receiving proper care. It has to do with the erosion of funding for services starting with the Reagan administration. The best way to help these people is by early intervention and continued treatment with oversight by trained professionals such as adult mental health social workers. Why are they not doing that? Take a look at some of the first items that are being cut in state and federal budgets and you'll see it's assistance for these sorts of programs or the rules for who and what is covered are changed so that people no longer qualify for assistance which clears the path for cutting them from the system. And who gets cut when budgets are reduced--it's not usually the managers, it's the people on the front line who actually perform the services. When there is not supervision and one-on-one assistance, these people get into trouble, don't take their meds, and de-comp which puts a strain on other systems like law enforcement, fire departments, and can lead to situations that put others in danger as we've seen. If you want the mentally ill to be less of a threat, then pay attention when budget cuts are being made and don't whine about how much of your tax dollars is being spent on assisting them in programs that have been proven to work. Tell your legislators to reconsider those cuts.

It also does not take into account those who have not yet been diagnosed and until they are would fall through the cracks and could still have access to guns because they would pass a background check. If they had a psychotic break during that time that would lead them to wanting to harm others with a gun, the system would not catch them.

Which still boils down to the access and availability of guns being the common factor in innocent people being killed by mentally ill patients who have become delusional and possibly violent.

[Sepia and Dust]

When there is not supervision and one-on-one assistance, these people get into trouble, don't take their meds, and de-comp which puts a strain on other systems like law enforcement, fire departments, and can lead to situations that put others in danger as we've seen. If you want the mentally ill to be less of a threat, then pay attention when budget cuts are being made and don't whine about how much of your tax dollars is being spent on assisting them in programs that have been proven to work. Tell your legislators to reconsider those cuts.


Once again, amen!




Which still boils down to the access and availability of guns being the common factor in innocent people being killed by mentally ill patients who have become delusional and possibly violent.

I think that the common factor is violent, mentally ill people not getting the treatment they need.

[Todash]

look at countries with less guns (Canada, UK ). Crime rates are not higher. Definitely murder is not higher. Absolutely mass murders are not higher. These things do happen here, but rarely. And a mass shooting here was two dead (more injured).

Yep, those are the stats I have seen. Which makes sense, but of course sometimes things work out differently from how we would expect, which is why statistical analysis and the scientific method are important.

[jay1799]

Not to mention the simplistic understanding of mental health issues. First I want to say that not all mentally ill people will become violent and harm others. The major reason why so many mentally ill people are not receiving help has nothing to do with their being committed. There are many including paranoid schizophrenics who do not have to be institutionalized if they're receiving proper care. It has to do with the erosion of funding for services starting with the Reagan administration. The best way to help these people is by early intervention and continued treatment with oversight by trained professionals such as adult mental health social workers. Why are they not doing that? Take a look at some of the first items that are being cut in state and federal budgets and you'll see it's assistance for these sorts of programs or the rules for who and what is covered are changed so that people no longer qualify for assistance which clears the path for cutting them from the system. And who gets cut when budgets are reduced--it's not usually the managers, it's the people on the front line who actually perform the services. When there is not supervision and one-on-one assistance, these people get into trouble, don't take their meds, and de-comp which puts a strain on other systems like law enforcement, fire departments, and can lead to situations that put others in danger as we've seen. If you want the mentally ill to be less of a threat, then pay attention when budget cuts are being made and don't whine about how much of your tax dollars is being spent on assisting them in programs that have been proven to work. Tell your legislators to reconsider those cuts.

I dont disagree with anything you said here. I was not advocating a 'lets lock up anyone that has a mental disease' approach. That would also be a violation of peoples civil rights. And I like to protect peoples civil rights...all of them.

But, there needs to be alot more done. And one must realize that by protecting the civil rights of the mentally ill, you may end up with some on the extreme side, that maybe should not be out in society...as being out in society.

It is the same thing with out criminal justice system. We try our best to make sure someone is innocent before proven guilty, and that the burden of prrof of someones guilt is on the state...not a burden of innocence from the person. This invariably leads to 'bad guys' not going to jail. But in our society, we recognize that we would rather have more bad guys not go to jail, with the hope that it prevents innocent people from being incarcerated.

Again, it is a trade off of protecting people's civil rights vs the safety of the rest of society.

These are the principles that a free society is based on.




It also does not take into account those who have not yet been diagnosed and until they are would fall through the cracks and could still have access to guns because they would pass a background check. If they had a psychotic break during that time that would lead them to wanting to harm others with a gun, the system would not catch them.
Of course it does not. You can not find someone guilty....for a thought crime. We do not live in the 'Minority Report'.

But, this is where society needs to step up to the plate. Friends and family especially need to notice that someone 'has slipped thru the cracks' and society needs to make sure that there are places where those friends and family can turn to, to get the person help.



Which still boils down to the access and availability of guns being the common factor in innocent people being killed by mentally ill patients who have become delusional and possibly violent.
I think the common denominator is the mentally ill not getting the help that they need. If a felt a family member of mine could not be trusted with a firearm, I would be equally concerned about that person having access to my kitchen knives or my car, or my propane tank, or anything sharp, pointy, or dangerous to himself or others if used improperly. I would not want the person to get near my gas tank for my lawn mower and a pack of matches.

But we as a society....protect the rights of people that do not cause harm. That is the way it always is and always shall be. We go after the bad guys, not the good guys. We do not violate the rights of the many, to stop the few. That is what a free society is based off of, and that is the way it always should be.

[jay1799]

I do disbelieve your claim that more guns equals less crime or that there are statistics to back that up that could not be disputed. And, yes, I've seen the statistics that gun violence has gone down as sales have gone up. But the other piece of this is that the number of gun owners has also gone down--it's just that the people who already own guns are buying more of them. And yet you are trying to convince me that there isn't a fear mentality among the more vocal gun rights advocates and that it's something liberals are making up. If the punchline wasn't in such bad taste, it might make for a good joke a la how many _______ does it take to screw in a lightbulb--how many guns does it take to make a gun rights activist feel safe?

I'd also like to point out that you have joined the SKMB with the only reason being to protest your belief that Stephen's full disclosure that his share of the 99 cent purchase price (he doesn't get all 99 cents) of "Guns" will be donated to the Brady Campaign is keeping people (although logic says that would only be those who are opposed to that organization) from debating the topic of gun rights vs. gun control and yet here we are at over 140 posts in this thread alone related to the essay. And if you've still stuck to your gu....errr principles, you haven't any firsthand knowledge of what Steve actually discussed in his essay. He wrote the essay giving his opinions about the issue after having done research, realizing that there would be some who would never read it because they'd already formed an opinion for one reason or the other about his motives or conclusions, but hoping there could still be discussions. I'd say he's accomplished his intention.

As far as the guns are being bought by the same gun owners. In some cases, that is true. In many more cases, that is simply not true. New gun ownership is on the rise. New members to the NRA is on the rise. I have met so many new gun owners in the past few years. Yes, definitive statistcs on this are difficult to come by(and I like it that way, but that is a different story).

But, a good place to look would be gallup. Their polls are typically some of the most unbiased.


PRINCETON, NJ -- Forty-seven percent of American adults currently report that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property. This is up from 41% a year ago and is the highest Gallup has recorded since 1993, albeit marginally above the 44% and 45% highs seen during that period.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

So, while you may think all the new guns are being bought by the same people, I think that belief would be incorrect. There are many new gun owners out there.

As far as SK accomplishing his goal. I disagree. I have not read the essay, soley because of who he sent the money to. I wanted to read it...but I wont purchase it.

I ask you, would you be so supportive of SK's decision, if he came out and said...all you anti-gun people just need to grow up. Peoples rights are their rights. Stop trying to take their civil rights away. And then donated all the proceeds to the NRA.

While I would certainly agree with those beliefs, I would think SK would have been just as wrong if he did that, while at the same time saying 'he just wanted to open a discussion'

As far as me still being around talking about this? Well, I tried to keep the thread on topic(where the money was going to) but I am a pretty vocal person. Not the type to just write a letter, post it somewhere and then go quietly into the night. That would be cowardice and not really standing behind ones beliefs. In my opinion, if I am going to come here to state my opinion, I may as well back it up and stand behind my opinion when it is being called into question. But again, I am a vocal person. /shrug

[jay1799]

So, not to be so simplistic in the face of such overwhelming intellect, but 1799, you seem to have a laundry list defending the ownership of the magazines and gun types. Let's, of argument's sake, remove the problem you have with being so oppressed by limiting these things. Let's pretend that you will never need to fight off the guv'ment (though, it is coming any day now). And finally let's admit that those types of guns aren't really for hunting.

Now if you have cleared your mind of these preconceptions and hang-ups you have, think very hard. Now give us ANY reason why these things are necessary. How does it actually diminishes your rights to not be able to have them? I am not interested in the"chip away" argument or any debate on the 2nd Amendment. I am asking why these types of guns/magazines are necessary to the point they require constitutional protection.



Well, first off. I have hunted with semi automatic rifles with what you would call 'high capacity magazines'. It is perfectly legal in my state on private land. And even encouraged when hunting feral hog. They are a non native nuisance creature which do a lot of damage to peoples property and crops...as well as can be dangerous to people. So, no. I wont admit that these guns 'arent really for hunting' ...millions of semi automatic rifles are used for hunting and pest control in this country every year.

An AR15 is just one type of semi automatic rifle. Mechanically, it really is no different than a ruger mini 14 ranch rifle or even a ruger 10/22. I dont know if that means anything to you, but to someone that understands firearms...it should.

As far as 'needs'. First, let me say. Be leery with changing the 'Bill of Rights' to the 'Bill of Needs'.

But, from a self defense standpoint? Particularly an AR15 with a standard magazine(to me, a 20 or 30 round magazine is standard) is lightweight, easy to maneuver in tight places, easy to maintain on target for follow up shots, reliable and accurate. What else would someone want in a self defense firearm?

If I was the victim of a home invasion, there is no other firearm I would rather have in my hands. Can you guarantee that I will always be faced with one attacker? What about someone living out in a rural location, where the police maybe 20 minutes or more to get there(not to mention that even in an urban area, the police wont typically get there in time except to put you in a body bag and write up a report).

If you think home invasions never happen, you simply need to look them up. I wish this father of two had an AR15 in his hands when 4 armed thugs broke into his home.
http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/article/260256/250/Family-pleas-for-info-on-home-invasion-murder-

Or how about this fairly famous story. At least it was in Florida. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Byrd_and_Melanie_Billings 7 armed men invaded the home. SEVEN. How many bullets in a gun is enough in your opinion in such a situation?

Ill ask you a question. Say you were at my house, and I had a revolver and an AR15 with a 30 round magazine in my bedroom. And we were sitting there watching a movie when say 4-7 armed men broke in. Which gun would you rather me run to...to protect you in such a situation? My revolver holding 6 shots, or my ar15 holding 30?

[Sepia and Dust]

How many bullets in a gun is enough in your opinion in such a situation?


Generally, just one is sufficient.

[hossenpepper]

And with that folks, I rest my case. Fear, pure and simple. No other real reason. Did anyone else notice that a simple question was asked and a rambling revisit of the same nonsense was given?

If you are much over 21 years old I would be shocked (if you are, I shudder). Your immaturity shows through in your views. That, plus your inability to answer a simple straightforward question with a simple straightforward answer. Most likely because the simple answer is there is no reason to have these things besides " 'cuz " and that certainly doesn't support your incoherent nonsense you try to pass off as some sort of wisdom.

Weren't you here to tell everyone that all things King are off your radar now? Yet you're still here...? Hmmm...

But, please, list some more neocon skewed websites (getting those clicks up hopefully) that list "facts" that happen to be your opinions too!! Golly, how quaint!!

[hossenpepper]

But I will try again.

These arguments are stupid and meaningless and should be removed from the debate entirely:



These are hunting guns. No discussion necessary. If you need more than one shot, you suck at hunting and shooting.
Irrational fears: the government is coming to get you, there are roving bands of home invaders coming for you while you watch Harry Potter and The Hunger Games. The actual real numbers of home invasions are so low, you should fear the lightning strikes here in Florida more. Most invasions that are classified as such occur when no one is home because BURGLARS DON'T LIKE CONFRONTATIONS. So you're down to the very rare rapist and even more rare kill for pleasure death squads. The shootings you hear of here are more "stand your ground" crap used to justify some questionable shooting over actual self defense, in the home, by random selection.
The 2nd Amendment is being chipped away in a huge conspiracy. Why? So we will stop attacking the police daily, hungering for justice for the little guy? Man this argument is just dumb and in no way reflects the simple reality that f the US COULD get the citizen soldiers to turn their guns on their families and friends, I don't give flying f@ck how many guns you got, ace, your a$$ is toast!
This time I also reject any answer that includes "Because I want to have them". That doesn't justify jacksh!t. Your selfish take on what "rights" are was kinda disgusting and made me gag a little. It's just embarrassing that we tell the world how great we are and here, where others from around it can see people like you being so gluttonous with the sacrifices many races and people made so the US could be here, just so you can satiate your desires to hear something go "boom" real loud and shout out "yee haw" after.


So again, since you couldn't do it the first time, and instead went on another rant trying to argue why you can't let go of those points, try to answer this simple question: Why (not factoring in anything listed above) do you need these guns/ammo clips, etc.?

[not_nadine]

jeeze

[Patricia A]

What is it about 20 dead babies, riddled with bullet holes that is so hard to understand? The time has come to stop arguing and start changing the way we care about each other. Seriously.

