The CT shooting and gun control
-
BoatShoes
The simple answer is that the State, popular elected so as to become the popular sovereign, has the monopoly of force and must act, at least most of the time, with the consent of the populace as a whole or through its elected representatives. There are also elements of nationalism in play. And, for what it's worth, I generally support reducing the "arms" of the federal government and have actually used the large amount power of the military as a reason a constitutionalist who supports the second amendment as a final defense against tyranny as one reason they might view that right as already functionally worthless.Cleveland Buck;1382459 wrote:And since your so gung-ho to strip us all of our basic human rights, why didn't you answer the questions I asked in another thread?
i.e. what good is a an AR-15 in your closet going to do against a humanless drone bombing controlled by a tyrant playing a video game in the Pentagon? -
BoatShoes
Well the Japanese actually had strict private gun control long before that. Also, the people there want gun control and national outrage occurs when people do die at the hands of a gun...Another day another "law abiding citizen"/former "good guy with a gun" becomes a "bad guy with a gun"/murderer in the U.S.Cleveland Buck;1382460 wrote:Japan was disarmed when our military marched in there and disarmed them at gunpoint, and is still there occupying their land. That's how that worked. Didn't you say you object to doing that here? -
Cleveland Buck
Where did this shit come from? I know it sure as hell isn't in the Constitution anywhere. Actually, the opposite is in there though.BoatShoes;1382470 wrote:The simple answer is that the State, popular elected so as to become the popular sovereign, has the monopoly of force and must act, at least most of the time, with the consent of the populace as a whole or through its elected representatives.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. -
Cleveland Buck
Well that is definitely a culture difference like you mentioned. The Japanese people have been ruled over and their rights denied for most of their existence and they don't know any better. Same with Europe. The only place in the world that wasn't the case is here, but that is changing/has changed. It has taken longer here, because government schools and media had to teach people that their rights are bad for society and they should voluntarily surrender them.BoatShoes;1382473 wrote:Well the Japanese actually had strict private gun control long before that. Also, the people there want gun control and national outrage occurs when people do die at the hands of a gun...Another day another "law abiding citizen"/former "good guy with a gun" becomes a "bad guy with a gun"/murderer in the U.S. -
Cleveland Buck
If people want to do that it is their right. The National Guard and the federal government have nothing to do with it. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Not the people have the right to serve in federal militias as permitted by their betters in Washington.BoatShoes;1382461 wrote:If we're really concerned about being able to fend off Barack's drone invasion...we might organize county level militias/gun depots where citizens could go and train and perform paramilitary training on the weekends, etc under the control of the National Guard....having well regulated militias in other words....as opposed to people hiding out in their cellars in rural alabama. -
BoatShoes
Well, it hasn't really happened elsewhere. I'm not sure why. My guess is that when it comes down to it guns are really a very discretionary item. Booze/drugs/cigs...although we might say they're discretionry and not a basic need....an awful lot people gotta get their high in some fashion. Firing a gun or having it in a safe or next to your bed probably doesn't fulfill that same kind of need or want.O-Trap;1382410 wrote:Here's something yet to be considered as well. What is to prevent the underground manufacturing of guns if we were to enact a nationwide ban? The physics of a gun are not particularly difficult. I know that with a stock kit and a shovel, you can make an AR-15.
And with legal avenues being completely gone, there would CERTAINLY be a market for it. And hell, as a dealer, you wouldn't have to go through the hassle of background checks, waiting periods, or even lawsuits for faulty weapons that might result in the unintended deaths of people on top of the intended deaths.
To be perfectly honest, even as someone who doesn't currently engage in illegal enterprise, that sounds like a VERY enticing, very lucrative venture.
When it comes down it people in large part aren't that afraid of being robbed or the Obama drone invasion...so I think maybe the discretionary nature of guns could contribute to that.
Would there be a super-huge black market motorcycle manufacturing industry if motorcycles were outlawed? Maybe...but not to the level of drugs, if I were to guess.
You might also curb it by regulating bullets as well. -
BoatShoes
I think you forgot part of that fundamental right...the part that specifically applies to militias too...Cleveland Buck;1382479 wrote:If people want to do that it is their right. The National Guard and the federal government have nothing to do with it. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Not the people have the right to serve in federal militias as permitted by their betters in Washington.