[PatInTheHat]

But, from a self defense standpoint? Particularly an AR15 with a standard magazine(to me, a 20 or 30 round magazine is standard) is lightweight, easy to maneuver in tight places, easy to maintain on target for follow up shots, reliable and accurate. What else would someone want in a self defense firearm?


http://community.secondlife.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/52827iAB293A03C4895B6E/image-size/large/is-moderation-mode/true?v=mpbl-1&px=600
OoooOoooooo pick me pick me, I know I know I know...
http://www.twncommunications.net/Forum/public_html/yabbfiles/Smilies/Guns-Gatling.gif

And to make it even betterer, let's make 'em cheap and mass produce the ever livin' snot out of 'em, and by golly god damn let's make sure it's easy as pie, or a shot in the eye:oo:, for almost anybody who's a mentally vacant profit driven predator kinda azzzzzhole, to just go out and buy a pick up truck load of 'em if they want to on, and a whim, then "import" 'em to our more domestic war zones for fun & profit, fun fun fun for not so much whole families anymore maybe, butt bidness is bidness *Cha$Ching*!!!
Be kinda like havin' a domestic cottage industrial complex of modern day gun runnin', and right here in our very own backyards, well okay, and schools and stuff:umm:..oh right, we already are, hell where's my mind that's Fear Mongering Economics 101 for Pistol Pete's sake, and holy smokin' barrels just how freakin' kewl has that been, huh, Mac:y:?

[Todash]

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. ~Benjamin Franklin
This would make more sense when applied to a liberty that isn't supposedly *about* safety.

"Why do you need unrestricted firepower?"
"To keep us safe from criminals and tyranny."
"But statistics clearly show that high rates of gun ownership correlate positively with high rates of gun death, so they're not keeping us safe."
"'Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.'"
" ..."

Tweet from Joe Hill earlier tonight, quoting journalist David Frum: "As more go armed, the more that those as yet unarmed feel compelled to arm themselves too. The technical term for this: barbarism."

[GNTLGNT]

But I will try again.

...Hoss, as the legendary Foghorn Leghorn would say...

“That, I say that boy’s just like a tatoo, gets under your skin”

[PatInTheHat]

"As more go armed, the more that those as yet unarmed feel compelled to arm themselves too. The technical term for this: barbarism."

And the N.itwit R.ifle A.ss'ociation seems to already be out in force with that Br'er FOX like oh so clever marketing they be more & more infamously infamous for...
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTz1p5AfE_X5nA0wfR-mdQ96kmk4IbHAAy8duVD759YpQCyBMB2
Yeah the kiddies should freakin' :love: it, that wacky N.R.A. certainly seems to nose how to picka winner:y:...but alass, and yet once again, it'snot:n:.

[AnnaMarie]

These are hunting guns. No discussion necessary. If you need more than one shot, you suck at hunting and shooting.
Irrational fears: the government is coming to get you,


1. REAL men hunt with a bow.
1. REAL hunters are hunting for meat/fur etc. It's best not to masticate the animal in the process.

2. It always shocks me when me people so fearful of the government post about their rights to "bear arms" to defend themselves against their government. I think it's an excuse. People that paranoid of their government KNOW the government is tracking them on the Internet. So the people who TRULY believe that wouldn't be posting it.

[jay1799]

And with that folks, I rest my case. Fear, pure and simple. No other real reason. Did anyone else notice that a simple question was asked and a rambling revisit of the same nonsense was given?

If you are much over 21 years old I would be shocked (if you are, I shudder). Your immaturity shows through in your views. That, plus your inability to answer a simple straightforward question with a simple straightforward answer. Most likely because the simple answer is there is no reason to have these things besides " 'cuz " and that certainly doesn't support your incoherent nonsense you try to pass off as some sort of wisdom.

Weren't you here to tell everyone that all things King are off your radar now? Yet you're still here...? Hmmm...

But, please, list some more neocon skewed websites (getting those clicks up hopefully) that list "facts" that happen to be your opinions too!! Golly, how quaint!!

BWAHAHA. Are you sure your not a paid internet shill for Bloomberg? I mean, this is actually funny.

Your whole argument basically boils down to. "No...no...no....you are wrong, because I say so. Oh, and you are nothing more than an immature gun loving NEOCON." It does make me laugh at your constant use of the term neocon now. It shows me you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about, and like to use words that you think most people dont understand hoping that you sound smart. You may fool the kiddies swimming around, but the adults in the pool see right thru it.


As far as rambling, I figured on a website for an author that writes books that go on and on for a thousand pages, and where he can take 200 pages to setup a character background...that my post would not have been deemed to difficult or rambling to understand. But here, let me make it more simple for you. I hope your level of reading comprehension is high enough to understand it.

Hunting.

It is a Right.

Self Defense.


Was that short enough for you or did it stretch your brain cells too far. As far as 'neocon' websites, you are actually calling a local news station and wikipedia...neocon websites? Wow. Maybe the kiddies in the pool are not even fooled anymore.

[jay1799]

What is it about 20 dead babies, riddled with bullet holes that is so hard to understand? The time has come to stop arguing and start changing the way we care about each other. Seriously.
I agree.

The time has come.

It is about time we fix our sad and lacking mental Heath systems in this country. It is a despicable that people don't want to fix and underlying cause of violence in our society, that is so evident by this shooting.

We should also look at beefing up security. Heck, the folks at newtown now realize that. They made the decision to add armed resource officers at their schools finally. Maybe it is about time the rest of the nation gets on board. It's not like it is a new thought. Roughly a third to 50% of schools in this country already do it. Isn't it about time the rest of the country decides to protect our most precious resources? What kind of person would be against security at our schools?
http://www.countytimes.com/articles/2013/02/01/news/doc510bbacf65d00443529729.txt

[Todash]

What is it about 20 dead babies, riddled with bullet holes that is so hard to understand? The time has come to stop arguing and start changing the way we care about each other. Seriously.
Understanding is not the problem. Caring is.

[jay1799]

[/LIST]

1. REAL men hunt with a bow.
1. REAL hunters are hunting for meat/fur etc. It's best not to masticate the animal in the process

Wild feral hog are pests. Disagree with it if you want, but the damage to people's property and crops is real.

However, to prove this point would probably require a thread all to its own. And some here may call it 'rambling' /rollseyes

[Sepia and Dust]

...

Jay, you present some very good arguments in most of your posts--arguments that others may disagree with, but still, they're good arguments. But--again, in most of your posts--you sabotage yourself by presenting the indefensible. Golf clubs and lighting? Thirty-round clips? Cannons?

Really?

I'd stick to what can be legitimately defended, and leave out the hyperbole and outlandish analogies.

[GNTLGNT]

1. REAL men hunt with a bow.
1. REAL hunters are hunting for meat/fur etc. It's best not to masticate the animal in the process.

...well, first off-I prefer to masticate mine after they've been bagged, secondly-depending on where the "Real" man hits it with the broadhead, it can still pulverize certain anatomical "delicacies", thus spoiling the meat...and third, do not presume to declare me less than a man because when I hunt I use a shotgun, handgun or rifle AND respect the areas and environment where I stalk...each "discipline" including bow, crossbow and muzzle-loader has it's own special skill levels, but just because I use a bullet rather than a razor tipped projectile, doe NOT diminish my manhood, thank you...

[exzel]

It always shocks me when me people so fearful of the government post about their rights to "bear arms" to defend themselves against their government. I think it's an excuse.

Hmmm… What if George W. Bush had promised to create a “civilian national security force” as big and as strong at the Defense Department, claiming “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” Then having his Department of Homeland Security, not the Defense Department, start to stock firearms and ammo. And look to purchase up to 7,000 “select fire” true “assault weapons,” capable of semi-automatic and automatic fire, equipped with high-capacity 30-round magazines… claiming they are “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.” And stockpiling 2 billion of rounds of ammunition (mostly hollow points nonetheless), capable of killing every US citizen 6 times over. By Homeland Security… not the Defense Department. And then not allowing the people to know what the budget is for all of this because Congress had stopped passing budgets when he took office. Also, under his leadership, Congress passing a bill that removes the concept of habeas corpus (essentially enacting legislation that authorizes the president to have American citizens arrested and indefinitely detained without charge or trial.)

But George W Bush didn’t do that… so, no worries, eh?

But wouldn’t this kind of thing, if it actually happened :wink2:, possibly be something the founding fathers might have been concerned with when they put the second amendment into the Bill of Rights?

[jay1799]

Jay, you present some very good arguments in most of your posts--arguments that others may disagree with, but still, they're good arguments. But--again, in most of your posts--you sabotage yourself by presenting the indefensible. Golf clubs and lighting? Thirty-round clips? Cannons?

Really?

I'd stick to what can be legitimately defended, and leave out the hyperbole and outlandish analogies.


As far as 30 round magazines. I think they are perfectly defensible, from many sides.

I dont see why someone else should be telling me what the best way is to defend myself, my family and my property. That is it. Bottom line. I am not telling anyone else they have to own them. Just dont tell me I cant to defend myself with one. It should make no difference to anyone else how I defend myself. The only ones that should care are those that want to do me harm. And those are the bad guys.

And where does it stop? You say 30 today is too much. Then it is 20. Then it is 10. Then it is seven.(this is the new law in NY, which I am hoping gets shot down in the lower courts or by SCOTUS eventually) Where does it stop? When we are all using double barreled shotguns again(that is what Joe Biden thinks) It is simply a way to keep limiting firearms until they can limit them into non existence. You either believe 2A is a right, with all the protections a right comes with...or you dont think it is a right. I believe it is a right, and I will defend the right for anyone that is not a criminal nor mentally insane..to own such a device. Heck, it is a piece of metal or plastic. They can even be made in someones home if they own a 3D printer....or a criminals home if they own a 3d printer. A ban on them is not going to stop the criminals from having them. Just the good guys.

Heck, many of the most common handguns(which again, are fully backed by SCOTUS) use magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Most modern semi automatic handguns hold between 12-20 rounds in their mag. That is for a handgun. A rifle? That is quite different.

I will agree with everything you said, except that 30 round magazines are somehow indefensible. The rest was me just going with the flow of the thread. ie, where it took me. Although, I thought the golf clubs and lightning was funny. As it showed how silly it is to ban something. And it simply came up as a comparison to how often mass shootings occur. Spreading fear of mass shootings would be like spreading fear of lightning strikes. However, it is not something I normally would argue. It is not like I am operating off a script here(although I am sure some believe I am). I am simply responding to things in the thread and seeing where it goes. /shrug

But thanks for at least being pretty open minded in the discussion.

[hossenpepper]

...Hoss, as the legendary Foghorn Leghorn would say...

“That, I say that boy’s just like a tatoo, gets under your skin”

Damn you Giant, you made laugh. I was trying not to flinch here...

[Sepia and Dust]

As far as 30 round magazines.

Just another gun nut. No point in talking to you.

[hossenpepper]

I agree.

The time has come.

It is about time we fix our sad and lacking mental Heath systems in this country. It is a despicable that people don't want to fix and underlying cause of violence in our society, that is so evident by this shooting.


Cool you think that. I assume you are very supportive of "Obamacare" then? The new emphasis on mental health has shown in my new insurance which has no limits and is $0 copay for services. I am not sure if it can fix a smarmy little kid like you that hasn't the faintest clue of which he speaks, yet continues to dig his own holes.



We should also look at beefing up security. Heck, the folks at newtown now realize that. They made the decision to add armed resource officers at their schools finally. Maybe it is about time the rest of the nation gets on board. It's not like it is a new thought. Roughly a third to 50% of schools in this country already do it. Isn't it about time the rest of the country decides to protect our most precious resources? What kind of person would be against security at our schools?
http://www.countytimes.com/articles/2013/02/01/news/doc510bbacf65d00443529729.txt (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.countytimes.co m%2Farticles%2F2013%2F02%2F01%2Fnews%2Fdoc510bbacf 65d00443529729.txt)

WELL, SOMEONE LIKE YOU OF COURSE!!!! Isn't the need to defend against the "aw-thur-i-tyes" (said in the best Cartman voice possible) a fundamental point in your 2nd amendment interpretation? Yet you want MORE government sponsored presence in public places? Wouldn't that make it easier for them to take over?

[exzel]

I’m not an expert (nor do I own any rifle other than a rare and mint WWII Japanese Navy Type I bolt action rifle manufactured by Beretta), but if they outlaw magazines over 10 rounds, but don’t outlaw each and every semi-automatic rifle, wouldn’t it be rather easy to just tape two or three magazines together “jungle style” with a simple piece of duct tape, turning it into a pseudo 20 or 30 round mag, and still be compliant with the law? Or would that 3-5 seconds needed to reverse the mag make all the difference in the world? Just askin'

[jay1799]

Just another gun nut. No point in talking to you.

Would you call someone that defends an authors Right to write violent fiction(and I am not speaking of king here) as just another free speech nut?

How about hate speech. I personally find it deplorable. But I will defend a persons right to say what they want.

When I donate to the ACLU, and they defend some hate group spewing ugly things over the airwaves or while standing alongside the road. Am I an ACLU loving free speech nut??

[Sepia and Dust]

Would you call someone that defends an authors Right to write violent fiction(and I am not speaking of king here) as just another free speech nut?

How about hate speech. I personally find it deplorable. But I will defend a persons right to say what they want.

When I donate to the ACLU, and they defend some hate group spewing ugly things over the airwaves or while standing alongside the road. Am I an ACLU loving free speech nut??

I'd call someone who makes a point to differentiate between a magazine and a clip in an informal conversation "pedantic".

[jay1799]

I’m not an expert (nor do I own any rifle other than a rare and mint WWII Japanese Navy Type I bolt action rifle manufactured by Beretta), but if they outlaw magazines over 10 rounds, but don’t outlaw each and every semi-automatic rifle, wouldn’t it be rather easy to just tape two or three magazines together “jungle style” with a simple piece of duct tape, turning it into a pseudo 20 or 30 round mag, and still be compliant with the law? Or would that 3-5 seconds needed to reverse the mag make all the difference in the world? Just askin'


I dont know. I would say it would still be complaint with the law.

Here is something for all those saying I am a 'gun nut'

I dont even own an AR15. I have other semi auto rifles. Some that have detachable magazines, which can hold more than 10 rounds. But an AR15, which is THE gun everyone seems to think needs to go away and I am defending....I dont own. Never have. /shrug

[hossenpepper]

Just another gun nut. No point in talking to you.

I agree, but playing with the arrogant, yet introspectively feeble, can be fun.

[hossenpepper]

I’m not an expert (nor do I own any rifle other than a rare and mint WWII Japanese Navy Type I bolt action rifle manufactured by Beretta), but if they outlaw magazines over 10 rounds, but don’t outlaw each and every semi-automatic rifle, wouldn’t it be rather easy to just tape two or three magazines together “jungle style” with a simple piece of duct tape, turning it into a pseudo 20 or 30 round mag, and still be compliant with the law? Or would that 3-5 seconds needed to reverse the mag make all the difference in the world? Just askin'

This is a good point and why the discussion needs to move beyond the talking points and fear mongering. This is also why the advocacy side has a very valid point that just making this or that magazine illegal isn't going to fix the overall issue. If new laws aren't really addressing the possibilities, then they probably won't work. But, without getting down to very basic questions of what does work, why each side is so vehement in their position and also looking elsewhere to what has/hasn't been tried, this whole issue is pointless to even talk about in the first place.

[PatInTheHat]

What is it about 20 dead babies, riddled with bullet holes that is so hard to understand? The time has come to stop arguing and start changing the way we care about each other. Seriously.
No worries there Purrrtricia, the N.itwit R.ifle A.ss'ociation, they done got it covered like strained whirled peas on a lib's bib.
Ain't y'all heard ol' PeePee La'Peabrain get all lathered up about that that there 'Trans Vaginal Ultra Arming':eyebrow:...ohhh yeaaaahhh, he's wantin' to be puttin' fetal firearms, personhood popguns if you will, right in there with 'em...BIG SALE is a comin'!!!!!






Whatever, Skilsa:sleepy:zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Patricia A]

I support the Brady Act. I can't look a child in the face and do otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act

http://i898.photobucket.com/albums/ac185/angelchildrenrip/Angel%20children/Sandy%20Hook%20Elementary%20School%20Shooting/121215-emilieparker-bcol-3p3803807700_zpsd13c6456.jpg

Explain to this baby, Emilie Alice Parker 6 years old, how you have the right to own an assault rifle. Oh you can't, she's dead.

[hossenpepper]

Although, I thought the golf clubs and lightning was funny. As it showed how silly it is to ban something. And it simply came up as a comparison to how often mass shootings occur. Spreading fear of mass shootings would be like spreading fear of lightning strikes.

Fair enough, but it was not even a logical comparison is the problem. The only thing funny is you thought it was even applicable to what I originally said and showed the immaturity of your thought process. The point being made was the reason we have more lightning strike deaths here in Florida is not because people wave golf clubs in the air, yelling "You rat fart!!!!" (let's see if yungun can get that reference), it's because we have more lightning. It was an attempt to get you back to the part you gloss over time and again with your attempts to outsmart everyone... the very basics. 1+1=2. Sure unless you get into black hole math, then it doesn't right? Your whole argument about this subject is black hole math.


However, it is not something I normally would argue.
But you did, more than once, thinking you were making a point. Again, the ONLY point you made is your thoughts are specious in construct and fallacious in process.



It is not like I am operating off a script here(although I am sure some believe I am).

This proves you don't read well, or don't comprehend well, both or something more sinister. You have been told we that have been here awhile have heard these same arguments OVER and OVER and OVER. Often time almost verbatim with neocon websites, essays, etc. See because we don't just tow the left or center lines here, we actually go red the other side and weigh it. Then we say how dumb and bereft of thought beyond a milktoast level it is.

It's kind of like this.... In childhood psychology you learn that babies and small kids have unique thoughts, but patterns are easy to identify. This applies to both individual and group dynamics. In other words, children often think alike and you can often predict the way they will react. Though the individual expression of the thoughts may vary, the underlying causation is the same. This is simply because kids are simple due to a lack of experience and volume of input cognition. It is not, therefore, a shock to hear kids, from all sorts of backgrounds, parrot the same basic reasoning. Again this is due to an immaturity of the thought process. But there is also another reason. It is because kids lack the mental stamina to take the time to analyze things beyond the surface. You see this in adults and it is often called "group think". It's just easier to let your mind be lazy and grab onto something that is closely related to your initial opinion. So this is also why you will hear extremists on the left and right be of like mind. You may think you uniquely arrived at this opinion, but I can almost guarantee it is the product of right wing propaganda input and belies an immature mind.

You can choose to BWAHAHAHA this or whatever childish response you like. I am not holding my breath that you will let go of your precious darlings and see reality. I can tell you with almost certainty that you have made one friend here (mostly out of loneliness) and pretty much turned the rest off, even if they somewhat agree with you. And for the record, no you still did not answer my question without dropping the things I detailed. In fact you said the exact things I said to not factor in, as your answers.

But hey, that certainly gives you the street cred to call me dumb. I won't lose any sleep, or friends here, over it.

You rascal you! I just wanna pinch your cute little cheeks and play peek-a-boo with you. But you might shoot me for attacking you!!! EEEEK!!!

[Sepia and Dust]

I support the Brady Act. I can't look a child in the face and do otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act

http://i898.photobucket.com/albums/ac185/angelchildrenrip/Angel%20children/Sandy%20Hook%20Elementary%20School%20Shooting/121215-emilieparker-bcol-3p3803807700_zpsd13c6456.jpg

Explain to this baby, Emilie Alice Parker 6 years old, how you have the right to own an assault rifle. Oh you can't, she's dead.

I think that appeals to emotion hinder reasonable discussion. Anytime a kid is murdered, there's always somebody to blame. Rarely is there something at fault.

[kingricefan]

I agree.

The time has come.

It is about time we fix our sad and lacking mental Heath systems in this country. It is a despicable that people don't want to fix and underlying cause of violence in our society, that is so evident by this shooting.

We should also look at beefing up security. Heck, the folks at newtown now realize that. They made the decision to add armed resource officers at their schools finally. Maybe it is about time the rest of the nation gets on board. It's not like it is a new thought. Roughly a third to 50% of schools in this country already do it. Isn't it about time the rest of the country decides to protect our most precious resources? What kind of person would be against security at our schools?
http://www.countytimes.com/articles/2013/02/01/news/doc510bbacf65d00443529729.txt

'The wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round, 'round and 'round.......'

Sweet Jesus! Why should our kids have to go to a school that has armed guards posted at every entrance? Do you not see how wrong this is? That our kids have to be taught in basically what has literally become a prison (remember when we were kids and used to joke about our school was a prison??) to them. Why, in your mind, is this all ok? Why is this becoming the norm? Our kids get to go to 'prison' so you can have a nice big gun that shoots alot of bullets quickly? Man, that's some skewed logic there. I agree with you that the mental helth care system needs to be beefed up to help those who need it, but that's about it. Stop for a minute and think, seriously think, about how you would have felt had you been forced to go to school where there were armed guards at the doors. Day in day out, walking past those guards with their guns, wondering 'Why are they here? Oh yeah, because people want to shoot at us!' You talk about wanting the mental health care system to be better and yet you want kids to grow up and be taught in an environment of fear, which would therefore create a mindset of paranoia in said children and what would that lead to? Hmmmm, more mental cases and who knows what kind of craziness that would lead to............ I just don't 'get it'. :dunno:

[kingricefan]

Can we stop with the name calling and get back to the issues at hand? Pretty please??

[jay1799]

I support the Brady Act. I can't look a child in the face and do otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act

http://i898.photobucket.com/albums/ac185/angelchildrenrip/Angel%20children/Sandy%20Hook%20Elementary%20School%20Shooting/121215-emilieparker-bcol-3p3803807700_zpsd13c6456.jpg

Explain to this baby, Emilie Alice Parker 6 years old, how you have the right to own an assault rifle. Oh you can't, she's dead.

If I could? I would hug her. And tell her sadly this country wants to argue over the size of a piece of metal or plastic instead of working on the actual problems of mental illness in this country, while others scoff at providing schools like hers with extra security due to 'the costs' or the fact that a child maybe scared of seeing an armed security guard at their school.

How about this picture?

16783

12 year old girl, home alone defends herself against intruder with moms 40 caliber glock.


OR. How about the story of Melinda Herman, who defended herself and her two twin 9 year olds against an intruder with a gun? While her husband was on the phone with the police.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/georgia-mom-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/story?id=18164812


OR. How about the story of this 18 year old mom, who defended herself AND her 3 month old child with a gun? While she was on the phone with police.
http://newsok.com/sarah-mckinley-received-help-14-minutes-after-blanchard-home-invasion-call-911-records-reveal/article/3642339


OR. The phoenix 14 yr old that defended himself and the lives of his 3 younger siblings with his dads gun?
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-06-23/phoenix-teen-shoots-intruder/55782484/1


OR. How about the texas 15 year old, that defended his life and that of his younger sister with... *GASP* an 'assault weapon'.
http://www.khou.com/news/crime/Burglary-suspect-shot-by-15-year-old-son-of-deputy-97430719.html

I wonder how big the 15yr olds magazine was. /rollseyes.



Why are these pictures not up on Brady's website? All of these children are still alive this day because they were armed, and defended themselves. Why do you want to take their rights away? Who are you to tell them 'my way is a better way' to defend themselves and their families? Would you rather all of these people have been victims? I wouldnt. I am glad they were able to defend themselves with whatever weapon they chose to.

[exzel]

Here’s something to get an idea on how your representatives in Washington are likely to vote on upcoming gun-control legislation (list based on their stances on gun control, publicly available information: statements, voting records, ratings from both the National Rifle Association and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and dollar contributions from the gun lobby). Just my opinion, but it looks like any gun-control legislation will have to be fairly meager, and acceptable to a vast majority of people – like background checks for all sales, in order to get passed.

Recap:
287 Oppose Gun Reform
188 Support Gun Reform
20 Are a Swing Vote
36 Have an Unclear Position

http://thedailybeast.thisisyourreponguns.com/

[Sepia and Dust]

All of these children are still alive this day because they were armed, and defended themselves. Why do you want to take their rights away? Who are you to tell them 'my way is a better way' to defend themselves and their families? Would you rather all of these people have been victims? I wouldnt. I am glad they were able to defend themselves with whatever weapon they chose to.

Any firearm would have done the trick. "Aw, he ain't got an AK. All he's got is a lil ole thirty-aught-six... let's get him!" isn't really something home intruders say.

[jay1799]

You have been told we that have been here awhile have heard these same arguments OVER and OVER and OVER. Often time almost verbatim with neocon websites, essays, etc. See because we don't just tow the left or center lines here, we actually go red the other side and weigh it. Then we say how dumb and bereft of thought beyond a milktoast level it is.


Riggggghht.

I did not realize that I was dealing with such intellectual heavyweights that can solve societies problems in a full 5 days. Since that is how long it was when SK published his essay until when I posted here.

Now, if you are saying that you have been thinking this thru for longer....than that is sad.

Because what you should have come to the conclusion of, is that a piece of metal and plastic does not cause violence, just like beer and a car does not cause drunk driving.

It is the person committing the violent act, or the person drinking AND driving that is the cause.

As I said, it is sad that those that want to focus on a piece of plastic and metal will never ever be 'violence solvers'. No matter how good your intentions.

If you want to address the violence problem in this country, you must deal with the underlying causes of violence.

The Drug War
Gangs
The revolving door of our prisons
Lack of mental health access
Education
Job opportunitites
crime
The failure of the family unit

etc etc etc.

If you, or Stephen King, wanted to make a STAND against the actual causes of violence in our society, and therefore actually be 'violence solvers', you should have looked at the above list. I would most certainly work with anyone to come up with workable solutions on the REAL causes of violence in our society. I want a safer society just like the next person. You dont want to be the victim of violent crime? Well neither do I! Who would? But your obsession with controlling a piece of metal and plastic simply makes you a prohibitionist and someone that is burying their head in the sand to the real causes of violence in our society.

[AnnaMarie]

Wild feral hog are pests. Disagree with it if you want, but the damage to people's property and crops is real.

However, to prove this point would probably require a thread all to its own. And some here may call it 'rambling' /rollseyes


How many people own these weapons? How many of them have any idea what a feral hog is?

[AnnaMarie]

Wild feral hog are pests. Disagree with it if you want, but the damage to people's property and crops is real.

However, to prove this point would probably require a thread all to its own. And some here may call it 'rambling' /rollseyes

And, if you require an automatic or semi-automatic, or 20-30 round weapon to kill this feral pig, you should let the big boys hunt it. You shouldn't be allowed anything more powerful then a water gun if you need that many bullets.

[jay1799]

'The wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round, 'round and 'round.......'

Sweet Jesus! Why should our kids have to go to a school that has armed guards posted at every entrance? Do you not see how wrong this is? That our kids have to be taught in basically what has literally become a prison (remember when we were kids and used to joke about our school was a prison??) to them. Why, in your mind, is this all ok? Why is this becoming the norm? Our kids get to go to 'prison' so you can have a nice big gun that shoots alot of bullets quickly? Man, that's some skewed logic there. I agree with you that the mental helth care system needs to be beefed up to help those who need it, but that's about it. Stop for a minute and think, seriously think, about how you would have felt had you been forced to go to school where there were armed guards at the doors. Day in day out, walking past those guards with their guns, wondering 'Why are they here? Oh yeah, because people want to shoot at us!' You talk about wanting the mental health care system to be better and yet you want kids to grow up and be taught in an environment of fear, which would therefore create a mindset of paranoia in said children and what would that lead to? Hmmmm, more mental cases and who knows what kind of craziness that would lead to............ I just don't 'get it'.