-
BoatShoes
Only the books that influenced the guys that wrote the constitution...Cleveland Buck;1382474 wrote:Where did this shit come from? I know it sure as hell isn't in the Constitution anywhere. Actually, the opposite is in there though. -
Cleveland Buck
No, it doesn't. They might have included that phrase as justification, but there is no debating the meaning.BoatShoes;1382485 wrote:I think you forgot part of that fundamental right...the part that specifically applies to militias too... -
Cleveland Buck
You mean some of the guys, like the scumbag Hamilton? Regardless, it isn't in the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.BoatShoes;1382486 wrote:Only the books that influenced the guys that wrote the constitution... -
BoatShoes
It certainly applies to forming a militia if not an individual's right to bear arms.Cleveland Buck;1382497 wrote:No, it doesn't. They might have included that phrase as justification, but there is no debating the meaning. -
BoatShoes
What do you know, a Constitutionalist/Founding Father worshipper who discounts the most prominent Federalist (and probably the whole party too...including John Marshall :rolleyesCleveland Buck;1382500 wrote:You mean some of the guys, like the scumbag Hamilton? Regardless, it isn't in the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.
.
It is embodied in the Constitution. Only the Executive branch may execute the laws of the Congress. If Congress passes a law saying that it is a crime to carry a rocket launcher in interstate commerce because they have a compelling interest for outlawing such behavior and it is a narrowly tailored regulation of the 2nd Amendment only the executive branch can commit what amounts to battery and imprisonment of a person who violates that law. A private citizen cannot do that. That is the monopoly of force and it applies to foreign policy as well. -
BoatShoes
And, one of the guys I was referring to was John Locke and his Two Treatises of Government. Thomas Jefferson...your boy...called him one of the three greatest men who ever lived....and he certainly made the case for the majoritarian government having the monopoly of force.Cleveland Buck;1382500 wrote:You mean some of the guys, like the scumbag Hamilton? Regardless, it isn't in the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. -
HitsRus
The problem is that the arguement/debate has been framed that it is about 'guns'....not violence against persons in general. Guns can/should be part of the debate, but to proceed along the premise that 'gun control' is going to significantly affect violence in general is naive. Even Biden said last week that what has been proposed will not be a guarantee against violence.Yes. because not to at least try to reduce gun violence would be the signal of the end of a moral society. Don't know if "gun control" is the answer but I do know the only way to find out is through debate.
There is a lot of truth to this.We have devalued human life in this country, mainly because of liberals, or liberal policy. It began with the murdering of millions of unborn children which continues unabated, and continued to worsen as we removed all references to God in school and eliminated moral teachings and consience formation, and replaced much of that with numbing video game violence foisted upon the youth by Hollywood (liberals). Today, for many radicals, the earth and animals have a higher standing than human beings.
1) Equivocating the value and definition of human life thru abortion policies
2) systemic devalueing of religion and institutions that provide a moral framework for many people
3)government policies that contribute to the breakdown of a nuturing family unit. Supporting and providing financial incentives to having/raising children out of wedlock.
4) Lack of responsibility of the media in what they supply for entertainment( gratuitous violence), lack of/loss of standards for broadcasting.
Unless these are included in the discussion, you are not going to significantly impact violence in this country.
Now I think it is pretty safe to say that the perpetrators of these policies are NOT going to do a mea culpa. It is far too easy for them to say we have a gun problem(even if they have to violate the Constitution and 2nd amendments rights), rather than admit that we have a violence problem, and put the other issues on the table. -
HitsRus
To read Locke and come to the conclusion that he was for anything but limited government that exists only by the consent of the people, or to construe that what he wrote justifies the usurpation of power and rights by this government is disingenuous to say the least. GTFO.And, one of the guys I was referring to was John Locke and his Two Treatises of Government. Thomas Jefferson...your boy...called him one of the three greatest men who ever lived....and he certainly made the case for the majoritarian government having the monopoly of force. -
BoatShoes
LOL. Do you know what is meant by the phrase monopoly of force? In no way does that imply anything in your diatribe about "usurpation of power and rights by this government" Nothing in my phrase about Locke supporting Majoritarian government having the monopoly of force...that is the legitimate authority to use force...would imply we were in anyway discussing the current goverment. Jeez. :rolleyes:HitsRus;1382566 wrote:To read Locke and come to the conclusion that he was for anything but limited government that exists only by the consent of the people, or to construe that what he wrote justifies the usurpation of power and rights by this government is disingenuous to say the least. GTFO. -
BoatShoes
What do you have to say about countries that...HitsRus;1382532 wrote:The problem is that the arguement/debate has been framed that it is about 'guns'....not violence against persons in general. Guns can/should be part of the debate, but to proceed along the premise that 'gun control' is going to significantly affect violence in general is naive. Even Biden said last week that what has been proposed will not be a guarantee against violence.