Lets be honest for a second. When we are talking about armed guards or armed school resource officers at schools, we are not talking about setting up guard towers and chain link razor wire fences.

There is a big difference.

And lets also realize that the program was initially a Clinton program. ie, the COPS initiative.

And that anywhere between 30-50% of schools already do this.

So I dont think it creates paranoia. It is not like setting up an armed perimeter, or pat downs like at an airport. Heck, do you or your kids get paranoid when you walk into a bank? There are armed guards there. When I go to a mall, and I see an armed mall cop(yes, some malls have armed security) it does not scare me. Nor does it stop kids from hanging out at the mall.

There are levels of armed security, and even additional security that can and should be put in place that dont turn a school into a prison.

However...Do I wish that we could go back to the days when I grew up? Sure! Most definitely. But I also realize that those days are long gone. Those were also the days when kids in more rural areas would also drive to school and leave their shotgun or hunting rifle mounted on their gun rack in open view for all too see.

If anything is creating an age of paranoia, it is the whole 'zero tolerance' policy, where if someone even mentions a toy that is shaped like a gun that shoots bubbles...they are suspended from school. http://wnep.com/2013/01/18/hello-kitty-bubble-gun-controversy/

[Sepia and Dust]

How many people own these weapons? How many of them have any idea what a feral hog is?

I will say that anybody who's walking through known hog territory--with or without a gun--and who isn't just a little bit nervous is dangerously ignorant of the nature of wild hogs. The hunter can quickly become the hunted.

[jay1799]

And, if you require an automatic or semi-automatic, or 20-30 round weapon to kill this feral pig, you should let the big boys hunt it. You shouldn't be allowed anything more powerful then a water gun if you need that many bullets.

I have seen hogs go down with one shot, and as many as 5. Even well placed shots. Hogs have a very thick hide and their fat layer is almost like trying to pierce armor.

Now. As said. Hogs are pests. They are nuisance animals. In many states, there is no limit to how many hogs one can kill(in a day, a week or a year). It aint like your grand pappy's buck hunting where the concern is conservation. I could take 5 hogs in 5 minutes(or more) if I wanted to in many areas. Especially on private property.

Hogs are rapidly multiplying and expanding their territory in the US.

I know this post wont make any friends in the PETA crowd....but it is the truth.

[hossenpepper]

Riggggghht.

I did not realize that I was dealing with such intellectual heavyweights that can solve societies problems in a full 5 days. Since that is how long it was when SK published his essay until when I posted here.


Heavyweights? If you say so. but now that you do knw, you probably also know that cherry picking your comments and responses is what people who AREN'T one of those do. You haven't offered one single original thought that I wouldn't see in the first 5 sentences of any right wing blog about this subject. Not one. You haven't yourself as anything but someone who has too much tim e on their hands to do ad nauseum Google searches to pick out the articles taht prove your point.



Now, if you are saying that you have been thinking this thru for longer....than that is sad.

More proof you are too young to know what the f@ck you're talking about. There isn't anything wrong with that per se, until you keep thinking that anything you are going to say is on the same level with people who actually do have some life experience. This issue has been debated MANY time sover the last few decades. There are famous documentaries about this subject and if you grew up in a state filled with asinine thinkers like you (pick anywhere in the middle or rural areas of the US), you have listened to this tripe for decades. This is why i don't need your silly links or thoughts, because it's more of the same crap and there is still no solution nor change in your side. The one thing people that parrot this sh!t typically have in common is they are paranoid windbags who do not have any facts besides the ones they THINK (butnever really do) support their take on things.

But I didn't mean you of course. I meant other kids your age who say these things. And at least one (from around the old board) older dude who parked in your same lot and hasn't left yet.



Because what you should have come to the conclusion of, is that a piece of metal and plastic does not cause violence, just like beer and a car does not cause drunk driving.


Wow, so now you're delusional too? Go read my comments again, Wile E. Coyote. The only thing that came close to an opinion on the subject of gun violence was a very simple point that more of anything leads to more things happening surrounding that. I mean look at how much ignorance you have floated here like so many air biscuits and all these responses!! Magic! The main crux of my opinions expressed here is that yours suck big green donkey stuff.



It is the person committing the violent act, or the person drinking AND driving that is the cause.


Ummm.... yeah. Someone appears to be drinking around here. Look at how you weave all over the mental landscape here. Friends don't let friends drink and post at the SKMB.



As I said, it is sad that those that want to focus on a piece of plastic and metal will never ever be 'violence solvers'. No matter how good your intentions.

There needs to be focus on ALL of it. The fact you don't get that is why pretty much everything you say is just not worth the time it took to type. That isn't an insult, it's that you don't truly understand this issue or humans for that matter.



If you want to address the violence problem in this country, you must deal with the underlying causes of violence.

The Drug War
Gangs
The revolving door of our prisons
Lack of mental health access
Education
Job opportunitites
crime
The failure of the family unit

etc etc etc.

If you, or Stephen King, wanted to make a STAND against the actual causes of violence in our society, and therefore actually be 'violence solvers', you should have looked at the above list. I would most certainly work with anyone to come up with workable solutions on the REAL causes of violence in our society. I want a safer society just like the next person. You dont want to be the victim of violent crime? Well neither do I! Who would? But your obsession with controlling a piece of metal and plastic simply makes you a prohibitionist and someone that is burying their head in the sand to the real causes of violence in our society.

I could go into great detail about the logical fallacy argument you are making here by bringing up a myriad of complex issues, but why give you more stuff to act smart about?

No one here is sticking their head in the sand but you. You refuse to see your type of suppositions are exactly why people act selfishly in the first place. You are overly concerned with minute at best risk and how you are being personally aggrieved. All of that is a sign of selfishness and greed. If you truly understand these issues, you will understand that all of humanity's greatest challenges, while complex, boil down to fear. Fear that then creates a protectionist mindset. A mindset that then justifies that you deserve more for whatever reason. A justification that creates an arrogance that unchecked turns to all of these issues in various forms.

But enough about logic, don't you think a burrito would taste yummy right now?

Anyway, I am done talking to you directly so that I don't trail off into your immature game of "last word". I hope your guns keep you safe... though if you had actually read the essay ( or "In Cold Blood") you would know how dumb that is too, really.

[hossenpepper]

Can we stop with the name calling and get back to the issues at hand? Pretty please??

Yes. The topic of this thread is how this joker isn't going to read SK anymore due to [SK's] liberal evil support of the Brady Campaign.

Here is my opinion: that is a silly and childish response to something without having read it and also arrogant as hell to pretend your dollar withheld is some sort of realistic protest to anything.

See? The initial post was so ignorant, there is no logical discussion to be had. Thus name calling ensues.

Burrito? Burrito anyone?

[not_nadine]

I just don't understand this dude.

I really don't.


How many of them are out there?

[Patricia A]

http://i898.photobucket.com/albums/ac185/angelchildrenrip/Angel%20children/Sandy%20Hook%20Elementary%20School%20Shooting/Victims-of-Sandy-Hook-Sho-003_zps04b527c3.jpg

Ask Noah Pozner age 6, what he thinks about when he pledges allegiance to the flag?
Ask him what wants to be when he grows up? But then no you can't because he's not going to go to school anymore and he's not going to get to grow up.
BTW Every-time I hear, read about or see someone defending their right to carry unregistered assault weaponry of any kind, I'm gonna donate .99 cents to http://www.bradycenter.org/about/bio/sarah . And I say thankee to all who keep me vigilant in this effort.

Furthermore and P.S., I intend to appeal to the emotional aspect of this issue, fully. Watching children being shot dead in the streets, in schools, at malls, churches, parking lots, bus stops etc is an extremely emotional issue IMO. I cannot divorce this issue from feeling.

[hossenpepper]

And, if you require an automatic or semi-automatic, or 20-30 round weapon to kill this feral pig, you should let the big boys hunt it. You shouldn't be allowed anything more powerful then a water gun if you need that many bullets.

Damn, can I say thanks to this multiple times? As a deadly accurate, well trained shot, that has hunted and killed many animals, to me the thought of using a semi-automatic is just silly and for amateurs.

OMG, yes I hunt!!! Well not much any more, but I have killed and ate my supper many times. I rarely had to use more than one shot to take down even large 10-12 point deer. I have shot many things. I used to be able to dead eye a sprinting rabbit from 50 yards with a non-scoped .22 rifle, but probably not now. But still, I would never use the hunting argument to defend these types of weapons. It's just a silly argument. Same with home defense, if you need more than a standard clip, you're facing a force you couldn't overwhelm anyway, or you need shooting practice.

I think atomicinchworm said the best defense for a home is a big loud dog. I 100% agree. That would scare off 99.9999% of invaders.

[Lily Sawyer]

But your obsession with controlling a piece of metal and plastic simply makes you a prohibitionist and someone that is burying their head in the sand to the real causes of violence in our society.

What, and your obsession with guns isn't? What do you not get about controlling anything that can kill a person? It's done with cars, alcohol, and drugs. Aren't guns involved in that mix?

Hate is regulated by the First Amendment and is punishable if it results in a crime. Ergo: guns should be more strictly regulated by the Second Amendment and citizens punished if guns result in a crime as well. Key to hate eradication in the first case is enactment of laws that punish a person for acting on hate; eradicating violence caused by guns requires enactment of laws that restrict a person's access to certain guns and punishes them if they get ahold of such weapons and use them in any crime.

Background checks for everyone buying a gun is part of the solution. Mandatory reporting by physicians of Freaky McFreaks to a database used by ATF/Justice and gun dealers is another piece of the answer. Providing better mental health screenings and access is a third pie slice. But you have to admit that restricting gun access as well as ammunition capacities on guns *must* be part of the solution as well. It doesn't work without it.

[Sepia and Dust]

I have seen hogs go down with one shot, and as many as 5. Even well placed shots. Hogs have a very thick hide and their fat layer is almost like trying to pierce armor.

They're worse than pests, they're a menace.

Back in the really old days, when we all lived in the forest and nobody lived anywhere else, we could jab a sharp stick into pretty much anything and it'd promptly die for us. Not so, hogs. No, a hog would drive that spear right through himself, just like that Orc did Aragorn's sword in the Lord of the Rings movie, to gore the hunter. They had to invent a specialized weapon for their hog-killin', one with a cross-brace near the head of the spear, to keep their hunters from getting hog-killed.

Orcs and wild hogs have one other thing in common--they don't know pain, they don't know fear, they will taste man-flesh.

[Patricia A]

“Avielle Richman, known to her family as Avie, moved from San Diego to Connecticut with her family a couple of years ago and was still known by her parents as “their California girl.” “

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa219/plcarmstrong/avielle_richman.jpg

Explain to Avielle Richman 6 years old, that she could have just as easily been killed by a man with a hammer. Tell her that many children her age die every day, tell her that makes you sad and that you'd hug her if you could.
Then you tell her that you need a magazine for your firearm that holds more than 10 rounds. Explain about the feral hogs and government MIBs, she might have a hard time understanding that though. Tell her you are sorry she will never be 7 years old.


Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence

http://www.bradycenter.org/

[GNTLGNT]

How many of them are out there?

...they are Linoge...

[Moderator]

Hoss, you know how I feel about this, but time to tone done the snark a notch or two--it's coming across as too personally directed and diluting your arguments. IMO

[PatInTheHat]

:blues:
Comin' to you on a bloody road
Good shootin', I got a clip load
And when ya shoot, ha
You got somethin'
So don't worry, cos I'm just huntin'

I'm a tool man
I'm a tool man
I'm a tool man
I'm a tool man

Got my rights the easy way
And I'll obfuscate 'em
Each and every day
So honey don't you fret
Obviously you can't see nothin' yet

I'm a tool man
I'm a tool man(play it Steve)
I'm a tool man
I'm a tool man

I was brought up on N.R.A. creep (listen now)
I learned how to shoot before I could *bleep*
I was educated on gunstock
Then I started blastin'
Now I can't stop

I'm a tool man
I'm a tool man
I'm a tool man
I'm a tool man

Grab the guns
And I'll pull you in
Give you hope
And be your only strawman, yeah
(Yeah) yeah (yeah)

I'm talkin' about a tool man
I'm a tool man
And you a tool man
Ah tool man
Oh lord a tool man
I'm a tool man
And you a tool man
dum duuum dum bump:cool2:

[jay1799]

Hoss, you know how I feel about this, but time to tone done the snark a notch or two--it's coming across as too personally directed and diluting your arguments. IMO

Ya think? Personally directed comments has been the sole basis of Mr. Burritos posts. Well that, and his obsession with the 'right wing' and neocons. Lol.

Of course, there are others that are now comparing gun owners to villians in SK screenplays.

I knew I most likely would not be winning any friends when I came here, but I did not expect such open hostility.

[Todash]

Orcs and wild hogs have one other thing in common--they don't know pain, they don't know fear, they will taste man-flesh.

Well. Thanks for that creepy mental image that will give everything I do this morning a grotesquely sinister tinge. (It's the word "flesh" more than anything else; there is just something wrong with that word.)

[jay1799]

What, and your obsession with guns isn't? What do you not get about controlling anything that can kill a person? It's done with cars, alcohol, and drugs. Aren't guns involved in that mix?

Cars and drugs are not constitutionally protected civil rights.

But, even if using the comparisons of alcohol and cars....we dont really ban anything. You can own a car that drives 200MPH, when one can only legally go maybe 80 on any public road in this country.

As far as alcohol, I can buy as much as I want. Are kegs outlawed? How about buying a 30 pack instead of a 6 pack?




Hate is regulated by the First Amendment and is punishable if it results in a crime. Ergo: guns should be more strictly regulated by the Second Amendment and citizens punished if guns result in a crime as well. Key to hate eradication in the first case is enactment of laws that punish a person for acting on hate; eradicating violence caused by guns requires enactment of laws that restrict a person's access to certain guns and punishes them if they get ahold of such weapons and use them in any crime.
Absolutely speech is regulated....when it is a crime. And typically, the rational for that is the old....My right to swing my fist ends at your nose. ie, my rights end when they effect your rights. However me simply owning a piece of metal and plastic does not effect your rights one bit. Not one iota.


Background checks for everyone buying a gun is part of the solution. Mandatory reporting by physicians of Freaky McFreaks to a database used by ATF/Justice and gun dealers is another piece of the answer. Providing better mental health screenings and access is a third pie slice. But you have to admit that restricting gun access as well as ammunition capacities on guns *must* be part of the solution as well. It doesn't work without it.
Bans on ANYTHING is really not the way to go to solve our problems. As we can see with drugs. A prohibition on drugs has certainly not stopped our problems with drugs, and in fact, only created more problems. The black market thrives, gang activity and violence are all related to prohibitions. The drug war is one huge contributor to the violence problem in this country. It is time THAT prohibition goes away as well, but that is a different story all together.

I have no problem with mandatory reporting of 'freaky mcfreaks' to NCIS. I would say that it should be limited to people that are actually a danger to themselves or others however to prevent other civil rights violations. That would also go along with providing better mental health access that I have been saying since the first page of this thread. As far as gun access and ammunition capacitys....again, no. Once again. We did not try to reduce drunk driving by limiting the amount of alcohol one can purchase and own. Or even the strength of alcohol. That IS prohibition. And history has shown us that time and again...prohibitions fail. They do not lower crime, but increase crime and its associated violence.

Prohibitions = Bad.

[hossenpepper]

Hoss, you know how I feel about this, but time to tone done the snark a notch or two--it's coming across as too personally directed and diluting your arguments. IMO

Two notches? But, but, but ma!

Oh OK, fine. You're no fun. How can I refuse thee?

[hossenpepper]

Comin' to you on a bloody road
Good shootin', I got a clip load
And when ya shoot, ha
You got somethin'
So don't worry, cos I'm just huntin'

I'm a tool man
I'm a tool man
I'm a tool man
I'm a tool man

Got my rights the easy way
And I'll obfuscate 'em
Each and every day
So honey don't you fret
Obviously you can't see nothin' yet

I'm a tool man
I'm a tool man(play it Steve)
I'm a tool man
I'm a tool man

I was brought up on N.R.A. creep (listen now)
I learned how to shoot before I could *bleep*
I was educated on gunstock
Then I started blastin'
Now I can't stop

I'm a tool man
I'm a tool man
I'm a tool man
I'm a tool man

Grab the guns
And I'll pull you in
Give you hope
And be your only strawman, yeah
(Yeah) yeah (yeah)

I'm talkin' about a tool man
I'm a tool man
And you a tool man
Ah tool man
Oh lord a tool man
I'm a tool man
And you a tool man
dum duuum dum bump



Holy sh!t, that hurt. Warn me before you drop a bomb like that, Pat.

[Sepia and Dust]

Well. Thanks for that creepy mental image that will give everything I do this morning a grotesquely sinister tinge. (It's the word "flesh" more than anything else; there is just something wrong with that word.)

You're welcome. :)

[hossenpepper]

I thought of one instance where machine guns might be justified in animal control...

Have you SEEN that monster kitty that Pat owns? That thing could take at least 20 bullets before it hissed to a glorious end!

I heard it likes BBQ though, so I must say I feel a bit of simpatico with it.

[jay1799]

I thought of one instance where machine guns might be justified in animal control...

Have you SEEN that monster kitty that Pat owns? That thing could take at least 20 bullets before it hissed to a glorious end!

I heard it likes BBQ though, so I must say I feel a bit of simpatico with it.

Dont be silly. No where did I say anything about fully automatic weapons while hunting or pest control.

Heck, fully automatic weapons are only useful for one thing that I know of. Suppressive fire.

Fully automatic weapons are typically called 'spray and pray' ie, meaning they are not very accurate at all. They are far different than modern semi automatic sporting rifles, in both design, their internals, and their application.

Just because two guns look similar on the outside, does not mean their function, their internal parts, or their legal appropriate uses are the same.

That is one of the biggest problems with this whole 'ban assault weapons'. Heck, even the term 'assault weapon' is nothing more than a political made up term back in the 1990's. Now, some are trying to use the terms 'assault clips' or 'assault bullets'. Really?

The gun control anti-civil rights crowd is getting nauseating with their terms.

[Lily Sawyer]

I thought of one instance where machine guns might be justified in animal control...

Have you SEEN that monster kitty that Pat owns? That thing could take at least 20 bullets before it hissed to a glorious end!

I heard it likes BBQ though, so I must say I feel a bit of simpatico with it.

Bite your tongue, man. Buster Brown is not the problem; the little one - Jumpy Bean - is.

[PatInTheHat]

I thought of one instance where machine guns might be justified in animal control...

Have you SEEN that monster kitty that Pat owns? That thing could take at least 20 bullets before it hissed to a glorious end!

I heard it likes BBQ though, so I must say I feel a bit of simpatico with it.
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/285343_4481299158778_370329454_n.jpg

~errrp~
Downtown Buster Brown, now he might just be a huge pussy and all, but his fat azzzzz obviously don't need no pistolas, and like he always says, 'Why they just ain't nothin' mo' betta then airin' out the ol' toolbox after smokin' some wild piggy'...:oo:..heyyyyy now wait just a little minute there Buster Brown, just where in the hell did you get that piglet sized paper, see I seen you eyeballin' that vintage Cheech & Chong's Big Bambu album we've been savin' for the big apoplecticlypse :eyebrow:

[Todash]

Cars and drugs are not constitutionally protected civil rights.

But, even if using the comparisons of alcohol and cars....we dont really ban anything. We do, actually, "ban" things related to cars, drugs, and alcohol. Only, we call it regulating. Please note that in the below examples, "cannot" generally means "cannot legally."

Cars: You cannot drive an unlicensed, uninsured vehicle. Doing so will generally get you in trouble fairly quickly. You cannot drive without carrying a piece of plastic that identifies you as being above a certain age, having passed at some point a written and driving examination and, recently, an eye test and short test on road signs. You cannot drive if you have exhibited such poor driving behavior that you have had the little piece of plastic taken away from you. You cannot drive impaired. You cannot drive in the left lane for purposes other than passing. You cannot, in most places, blacken your car windows to such an extent that they prevent someone (a police officer, most especially) from viewing the inside of the vehicle. And so on.

Drugs: You cannot obtain certain drugs without a prescription. You cannot get certain drugs at all, as they have been banned because they are thought to cause harm. You cannot purchase street drugs.

Alcohol: You cannot buy it if you are under the age of 21. You cannot transport an open container of it in your car.


Absolutely speech is regulated....when it is a crime. And typically, the rational for that is the old....My right to swing my fist ends at your nose. ie, my rights end when they effect your rights. However me simply owning a piece of metal and plastic does not effect your rights one bit.Although I understand your argument and do not deny that it has a certain logic, materially I disagree. Because if you slandered me, the law provides such for such remedy that I could undo some, maybe all, of the harm you have done. I can press charges so that you are tried in criminal court and my reputation is officially defended, and I can also address the matter in civil court, where the law could force you, theoretically, to reimburse me for damages. If, however, you shoot me and I die from the wound, thereby losing my natural (inalienable) right to life, well, yes, you have committed a crime and will probably go to jail. That's all well and good. But there is nothing that can be done to give me, the victim, my rights back. There is no court than can restore my life. THAT is the material difference between shooting someone in the head and slandering that person.

You might argue, "Well, that's just a risk you take, living in a free society." And indeed, life is not without risk. But when we live in an environment where we are vastly more likely than those in similar (affluent, "free") countries to be shot dead (depending on the area of the country you live in; areas of high gun ownership correspond heavily with areas of high homicide risk), I would argue that the current exercise of your secondary right, which is not natural and had to be granted by a piece of paper by the government, does, in fact, infringe upon my natural, inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, rights that form the very foundation of this country. Now, when I say "secondary rights," I don't mean to imply that they are not important. Maybe it would be better to call them ancillary rights. The purpose of those secondary or ancillary rights, ALL OF THEM, is to help safeguard our inalienable, or natural, rights. If they are doing that, then they are working the way that they were intended to. If they are not, they're not. While it is unreasonable to expect, in any society of humans, that no one be killed by another, or by one's own hand in a moment of anguish that would pass if it were allowed time to do so, I do not think it is unreasonable to value life in this country, the United States of America, a country where "life" was arguably considered the most important natural right by its founders, AT LEAST enough so that we don't dispose of it more often than the next most violent affluent country. That is a reasonable goal.


Bans on ANYTHING is really not the way to go to solve our problems. As we can see with drugs. A prohibition on drugs has certainly not stopped our problems with drugs, and in fact, only created more problems. The black market thrives, gang activity and violence are all related to prohibitions. The drug war is one huge contributor to the violence problem in this country. It is time THAT prohibition goes away as well, but that is a different story all together.I'm going to meet you halfway here. I've never smoked a cigarette or done any illegal drug in my life. I have no intention of doing so. My path to lesser health has been paved largely with refined flour, trans fats, and chocolate, the way God intended. But ... good grief. Yes. Let's look at the drug war reasonably and see that it's not working and that in some instances, we really are butting in where we don't belong, making criminals out of people who feel that toking up is something they want to do but have no intention or history of harming anyone else because of it.

But ... guns are a bit different from drugs and alcohol, because of the supply chain. It's a different situation from drugs and booze because with a little discretion and not much more cash, I could get me a nice little setup going in my basement to produce either of those things. There are no meth factories; you ever notice that? Only meth houses. Guns are pieces of engineering, and you better get 'em just right, or you're likely to blow yourself up the first time you take aim at a target. They're not a DIY endeavor, is what I'm saying.

Countries that regulate guns more strictly than the US have a lower death rate by firearm and overall. In some cases, regulation works.

[Todash]

Ya think? Personally directed comments has been the sole basis of Mr. Burritos posts. Well that, and his obsession with the 'right wing' and neocons. Lol.

Of course, there are others that are now comparing gun owners to villians in SK screenplays.

I knew I most likely would not be winning any friends when I came here, but I did not expect such open hostility.
There have been, in this thread and others, plenty of logical, clearheaded, dispassionate, reasonable, sensible posts championing the stricter control of guns.

[Lily Sawyer]

...we dont really ban anything.

Yes, we do. We ban cars with poor emissions - big stiff penalty plus a boot for driving one that hasn't passed the smog test. The U.S. government banned high mileage cars in the U.S. (Volkswagon Passat; gets 70+ mpg) last year for tax reasons; go here to read about it: http://www.libertariannews.org/2012/05/22/us-government-prevents-70-mpg-cars-from-being-sold-to-keep-tax-revenues-high/ ...and that is from a Libertarian source, no less!

We ban narcotics in the U.S. We ban pharmaceuticals produced in certain countries (India and Pakistan, to be specific). We ban certain chemicals (pesticides and pollutants).
We even ban drunk drivers when they've had one DUI too many. Some alcohols are banned from being sold on Sundays, or through certain outlets (no Jesus Juice or beer currently sold in grocery stores in Tennessee).

You probably drive a car and you probably drink, and you may take prescription drugs from time to time, not to mention OTC cold remedies on occasion.
What part of
regulating and restricting guns are you so freaked out about?
Prohibitions most certainly do work; the civil rights movement wouldn't have succeeded without them, and neither would the lowering of hate crimes in the U.S.

It's pretty clear you're not willing to substantiate your argument beyond pro-gun organization rhetoric, so I'm guessing that you're mistaking logic and cold hard fact for what you believe to be hostility. Ain't no hostile parties here, other than the ones who believe your support of any choice of firearm on any given day, with any variety and amount of ammunition, is both threatening and unnecessary. Quit the feral pig argument already; the chances of encountering a feral pig during each of our lifetimes are probably less than lightning striking twice in the same place.


Absolutely speech is regulated....when it is a crime.

That's what I said when I cited hate speech turning into outright crimes. So you DO understand the concept of regulation when it comes to the First Amendment, but you don't regarding the Second? Hypocrite much??

Then I assume that since you're not in favor of outright bans that you'd support stiffer fines and consequences for ignoring legal requirements to register, own and operate firearms? Ignoring required bills of sales when transferring ownership of weapons, similar to the ones required for the sale of a car to another person? At some point, gun owners and gun rights supporters need to take clear accountability and responsibility for their decision to own and operate guns. If truancy laws affecting parents of hookey-players (parents get fined or go to jail), then the same should be enforced for gun owners who don't pony up the cash to own and operate a firearm. I think that's fair, in lieu of a ban, don't you?

[kingricefan]

I just don't understand this dude.

I really don't.


How many of them are out there?

Way, way too many, sadly. :down:

[jay1799]

Cars: -~snip for post length~


No no no. You are forgetting a very important thing here. All of that...ALL, only applies to operating a motor vehicle on a public road. Not purchasing or owning a car. I would argue that my cat could buy a car, as a person is not required to have drivers license or insurance to purchase a car. And I could own a fleet of vehicles, pull the catalytic converters out of them, the seatbelts, the air bags....all of it, and drive around in that motor vehicle without a license or insurance...on private property. And there aint anything the government can do to me. Nothing. It is my private property on my private property.

Big difference between ownership and operating.


Drugs: You cannot obtain certain drugs without a prescription. You cannot get certain drugs at all, as they have been banned because they are thought to cause harm. You cannot purchase street drugs.

Drugs are...for the most part...against the law, nor a protected right under the constitution.



Alcohol: You cannot buy it if you are under the age of 21. You cannot transport an open container of it in your car.
And you have to be 18 to buy a long rifle and 21 to buy a handgun in this country. Even to purchase ammunition. I'm okay with that.