There is a lot of truth to this.
1) Equivocating the value and definition of human life thru abortion policies
2) systemic devalueing of religion and institutions that provide a moral framework for many people
3)government policies that contribute to the breakdown of a nuturing family unit. Supporting and providing financial incentives to having/raising children out of wedlock.
4) Lack of responsibility of the media in what they supply for entertainment( gratuitous violence), lack of/loss of standards for broadcasting.
Unless these are included in the discussion, you are not going to significantly impact violence in this country.
Now I think it is pretty safe to say that the perpetrators of these policies are NOT going to do a mea culpa. It is far too easy for them to say we have a gun problem(even if they have to violate the Constitution and 2nd amendments rights), rather than admit that we have a violence problem, and put the other issues on the table.
1. Have more liberal abortion laws
2. Have even less traditional family units than we do
3. Supply gratuitous violence, hollywood, and lack of "broadcasting standards" that the free market demands
4. Even less religion and more secularism
but have less violence and gun violence and particular than we do???
Every industrialized country is worse than us from a conservative point of view on every measure and they are less violent than we are.
Why, if your hypothesis is true, are these countries not more violent than we are??? -
O-Trap
Actually, I have seen too many instances (the UK and Australia being the two that come to mine) in which the differences in population densities, nevermind the cultural differences, have actually played into the notion that banning firearms has not helped. As such, while I'm open to any additional examples, I'd be somewhat skeptical it would be, in any way, effective, based on this.BoatShoes;1382440 wrote:I agree that drug prohibition has been very ineffective in large part. However, it is not a one to one with large scale, country-wide gun prohibition. What you say seems intuitive to me but there is evidence that gun control can be pretty effective. I'm not sure what the underlying reasons are for why that is.
BoatShoes;1382440 wrote:Maybe it's because the dopamine released into the nucleus accumbens is far greater when a human uses drugs as opposed to when one uses a firearm?
To be sure, the ultimate end-user consumption is a different experience, and that can indeed be a reason. Consider a drug addict versus a gun enthusiast. The latter needs only buy one, technically, in order to use it for years. The former must buy very regularly over the same amount of time. The guns aren't consumable in the same way.
Something I think might end up being an unintended consequence of an all-out ban would be that the average gun owner (whether the number shrinks or not) will have an arsenal that would be considered, by most standards, to be MORE dangerous than the average gun owner today.
Here's why I think that to be the case: There are plenty of gun owners who are currently happy to abide by the laws in place. They don't see a reason to take on the risks associated with owning illegal property, because the legal versions are enough to satisfy their felt need for safety.
Now, put ALL firearms on the same legal plane.
You've essentially eliminated the one reason why a person with the means to do so might choose a couple semi-automatic (which most guns are, for what it's worth) Glocks instead of a pair of fully-automatic MAC-10s.
As I've stated before, while I feel reasonably safe with my own six-shell 12-gauge, in the event of an armed robbery of my home, I would like to have AT LEAST as effective a weapon as the intruders. Now, my desire is deterred, because I'd prefer to obey the law, because currently, it allows me the ability to protect my family with a weapon that I think is acceptable.
However, if you remove the legality of my 12-gauge, you've removed the reason I "settle" for a gun that just meets my need. If all are illegal, why might I not just prepare for the worst, and get a couple AA-12s or modified Saiga 12Ks (full-auto 12-gauge shotguns)? I really have no reason not to.
This is why I do have to at least respect that you are trying to have an honest discussion here, and it's why at least I think it's one worthy of engagement. You certainly seem to be approaching it from a genuinely honest and thoughtful perspective. While we may not agree even at all, I can at least appreciate that.BoatShoes;1382458 wrote:As I want to make clear...U.S. culture is unique so nothing is a one-to-one example....
Well, let's be honest. They haven't eliminated private gun ownership. They've just eliminated LEGAL private gun ownership.BoatShoes;1382458 wrote:We can still look at other free countries and not see a devolution into tyranny or drastic amounts of crime. Everyone is going to say "Japan is different dar" but a country that built an empire on merciless slaughter has eliminated gun violence and eliminated private gun ownership for the most part and they are still radically free and seem to be under no immediate threat of tyranny or only bad japanese people imposing mass coercion with guns.
Too, I don't think we have a long enough frame of reference to say whether or not it can be done at all, let alone whether or not any country can do it. Remember, anarchy has been tested to be effective over short periods of time.