Although, I would argue it should all be 18. firearms, ammunition, alcohol, etc etc. But that is a different story.


~snip~ There is no court than can restore my life. THAT is the material difference between shooting someone in the head and slandering that person.
It does not matter. You cant go after me in court for 'contemplating' slandering you. I have to actually slander you. That is the way it works.


...... Now, when I say "secondary rights," I don't mean to imply that they are not important. Maybe it would be better to call them ancillary rights. ..... ~snip~
I consider the right of self-defense one of the most important rights there is. No one has a right to harm me. Thus, I have an inalienable right to defend myself. Self defense is basically...the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


....Yes. Let's look at the drug war reasonably and see that it's not working and that in some instances, .... ~snip~
Glad I could bring someone around to something. Even if it has nothing to do with firearms. Now consider a 'war on guns' instead of a war on drugs, and replace the word 'drugs' with 'firearms' and realize that a prohibition of firearms would not work(as well as being even more detrimental as you are removing the right of people to defend themselves against the black market criminals that will spring up)....and we can agree even more. :)


But ... guns are a bit different from drugs and alcohol, because of the supply chain. It's a different situation from drugs and booze because with a little discretion and not much more cash, I could get me a nice little setup going in my basement to produce either of those things. There are no meth factories; you ever notice that? Only meth houses. Guns are pieces of engineering, and you better get 'em just right, or you're likely to blow yourself up the first time you take aim at a target. They're not a DIY endeavor, is what I'm saying.
I could build a firearm that slung a piece of lead downrange in an hour in my garage. The gunpowder may take longer to make, but it is all basic principles of chemistry. Heck, it is really really ancient technology. I could also take up 3 pages posting pictures of operational firearms made in peoples garages all over this world(now, and going back hundreds of years).

And that isnt even bringing things like 3D printing into play.



Countries that regulate guns more strictly than the US have a lower death rate by firearm and overall. In some cases, regulation works.
The countries you are probably talking about have always had a lower homicide rate than us. For the past 100 years. When they had full firearm ownership until they have almost a complete ban on firearm ownership. They dont have our unique history, our cultural problems, our large gang problems, etc etc. Also, most of them, as I have already stated, dont respect other civil rights nearly as well as we do. It is much much easier to involuntarily commit a person in many of these countries. If you want to live in a free society, than you should respect all of our civil rights. Even ones you personally dont like. Heck, in most countries, hate speech is a crime. Just speech. We stand almost alone in the world in protecting that as a right. Should we snip away at ole 1A to be more like them? In my opinion...no. As much as I despise hate speech, I dont want to see 1A watered down anymore.

Heck, other countries have a vastly different judicial system than ours as well. In Australia, you remaining silent...CAN be used against you in a court of law. In britain, the requirements of search warrants are far less restrictive than here. If you get arrested walking out of your home in England, they dont need a search warrant to search your home.

My point? Be very careful when making these types of comparisons. There are many legal differences between our two countries, as well as historical, cultural and socioeconomic differences as well.

[jay1799]

There have been, in this thread and others, plenty of logical, clearheaded, dispassionate, reasonable, sensible posts championing the stricter control of guns.

I am not going to bother to look through your post history to find an intelligent post regarding gun control...if one even exists. It has nothing to do with your posting style directed at me in this thread.

If you can't discuss an issue without going off into tangents on burritos, or trying to label an individual, your opinions and arguments are based on nothing but hot air.

[Todash]

I am not going to bother to look through your post history to find an intelligent post regarding gun control...if one even exists. It has nothing to do with your posting style directed at me in this thread.

If you can't discuss an issue without going off into tangents on burritos, or trying to label an individual, your opinions and arguments are based on nothing but hot air.

I think you have me confused with someone else. My posting style in this thread has been passionate, perhaps, but I have neither gone off on tangents, burrito-related or otherwise, nor have I "labeled" you in any way other than how you have labeled yourself. My point is that you seemed to be implying that every comment that is pro-gun control has been in way of being a personal attack, and while I understand that as a member of the (here) vocal minority, you might feel that way, it's just not true.

[GNTLGNT]

your opinions and arguments are based on nothing but hot air.

...pot calling kettle black anyone?.....

[atomicinchworm]

If you can't discuss an issue without going off into tangents on burritos, or trying to label an individual, your opinions and arguments are based on nothing but hot air.

Because a bunch of people who have known each other for years in internet land joke around in the middle of a frank discussion, EVERYTHING they said is being dismissed?

That is ridiculous.

If one is really worried about the chance of someone breaking into their house, do you know what things are more effective than having a gun (which can be and are stolen if someone breaks in when you are not home)? Have a big dog and advertise it (put beware of dog signs up in noticeable locations), and have an alarm system, keep foliage trimmed back and get to know your neighbors. Unless it is a personal vendetta, most thieves strike easy targets. Thieves do not know you have a gun, but they do know you've got a big black dog and a ADT sticker on your windows, which would be a lot of bother.

Also, your pig problem posit? If you are actively hunting wild boar (and I know that they are incredibly dangerous animals as well as a nuisance) which is a very specialized instance, I don't see why, with a "I'm hunting boar" permit (that could be free and just requires paperwork), you could not get a larger ammo clip for whatever gun you use. You have shown a NEED for that clip. The average joe schmoe doesn't have that need. I still feel that 10 rounds is typically sufficient, but I could concede a need in that instance.

No one here is advocating completely eliminating guns. The fact that you can't even see why it might be a good thing to regulate them, like everything else is regulated, is kind crazy.

[Moderator]

Background checks need to be tightened and the NRA needs to stop putting up roadblocks for all levels (local, state, and federal) of the government to do so but here are yet more reasons for me to believe that as long as there is a proliferation of easily accessible guns, other measures to protect us such as background checks will not be enough.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/want-buy-gun-without-background-check-armlist-can-help

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2273888/Man-killed-mother-14-sent-mental-hospital-21-able-buy-15-GUNS-release.html

[jay1799]

Yes, we do. We ban cars with poor emissions - big stiff penalty plus a boot for driving one that hasn't passed the smog test. The U.S. government banned high mileage cars in the U.S. (Volkswagon Passat; gets 70+ mpg) last year for tax reasons; go here to read about it: http://www.libertariannews.org/2012/05/22/us-government-prevents-70-mpg-cars-from-being-sold-to-keep-tax-revenues-high/ (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.libertariannew s.org%2F2012%2F05%2F22%2Fus-government-prevents-70-mpg-cars-from-being-sold-to-keep-tax-revenues-high%2F) ...and that is from a Libertarian source, no less!

Emissions tests are done by a state. Guess what, down here in Florida....No emissions tests. None. :)

Even things like 'open container laws'. State. Mississippi, a DRIVER of a car can have an open container.

As far as this whole ban on 'high milegae cars'. All I can find is some forum posts all talking about the same thing. There is no federal law. If there is, post the law. Please, and I will read it. But even snopes says it is hogwash. http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/passat.asp



We ban narcotics in the U.S. We ban pharmaceuticals produced in certain countries (India and Pakistan, to be specific). We ban certain chemicals (pesticides and pollutants).
We even ban drunk drivers when they've had one DUI too many. Some alcohols are banned from being sold on Sundays, or through certain outlets (no Jesus Juice or beer currently sold in grocery stores in Tennessee).
You probably drive a car and you probably drink, and you may take prescription drugs from time to time, not to mention OTC cold remedies on occasion.
What part of guns are you so freaked out about?

None of them are protected rights. And even your blue laws are state laws. Not federal. And remember what it DID take to ban alcohol at the federal level. A constitutional amendment.


Prohibitions most certainly do work; the civil rights movement wouldn't have succeeded without them, and neither would the lowering of hate crimes in the U.S.
What? Prohibitions on committing a crime? Our hate crime laws do not regulate free speech. No federal hate crime law regulates speech. They make already existing crimes...possible hate crimes...if it can be shown that the crime was motivated by 'hatred'.

That is all




It's pretty clear you're not willing to substantiate your argument beyond pro-gun organization rhetoric, so I'm guessing that you're mistaking logic and cold hard fact for what you believe to be hostility. Ain't no hostile parties here, other than the ones who believe your support of any choice of firearm on any given day, with any variety and amount of ammunition, is both threatening and unnecessary. Quit the feral pig argument already; the chances of encountering a feral pig during each of our lifetimes are probably less than lightning striking twice in the same place.

I believe in the Bill of Rights.


That's what I said when I cited hate speech turning into outright crimes. So you DO understand the concept of regulation when it comes to the First Amendment, but you don't regarding the Second? Hypocrite much??
Again, you need to look at out federal hate crime laws. They do not turn any speech into a crime. They turn an already existing crime, into a possible hate crime.


Then I assume that since you're not in favor of outright bans that you'd support stiffer fines and consequences for ignoring legal requirements to register, own and operate firearms? Ignoring required bills of sales when transferring ownership of weapons, similar to the ones required for the sale of a car to another person? At some point, gun owners and gun rights supporters need to take clear accountability and responsibility for their decision to own and operate guns. If truancy laws affecting parents of hookey-players (parents get fined or go to jail), then the same should be enforced for gun owners who don't pony up the cash to own and operate a firearm. I think that's fair, in lieu of a ban, don't you?
I dont support any law that turns a lawful gun owner into an criminal, by simply passing a law.

If you want to go after actual criminals...do so.

As far as parents taking responsibility for their children, all areas of responsibility, I am in favor of that. A parent IS ultimately responsible for their child. Up until that child is an adult.

[jay1799]

I think you have me confused with someone else. My posting style in this thread has been passionate, perhaps, but I have neither gone off on tangents, burrito-related or otherwise, nor have I "labeled" you in any way other than how you have labeled yourself. My point is that you seemed to be implying that every comment that is pro-gun control has been in way of being a personal attack, and while I understand that as a member of the (here) vocal minority, you might feel that way, it's just not true.

That is possible. And if I confused you with someone else, I do apologize.

[jay1799]

Because a bunch of people who have known each other for years in internet land joke around in the middle of a frank discussion, EVERYTHING they said is being dismissed?

That is ridiculous.
If that is ALL that persons arguments are based off of, ie, calling the other side names, putting up pictures to draw an emotional response, saying 'we need to do something', etc etc...then it is not a rationed and reasonable argument.



If one is really worried about the chance of someone breaking into their house, do you know what things are more effective than having a gun (which can be and are stolen if someone breaks in when you are not home)? Have a big dog and advertise it (put beware of dog signs up in noticeable locations), and have an alarm system, keep foliage trimmed back and get to know your neighbors. Unless it is a personal vendetta, most thieves strike easy targets. Thieves do not know you have a gun, but they do know you've got a big black dog and a ADT sticker on your windows, which would be a lot of bother.
I will say those are all good things to do. But none of those things really provide 'defense' against an armed intruder. They are deterrents. And deterrents are beneficial certainly. But they are not 'defense'.

Remember, self defense is a RIGHT in this country. Armed Self-defense is an INDIVIDUAL right. With all of the protections as any other RIGHT in this country.


Also, your pig problem posit? If you are actively hunting wild boar (and I know that they are incredibly dangerous animals as well as a nuisance) which is a very specialized instance, I don't see why, with a "I'm hunting boar" permit (that could be free and just requires paperwork), you could not get a larger ammo clip for whatever gun you use. You have shown a NEED for that clip. The average joe schmoe doesn't have that need. I still feel that 10 rounds is typically sufficient, but I could concede a need in that instance.

No one here is advocating completely eliminating guns. The fact that you can't even see why it might be a good thing to regulate them, like everything else is regulated, is kind crazy.
That is good, that you have come to realize there maybe some 'need' for these guns. At least I made some small impact on your views. I guess my time here has not been a complete waste.

Now realize something. It has nothing to do with NEED. It is a RIGHT.

Remember, 2A is just as much of a right as 1A for an individual.

So tell me. What is the NEED of an author to write fictional horror stories? I will be waiting.....

[Todash]

No no no. You are forgetting a very important thing here. All of that...ALL, only applies to operating a motor vehicle on a public road. Not purchasing or owning a car. I would argue that my cat could buy a car, as a person is not required to have drivers license or insurance to purchase a car. And I could own a fleet of vehicles, pull the catalytic converters out of them, the seatbelts, the air bags....all of it, and drive around in that motor vehicle without a license or insurance...on private property. And there aint anything the government can do to me. Nothing. It is my private property on my private property.Your right to do whatever you want with your cars on your private property is not just because it's your private property. It's because as long as they stay on your property, they are not a public menace. Apples to oranges.


Big difference between ownership and operating.Not when it comes to a small item you can easily conceal on your person, there's not.

It does not matter. You cant go after me in court for 'contemplating' slandering you. I have to actually slander you. That is the way it works.I'm not talking about whether contemplation of killing someone is a crime. It's not. The point is that the two should be treated differently because the consequences of each crime is very different. That is why we don't execute people for jaywalking.

I consider the right of self-defense one of the most important rights there is. No one has a right to harm me. Thus, I have an inalienable right to defend myself. Self defense is basically...the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You have a right to defend yourself. You do not have a right to defend yourself with no limits.


I could build a firearm that slung a piece of lead downrange in an hour in my garage. The gunpowder may take longer to make, but it is all basic principles of chemistry. Heck, it is really really ancient technology. I could also take up 3 pages posting pictures of operational firearms made in peoples garages all over this world(now, and going back hundreds of years). I'm sure some people can do it. The point is production stream. Anybody can grow weed. Anybody can make bathtub gin. All it takes is a little knowledge, some cheap setup, and a few tools to produce enough product to keep you rolling in the dough in the event of a prohibition. You could say the same of guns, but if individual people were making certain types of guns (and mind you, I'm not talking about your garden variety, which would still be available commercially), those guns would become prohibitively expensive, as any handcrafted item does.