And too, one must remember that tyranny doesn't, by definition, restrict felt rights. If a dictator, who achieved power through military conquest for example, stated that it was acceptable for people to have a multitude of freedoms, it is still tyranny, because that figurehead has the power to remove those freedoms at his whim.
So, I suppose this might be the question: Whether or not you trust the US government as it currently exists, as well as it's immediate future, can you say that you trust it to such a degree that you believe it might never take advantage of an unarmed populace?
While I don't think Obama is going to crown himself king the day after the guns are (theoretically) rounded up, I can't say I trust the distant future government of the US to not abuse the fact that it has a (again, theoretically) defenseless populace.
BoatShoes;1382458 wrote:So it seems they've given up guns at almost no objective cost except the subjective pleasure/value one gets from private gun ownership.
And this is, I think, where the cultural differences come into play. If a gun owner owns a gun for the fun of it, then perhaps he wouldn't care. I would compare that to the original Four Loko. When it contained the original ingredients, people drank it. When it was banned in Ohio, some Ohioans were bummed, but it didn't go beyond that. Their behavior indicates that they viewed it as a convenience, rather than a necessity for the security and peace of mind of their homes.
If people in Japan were treating gun ownership like Ohioans treated Four Loko consumption, then I completely understand their willingness to give it up freely.
Eh, not the same kind, no, though I'd say it might be just as intense. Again, though, I go back to the fact that you only really have to buy a single gun one time to be a gun owner. To be a drug user ... drugs being a consumable item, you're going to be buying frequently.BoatShoes;1382482 wrote:Well, it hasn't really happened elsewhere. I'm not sure why. My guess is that when it comes down to it guns are really a very discretionary item. Booze/drugs/cigs...although we might say they're discretionry and not a basic need....an awful lot people gotta get their high in some fashion. Firing a gun or having it in a safe or next to your bed probably doesn't fulfill that same kind of need or want.
Guns are likely to be a bigger-ticket item if illegal, though, so from a business standpoint, I think it will easily still be worth it. As for why it hasn't happened elsewhere, I'd contend that it likely has more than is reported ... which is kind of by design, I would imagine.
In some places, maybe that's true. Personally, living where I do, I am rather attentive to noises in the house. Three people within 2 houses of mine have been robbed in the last four years, the latest of which was our next-door neighbor on Saturday evening. It happens, and in some places, it happens more frequently than others.BoatShoes;1382482 wrote:When it comes down it people in large part aren't that afraid of being robbed or the Obama drone invasion...so I think maybe the discretionary nature of guns could contribute to that.
Motorcycles are probably different because their benefit is pretty difficult to hide. The benefit of a gun is not using it, but having it in case you are in a situation in which using it helps you, and since they're easier to hide than motorcycles (even weapons like RPGs). You can't necessarily see a drive-by shooting coming a mile away, because guns are easily to conceal.BoatShoes;1382482 wrote:Would there be a super-huge black market motorcycle manufacturing industry if motorcycles were outlawed? Maybe...but not to the level of drugs, if I were to guess.
If we were to compare it to a recreational item, I'd suggest comparing it to embargo cigars. Cuban cigars are illegal to import, and yet, who doesn't know someone they could probably contact to get one? Heck, I know businesses who have them for sale if you know how to ask for them, nevermind people.
Have I partaken of goods illegally brought to the US? I absolutely have, even though it's merely an inconvenience not to have them.
BoatShoes;1382482 wrote:You might also curb it by regulating bullets as well.
Ammunition is remarkably easy to make, believe it or not. I doubt that would effectively curb anything. I have a friend who, in order to save money, does make his own ammunition (same guy who showed me the shovel AR-15). It's apparently very easy, and even cheaper than buying it. -
HitsRus
I didn't realize that Russia and Switzerland were not considered industrialized. In Russia guns are illegal but they have 5 times the gun violence. In Switzerland they have more guns but less violence. I realize that you want to pick countries that you think we should be like and that back your cause. But the fact is that the United States is not Europe, nor is it requisite that we emulate them. Historically, we have gone to great lengths to distance ourselves from them. England has always looked down their nose at us as uncultured backwater rubes. Moreover, as Bill Murray states in the movie comedy Stripes......our ancestors either left or "were kicked out of every decent country in Europe". (there's is always humor when a little truth is involved). We didn't want Europe, or they didn't want us....so I don't feel the need to be like Europe...in anything. What's right for their lilly white asses isn't necessarly what is right for a bunch of dog faced half breeds. The truth is we are a mixture of cultures and races with our own demographics and our own geography. We are not a homogenous group, but a country made up of different races and ethnicities that have often clashed. None of this has been made any better by getting rid of the 'melting pot' and replacing it with 'diversity". And none of it has been made better by an administration that seeks to increase its political power by dividing us up by class, race gender, sexual orientation and religion.BoatShoes;1382573 wrote:What do you have to say about countries that...