The countries you are probably talking about have always had a lower homicide rate than us. For the past 100 years. When they had full firearm ownership until they have almost a complete ban on firearm ownership. They dont have our unique history, our cultural problems, our large gang problems, etc etc. Example: Australia. Where until the late 19th century, British criminals were actually exported.

[hossenpepper]

Dont be silly...BLAH BLAH BLAH...you're dumb and I am smart...BLAH BLAH BLAH...{sic}...BLAH BLAH BLAH...these words are so worthwhile because I, the designated expert on these matters, say so...BLAH BLAH BLAH


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=FWBUl7oT9sA

[Sepia and Dust]

12 year old girl, home alone defends herself against intruder with moms 40 caliber glock.


One shot fired, nobody killed. Cite (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/10/20/12-year-old-girl-home-alone-uses-family-gun-to-shoot-intruder/).




How about the story of Melinda Herman, who defended herself and her two twin 9 year olds against an intruder with a gun? While her husband was on the phone with the police.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/georgia-mom-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/story?id=18164812


Shots fired: 5. Nobody killed.




How about the story of this 18 year old mom, who defended herself AND her 3 month old child with a gun? While she was on the phone with police.
http://newsok.com/sarah-mckinley-received-help-14-minutes-after-blanchard-home-invasion-call-911-records-reveal/article/3642339


Shots fired: 1. Intruder dead.




The phoenix 14 yr old that defended himself and the lives of his 3 younger siblings with his dads gun?
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-06-23/phoenix-teen-shoots-intruder/55782484/1


Shots fired: 1. Nobody killed.




OR. How about the texas 15 year old, that defended his life and that of his younger sister with... *GASP* an 'assault weapon'.
http://www.khou.com/news/crime/Burglary-suspect-shot-by-15-year-old-son-of-deputy-97430719.html

I wonder how big the 15yr olds magazine was. /rollseyes.


Shots fired: 3. Nobody killed.



So you need a 20- or 30-round mag? Why, exactly?

[atomicinchworm]

If that is ALL that persons arguments are based off of, ie, calling the other side names, putting up pictures to draw an emotional response, saying 'we need to do something', etc etc...then it is not a rationed and reasonable argument.



I will say those are all good things to do. But none of those things really provide 'defense' against an armed intruder. They are deterrents. And deterrents are beneficial certainly. But they are not 'defense'.

Remember, self defense is a RIGHT in this country. Armed Self-defense is an INDIVIDUAL right. With all of the protections as any other RIGHT in this country.


That is good, that you have come to realize there maybe some 'need' for these guns. At least I made some small impact on your views. I guess my time here has not been a complete waste.

Now realize something. It has nothing to do with NEED. It is a RIGHT.

Remember, 2A is just as much of a right as 1A for an individual.

So tell me. What is the NEED of an author to write fictional horror stories? I will be waiting.....

The point is, that typically if you take proper precautions, you rarely need a defense. This country is not a lawless land; most people who are murdered are murdered by someone they know, not unnamed armed assailants.

I am not arguing that people do not have the right to defend themselves with a gun. I am arguing that people do not need a 30 round magazine for personal defense. Popping off 30 rounds in a neighborhood to 'defend' yourself is reckless and unnecessary.

I have always felt that there would be extenuating circumstances with any ban or restrictions. These would require paperwork and maybe serial numbered magazines or weapons. There is an argument that clip are quick to change anyway so it doesn't matter, if this is the case than no one NEEDS large magazines.

Of course no one needs horror stories, just like no one needs art. I find this argument disingenuous. A story or a painting will never have the potential to directly harm another human being. The right of self expression is a right, but it has restrictions. No one is arguing that people cannot defend themselves. They are asking for reasonable restrictions on certain guns or accessories that are unnecessary in personal defense.

[jay1799]

Example: Australia. Where until the late 19th century, British criminals were actually exported.

That is pretty low. You do realize that the proportion of 'criminals' ie, those that were forced to immigrate to Australia was a very small fraction of the amount of people that legally immigrated to Australia. And that many of the 'crimes' people were 'exported' because, were relatively minor and petty.

Not to mention that this same practice was carried out in the North American Colonies until The American Revolution ended the practice.

Come on.

But.

In regards to Australia. As stated, their homicide rate was ALWAYS lower than ours. And historically, has not moved much.


In 1915 in Australia, the homicide rate was 1.8 per 100,000 population. In 1998 it was 1.6 per 100,000. During the intervening years it hit a low of 0.8 in 1941 and a high of 2.4 in 1988.
The annual homicide rates in Australia from 1915 to 1998 are displayed in graph C8.10 below. There was a long-term decline during the first half of the twentieth century, with the homicide rate being the lowest during the period of World War II (1939-1945). The rate then increased substantially to a plateau of about 1.5 per 100,000 population in the 1950s and 1960s. An upward trend occurred during the 1970s, reaching the level of around 2.0 per 100,000 population at the end of that decade. Since then, the rate has remained relatively stable, except for two temporary fluctuations in the 1980s. One of those temporary fluctuations resulted in the highest homicide rate recorded in Australia (rate of 2.4 per 100,000 population in 1988). This is more than double the rate observed in 1950.


http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/previous%20series/other/41-60/centenary%20article%20-%20crime%20in%20twentieth%20century%20australia.ht ml

And they have been tinkering with 'gun control' since the communist revolutions of the 1920's. And guess what. Their homicide rate has remained basically the same. it has gone up a little and gone down a little over all that time. But overall...basically has remained steady.

So as I said. Australia has always had a lower homicide rate than ours. ALWAYS! Comparing them to us is meaningless.

[Lily Sawyer]

What is the NEED of an author to write fictional horror stories? I will be waiting.....

Point taken about Mr. King's non-need to write but right to do so. I'll still remind you that he took responsibilty for his fictional horror story being an "accelerant to gun violence" by yanking it from further publication.

Few are the gun owners who are taking responsibility for their guns as accelerants to gun violence by either surrendering them to law enforcement officials or keeping them completely out of reach from others. If it's true that most people who are killed by guns do so at the hands of someone they know (crazy or not), then I don't see gun owners making a concerted effort to prevent this from happening. There are still far too many "accidents" and tragedies like Sandy Hook for me to be convinced that most gun owners *are* responsible.

[Moderator]

Had you bothered to read Steve's essay you would have read this:

Here’s a dope for you: Martin Bryant, of Port Arthur, in Tasmania. On April 28, 1996, he went on a spree with an AR-15 he purchased through a newspaper ad — easy-peasy. This happy ******* mowed down over a dozen in a crowded café, moved on to a gift shop where he killed some more, then moseyed to a parking garage where he killed yet more. The final tally was thirty-five dead and twenty-three wounded. He called his spree “lots of fun,” and in court laughed wildly when the judge read out the charges and intoned the names of the dead. He is now serving 1,035 years in Ridson Prison, and that should probably be enough. For him, at least. Maybe still not quite enough for the grieving relatives of the dead and the maimed.
For Australia, though, it was enough. The government either banned or restricted automatic weapons (as well as pump shotguns of the sort Eric Harris used at Columbine). As for those autos already out there, the government authorized a huge buyback that eventually netted 600,000 weapons. It amounted to about twenty percent of the country’s private firepower. Since the Bryant killings and the resulting tough gun laws, homicides by firearm have declined almost 60 percent in Australia. The guns-for-everyone advocates hate that statistic, and dispute it, but as Bill Clinton likes to say, it’s not opinion. It’s arithmetic, honey.

[jay1799]

Continued from my previous post.

Now, Australia went ballistic and basically went full on gun grabber in 1998, with confiscations and bans on almost all modern firearms.

What did that do?


De Leo, Dwyer, Firman & Neulinger,[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#cite_note-32) studied suicide methods in men from 1979 to 1998 and found a rise in hanging suicides that started slightly before the fall in gun suicides. As hanging suicides rose at about the same rate as gun suicides fell, it is possible that there was some substitution of suicide methods. It has been noted that drawing strong conclusions about possible impacts of gun laws on suicides is challenging, because a number of suicide prevention programs were implemented from the mid-1990s onwards, and non-firearm suicides also began falling.

In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn, noted that the level of legal gun ownership in New South Wales increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had had little to no effect on violence. Professor Simon Chapman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Chapman_%28academic%29), former co-convenor of the Coalition for Gun Control, complained that his words "will henceforth be cited by every gun-lusting lobby group throughout the world in their perverse efforts to stall reforms that could save thousands of lives". Weatherburn responded, "The fact is that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide. They may have reduced the risk of mass shootings but we cannot be sure because no one has done the rigorous statistical work required to verify this possibility. It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice."

In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker (a former state president of the SSAA(SA)) and Dr Samara McPhedran (Women in Shooting and Hunting) found no evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide.[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#cite_note-37)

Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australian and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. However since 1996/1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand. The authors conclude that “the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported… if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events.”[41] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#cite_note-41)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

TL;DR- Nothing.

Even your 'vaulted' Australia proves that 'gun control' does not work. It does not lower homicide rates, nor even mass shootings.

You want.....to violate the civil rights of millions of Americans....for something that has been proven to have no marketable impact on the homicide rate, the suicide rate or even mass shooting. Gun grabbers are NOT 'violence solvers'.

So...there it is folks. Do the people here at SK.com believe in science or not? If you believe in science, there is no proof that gun control lowers homicides. None.

[jay1799]

Point taken about Mr. King's non-need to write but right to do so. I'll still remind you that he took responsibilty for his fictional horror story being an "accelerant to gun violence" by yanking it from further publication.

Few are the gun owners who are taking responsibility for their guns as accelerants to gun violence by either surrendering them to law enforcement officials or keeping them completely out of reach from others. If it's true that most people who are killed by guns do so at the hands of someone they know (crazy or not), then I don't see gun owners making a concerted effort to prevent this from happening. There are still far too many "accidents" and tragedies like Sandy Hook for me to be convinced that most gun owners *are* responsible.


And I have no problem with him taking personal responsibility. But the government did not say...your works are banned, because there is no need for them. If the government had done such a thing(I know there was some talk...but politicans like to here themselves talk) I think everyone on this forum would have exploded at the gross over reach of the government in restricting Mr. King's rights. And I would have been right behind him and all of you as well.

Rights are Rights. They are not 'Needs'.

One could say the only 'Needs' anyone has in the world is food, shelter, and clothing. Anything beyond that is not a 'need'.

And I have no problem with the government even encouraging people to take responsibility for their firearms.

Encouraging responsibility does not need to be 'new laws' however. PSA's is one approach.

How about this. Would you be in favor of the government issuing gun locks to gun owners with safety instructions aiding parents on how to keep firearms away from children? I think that is a fair approach.

Guess what. There was a program that did just this. But Obama defunded it.


Here’s another one: Resume federal funding of firearm safety. During the George W. Bush administration, Congress appropriated more than $90 million that was channeled by the Justice Department to Project ChildSafe. That program has distributed 35 million cable-style gun locks with the assistance, in many cases, of local police departments. Each lock comes with a safety brochure and other educational material meant to help parents keep firearms out of the hands of children (or thieves). Under the Obama administration, the Justice Department ceased funding the program, much to the consternation of local cops.


“Thousands of law enforcement departments across the country—ours included—use Project ChildSafe to effectively raise awareness among gun owners to safely store firearms and ammunition in their homes,” Robert Desrosiers, chief of police in Paxton, Mass., wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder last year. “This helps prevent unauthorized persons, particularly children, from finding an unsecured and possibly loaded firearm in the house. A properly stored firearm can help prevent tragic accidents and also, potentially reduce cases for the criminal justice system.”


Desrosiers, like scores of his counterparts from across the country, has pleaded with the Obama administration to revive federal funding for the gun-lock initiative. “It is a program that can literally save lives,” the Massachusetts police chief added.


Why would a president who favors tougher gun-safety measures cut off this cop-endorsed undertaking? I strongly suspect that the reason is that Project ChildSafe has been—and still is—administered by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun-industry trade group friendly with the NRA. Obviously, the Obama administration has its differences with the gun industry and the lobby representing gun owners. This should not, however, prevent the White House from keeping guns out of kids’ hands.


http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-02-13/another-modest-gun-proposal-firearm-safety-training

[hossenpepper]

Just to drown out the nonsense again, let me reiterate, nothing but your natural death is a right, in that it can be expected to happen. The rest are privileges born of the particular society in which you reside. For instance, we have the privilege to openly criticize the government and others that out themselves in the public eye. However, the Chinese by and large do not enjoy this privilege. Is it the correct and fair thing that they should be able to? That is for each society to decide. And therein lies the difficulty and destruction of the theory that you have a "right" to anything as it is being attempted to be explained by certain persons here.

Here's why: if you allow an open debate about whether or not certain privileges due to innate characteristics of humans (for example of the First Amendment, we like to run our mouths, or the 2nd Amendment, we like to listen to stuff go BOOM, kill large animals and sometimes each other), or is extensible via technological advance (better, more lethal guns, a worldwide communication medium, better health care appliances, automobiles, transporters {someday maybe}), are extended to said society, then by the very nature of the premise on which your society would be structured to even allow this debate among (and including the opinions of) its populace, then you have decided that it will be an EVER EVOLVING SOCIETY. In short, things change, sh!t happens and dangers arise that weren't there before. So as these circumstances unveil, then the laws and legal securities of said privileges must change to reflect the current state of that subject.