1. Have more liberal abortion laws
2. Have even less traditional family units than we do
3. Supply gratuitous violence, hollywood, and lack of "broadcasting standards" that the free market demands
4. Even less religion and more secularism
but have less violence and gun violence and particular than we do???
Every industrialized country is worse than us from a conservative point of view on every measure and they are less violent than we are.
Why, if your hypothesis is true, are these countries not more violent than we are??? -
Con_Alma
That may be what they believe. I have no idea what their positions are. I do know it has nothing to do with my opinion and what I shared.BoatShoes;1382323 wrote:Because liberals would patently refute your claim that it wasn't about controlling gun violence and that it's primarily about legacy. -
HitsRus
-
O-Trap
That's rather simplistic.HitsRus;1382798 wrote:
A 2-hour movie is created to be fictional entertainment, a fact that is not lost on the audience, but rather openly displayed in order to draw them.
A 30-second Super Bowl ad, or ANY ad, for that matter, spends its entirety trying to communicate an actualized or potential reality. It isn't intended to make money by entertaining people. It is intended to make money by convincing them that some part of their reality will be better by owning or using the product or service in question. -
Cleveland Buck
I wasn't arguing about the monopoly of force. Monopoly of force is the definition of a government. Anyone who believes you need a government automatically concedes that. That is why Jefferson and others knew the importance of reiterating our God given right to bear arms in the 2nd amendment. While the government has the monopoly on force, they need to know that can be taken away by the people that granted them that privilege.BoatShoes;1382518 wrote:And, one of the guys I was referring to was John Locke and his Two Treatises of Government. Thomas Jefferson...your boy...called him one of the three greatest men who ever lived....and he certainly made the case for the majoritarian government having the monopoly of force.
I was arguing your popular sovereignty nonsense. None of that is in the Constitution. The State is not sovereign. If you read the Declaration of Independence though, you see this country was founded on the sovereign individual. Only a sovereign has unalienable right to his or her life, liberty, and property. -
HitsRus
O-Trap;1382817 wrote:That's rather simplistic.
A 2-hour movie is created to be fictional entertainment, a fact that is not lost on the audience, but rather openly displayed in order to draw them.
A 30-second Super Bowl ad, or ANY ad, for that matter, spends its entirety trying to communicate an actualized or potential reality. It isn't intended to make money by entertaining people. It is intended to make money by convincing them that some part of their reality will be better by owning or using the product or service in question.
...assuming of course, an adult audience.
I think it can be proven that young minds are impressionable and subject to the influence of media. I think it is wrong to make this a national debate about guns without also including a discussion about the glorification of violence in the media. -
BoatShoes
No Russia is ot consudered A idern industrialized country n ar ith the G8. And Swutzerkand as heaviky Regulated private gun ownershio concurrent with MANDATORY CONSCRIPTION! This as already been covered At the beginning of the thread...the swiss make e their citizens swear An oath to Defend The country in place of an army! not close comparable when any yokel can get guns in the U.S.HitsRus;1382734 wrote:I didn't realize that Russia and Switzerland were not considered industrialized. In Russia guns are illegal but they have 5 times the gun violence. In Switzerland they have more guns but less violence. I realize that you want to pick countries that you think we should be like and that back your cause. But the fact is that the United States is not Europe, nor is it requisite that we emulate them. Historically, we have gone to great lengths to distance ourselves from them. England has always looked down their nose at us as uncultured backwater rubes. Moreover, as Bill Murray states in the movie comedy Stripes......our ancestors either left or "were kicked out of every decent country in Europe". (there's is always humor when a little truth is involved). We didn't want Europe, or they didn't want us....so I don't feel the need to be like Europe...in anything. What's right for their lilly white asses isn't necessarly what is right for a bunch of dog faced half breeds. The truth is we are a mixture of cultures and races with our own demographics and our own geography. We are not a homogenous group, but a country made up of different races and ethnicities that have often clashed. None of this has been made any better by getting rid of the 'melting pot' and replacing it with 'diversity". And none of it has been made better by an administration that seeks to increase its political power by dividing us up by class, race gender, sexual orientation and religion.
All this was hashed out months ago ITT.