If this long winded explanation sounds familiar it is because this is the country we live in. What some people, usually conservatives, don't get about this most fundamental fact of our society, I will never understand. It was built to evolve, not remain exactly as it was day one. Save the "Constitution is purposely limited to keep things the same and limited" argument. Read the Federalists Papers. yes they mention limiting Federal power, but they also clearly declare us to be Federalists, relying on a balanced "layer cake" to govern what they knew would be a diverse society. The true purpose, and proven time and again to be such in writing after writing by these founders, of the limited Constitution was so that it could be evolved and added to as needed and as time evolved us both socially and technologically. This is clearly evidenced further by the fact that we even have an Amendment process in the first place!!! Hell, they left the first 10 out that we see as so basically fundamental to our society, right off the damn bat!! And what's more? We have a special court that is basically just to interpret the subtleties of application of these laws and definitions as the society evolves! If you see this as some attempt to address a "necessary evil" by the founders, then you truly do not understand their writings or intent. This is PoliSci 101 stuff folks!!

As the guns and appliances thereof change, freedoms/privileges will be extended and some retracted. If you don't get that the flexibility purposely designed into our system supersedes conservative style status quo bantering, supposedly disguised as "opinion" not from the genre of such, then you simply do not understand the most primary purpose of our societal structure.

In short, it ain't 1787 anymore sweethearts (<-- that last word is because it's Valentine's Day, gosh I am oh-so-clever), and we don't live that lifestyle now. Time to evolve or get out of the way so the adults can figure this out.

[Sepia and Dust]

Just to drown out the nonsense again, let me reiterate, nothing but your natural death is a right, in that it can be expected to happen. The rest are privileges born of the particular society in which you reside. For instance, we have the privilege to openly criticize the government and others that out themselves in the public eye. However, the Chinese by and large do not enjoy this privilege. Is it the correct and fair thing that they should be able to? That is for each society to decide. And therein lies the difficulty and destruction of the theory that you have a "right" to anything as it is being attempted to be explained by certain persons here.

Oh, codswallop. There are many rights outside of the mere right to die, as you are perfectly well aware.

If one accepts the concept of goodness, then one also must accept a definition for that concept, and it is simply this: Those who respect the natural rights of mankind are good; those who don't, aren't.

[Todash]

Oh, codswallop. There are many rights outside of the mere right to die, as you are perfectly well aware.

If one accepts the concept of goodness, then one also must accept a definition for that concept, and it is simply this: Those who respect the natural rights of mankind are good; those who don't, aren't.
You get eleventy bonus points for using the word codswallop.

[jay1799]

Just to drown out...
So is that your goal? Not to debate, but to drown out opposing positions?

It seems that you are losing the debate, and thus need to try to change the subject. That is very poor debating form.


...nothing but your natural death is a right, in that it can be expected to happen. The rest are privileges born of the particular society in which you reside. For instance ... However, the Chinese by and large do not enjoy this privilege ....
The chinese do not have rights because they live under an oppressive regime. Their rights are violated. That does not mean humans do not have certain rights. It just means that governments will suppress peoples rights when they have all the power and the people have none. That is exactly what the 2nd Amendment is trying to prevent. But hey, if you want to live in a country where the people have no rights, feel free to move to China. Dont let the door hit you on the way out....


...then you have decided that it will be an EVER EVOLVING SOCIETY.
Sure society evolves. No one is denying that.


What some people, usually conservatives, don't get about this most fundamental fact of our society, I will never understand.
What is your personal obsession with conservatives?



It was built to evolve, not remain exactly as it was day one. ... The true purpose, and proven time and again to be such in writing after writing by these founders, of the limited Constitution was so that it could be evolved and added to as needed and as time evolved us both socially and technologically. This is clearly evidenced further by the fact that we even have an Amendment process in the first place!!!
Yes. The Constitution was meant to be able to change via an Amendment process. If that is what you wish to do, then Amend The Constitution. Your problem is that an Amendment to remove 2A would NEVER pass...so gun-grabbers are trying to legislate it away in drips and drabs...but that does not change the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is a right protected under The Constitution.

Additionally, your views that people do not have rights enshrined in The Constitution would be one that I doubt is shared by many other Americans.



Hell, they left the first 10 out that we see as so basically fundamental to our society, right off the damn bat!!
This is factually incorrect.

Have you ever heard of the Massachusetts Compromise? Basically, The Constitution would never have been ratified without the express agreement by federalists for a Bill of Rights. Understand those words?? There would not have been The Constitution without The Bill of Rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Compromise


Federalist Noah Webster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster) argued that an armed populace would have no trouble resisting the potential threat to liberty of a standing army.[67] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-67)[68] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-68) Anti-federalists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Federalism), however, advocated amending the Constitution with clearly defined and enumerated rights providing more explicit constraints on the new government. Many Anti-federalists feared the new federal government would choose to disarm state militias. Federalists countered that in listing only certain rights, unlisted rights might lose protection. The Federalists realized there was insufficient support to ratify the Constitution without a bill of rights and so they promised to support amending the Constitution to add a bill of rights following the Constitution's adoption. This compromise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Compromise) persuaded enough Anti-federalists to vote for the Constitution, allowing for ratification.[69] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-69) The Constitution was declared ratified June 21, 1788, when nine of the original thirteen states had ratified it. The remaining four states later followed suit, although the last two states, North Carolina and Rhode Island, ratified only after Congress had passed the Bill of Rights and sent it to the states for ratification.[70] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-70) James Madison drafted what ultimately became the Bill of Rights, which was proposed by the first Congress on June 8, 1789, and was adopted on December 15, 1791.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution




And what's more? We have a special court that is basically just to interpret the subtleties of application of these laws and definitions as the society evolves!
Yes. And that court has ruled that The People have an Individual Right to keep and bear arms, and that Right is also incorporated to The States via the 14th Amendment. Get with the program.

[hossenpepper]

Oh, codswallop. There are many rights outside of the mere right to die, as you are perfectly well aware.

If one accepts the concept of goodness, then one also must accept a definition for that concept, and it is simply this: Those who respect the natural rights of mankind are good; those who don't, aren't.

Differentiating a privilege and a "right" is not a difference without distinction. Otherwise you would have to expect these rights no matter where you are. You know perfectly well that test doesn't even hold as you move from town to town in the US. Much less state to state. Can you legally possess marijuana in Kansas? NO!!! How about next door in Colorado? YES!! Because the society specific to CO has decided a different set of privileges than that of KS. So the "right" to possess can change by simply walking across an imaginary line. Only by enforcing or arguing some form of imaginary divination of these "rights", (which, golly, people want so they can do things that maybe not everyone agrees they should) can you see this as some inherent fabric of the universe, just waiting for man to unveil it. Otherwise these are debated agreements of extended privilege to your fellow humans and yourself. That does not make them inherent to existence!!! Calling these privileges "rights" has everything to do with making it seem as though there is no arguing such matters and nothing to do with ingrained human values as you use as your example.

Your codswallop assessment relies on "rights" being interwoven into existence so much so that they just "are" and never needed to be developed,debated or otherwise over many centuries of human civilization. You can assess for yourself which of those two things has actually happened here on Earth.

[Sepia and Dust]

Differentiating a privilege and a "right" is not a difference without distinction.

Within the framework of civilization, there are natural rights possessed by every human, regardless of geography. That these rights are infringed upon by some governments does not remove the rights from the individual, but rather shows the governments in question to be often despotic and occassionally invalid.

Your arguments that humans have no rights, whatsoever, except for the right to die are disingenuous because they not only move the goalposts, they move the whole arena. Any discussion of rights, natural or otherwise, begins with a framework of civilization.

A government is not "interwoven into existence", but is constructed by people. A valid government does not "grant privileges" to any, but ensures that natural rights are afforded to all.

I will grant, however, that there is no natural right to carry around a baggie of weed. Score one for you.

[hossenpepper]

Within the framework of civilization, there are natural rights possessed by every human, regardless of geography. That these rights are infringed upon by some governments does not remove the rights from the individual, but rather shows the governments in question to be often despotic and occassionally invalid.

Your arguments that humans have no rights, whatsoever, except for the right to die are disingenuous because they not only move the goalposts, they move the whole arena. Any discussion of rights, natural or otherwise, begins with a framework of civilization.

A government is not "interwoven into existence", but is constructed by people. A valid government does not "grant privileges" to any, but ensures that natural rights are afforded to all.

I will grant, however, that there is no natural right to carry around a baggie of weed. Score one for you.

I didn't call dying a right. It is an inevitably. That is how the term "rights" as it applies to the discussion here and of other human legalities, is being equated. I think this very fundamental glossing over of the basic premise of what is and is not inherent to man or their existence thereof, is where things start to go off the rails in the first place. The term "right" is seen as an entitled state of existence or allowance. When it is defined as such, then it takes on an almost, and in many cases overtly, religious tone and aspect. This then leads to seeing these as "god given", "natural" or other term that interweaves them in a way as to inseparable from each individual. Obviously, for the refined and socially evolved type of civilization in which we find ourselves now, these privileges must exist, and equally so for all in said society. However, that still does not preclude the fact that these rights, privileges, entitlements or whatever specific term you use are not wholesale guaranteed, required or otherwise inherent unless the group of involved persons decide they are to be so.

I guess what I am trying to get at here is not I am not arguing that we don't need/want privilege A, B, or C in order for our society to be more comfortable, enjoyable, fulfilling or otherwise tapered for the advancement and survival of our species. I am saying that since many, on either side of this debate, would agree that the main root of this problem is the attitude and complications within our society, often created by our rampant selfishness, greed and other overly individualistic tendencies, then we must agree that some fundamental values of this society must be examined.

I feel the almost "faith based" way we expect that we can do this, that, those and more, with very few limits, is at the core of the aforementioned societal woes. Perhaps if Americans didn't feel so entitled, perhaps we might respect each more. But if one is so absorbed by "me me me" and "my right my right my right", that is very hard to impossible. Now add someone who is slightly off mentally to that soil... you may grow a killer.

At the very least, not being to even relax the death grip on "rights" pretty much says that the debate was settled 200+ years ago, so why should we have it anymore? If you see the accouterments of a civilized society, whose government both is defined by and defines it, as privileges derived thereof, then you see that debate is crucial to its continual and necessary maintenance. You see that the government is the tool by which we adjust these matters and privileges to further evolve and refine the society. This flexible structure is why the US has been so successful in melting all of the different ideals, ethnicities, religions and values into the fabric we have now. But, without recognizing the fragility of this mesh, plus the fact that if it should break, so do these "rights" vanish, we create the very situation that may cause it to fracture in the first place.

Summary: On a very basic level the reason a U.S. citizen has (for example) U.S. gun "rights" is because the U.S. exists and certain privileges come with that citizenship. Not because it is written in the stars and our DNA.

For reference purposes, this is a proper debate. Thanks S&D :y:

[Sepia and Dust]

I didn't call dying a right. It is an inevitably. That is how the term "rights" as it applies to the discussion here and of other human legalities, is being equated. I think this very fundamental glossing over of the basic premise of what is and is not inherent to man or their existence thereof, is where things start to go off the rails in the first place. The term "right" is seen as an entitled state of existence or allowance. When it is defined as such, then it takes on an almost, and in many cases overtly, religious tone and aspect. This then leads to seeing these as "god given", "natural" or other term that interweaves them in a way as to inseparable from each individual. Obviously, for the refined and socially evolved type of civilization in which we find ourselves now, these privileges must exist, and equally so for all in said society. However, that still does not preclude the fact that these rights, privileges, entitlements or whatever specific term you use are not wholesale guaranteed, required or otherwise inherent unless the group of involved persons decide they are to be so.

I guess what I am trying to get at here is not I am not arguing that we don't need/want privilege A, B, or C in order for our society to be more comfortable, enjoyable, fulfilling or otherwise tapered for the advancement and survival of our species. I am saying that since many, on either side of this debate, would agree that the main root of this problem is the attitude and complications within our society, often created by our rampant selfishness, greed and other overly individualistic tendencies, then we must agree that some fundamental values of this society must be examined.

I feel the almost "faith based" way we expect that we can do this, that, those and more, with very few limits, is at the core of the aforementioned societal woes. Perhaps if Americans didn't feel so entitled, perhaps we might respect each more. But if one is so absorbed by "me me me" and "my right my right my right", that is very hard to impossible. Now add someone who is slightly off mentally to that soil... you may grow a killer.

At the very least, not being to even relax the death grip on "rights" pretty much says that the debate was settled 200+ years ago, so why should we have it anymore? If you see the accouterments of a civilized society, whose government both is defined by and defines it, as privileges derived thereof, then you see that debate is crucial to its continual and necessary maintenance. You see that the government is the tool by which we adjust these matters and privileges to further evolve and refine the society. This flexible structure is why the US has been so successful in melting all of the different ideals, ethnicities, religions and values into the fabric we have now. But, without recognizing the fragility of this mesh, plus the fact that if it should break, so do these "rights" vanish, we create the very situation that may cause it to fracture in the first place.

Summary: On a very basic level the reason a U.S. citizen has (for example) U.S. gun "rights" is because the U.S. exists and certain privileges come with that citizenship. Not because it is written in the stars and our DNA.

For reference purposes, this is a proper debate. Thanks S&D :y:

Well, I can't take any issue with anything you said. I will further agree that the right to bear arms is not (IMO, anyway) a natural right, though the rights to self-defense and to hunt for food are.

I hope that--despite our current problems--our most current fragile mesh will hold for a good while longer. We've come a long way since the days of the divine right of kings.

[hossenpepper]

Dont let the door hit you on the way out....

My ancestors, among others, are Native American. Unless yours are as well, I would say that supersedes your invitation to please exit, practicing protection of your posterior, any day of the week, golf club whisperer.

:tongue: (<--- That makes my reply not snarky. Sans smiley, it might seem so.)

[Lily Sawyer]

That these rights are infringed upon by some governments does not remove the rights from the individual, but rather shows the governments in question to be often despotic and occassionally invalid.

Question for you, guido, exzel, and Sundrop: Do you consider regulations to be infringements on rights? (example: First Amendment rights guarantee you the right to speechify with hate rhetoric. Regulations say you can be punished for turning that hate into libel or slander, or worse.)