The only thing stopping a bad guy with a gun is a 5 year old with a gun

Status
Not open for further replies.
the NRA does a pretty damn good job of amping up the fear game whenever it's discussed.
To be fair, it is in the best interests of Government (any government) to disarm the public. The less resistance the populace can muster, the better. Sure, it's Machiavellian (and Orwellian), but whatever. The trouble is that Government should not be acting in its own best interest, it should be acting in our best interest, so any regulations have to pass a sort of, "Is it what the Public wants/needs?" test (at least superficially) before anyone wants to be seen championing it.

--Patrick
 
A fair point, but right now 91% of the country is in support of background checks. Yet the NRA and their puppets in Congress talk of fascism and oppression at the mere mention of any new regulations. We're way past "Does the public want this?" Now we're just trying to answer "Why is a minority allowed to drive the discussion away from public will?"
 
Name Calling is a bad thing. Have a point.
To be fair, it is in the best interests of Government (any government) to disarm the public. The less resistance the populace can muster, the better. Sure, it's Machiavellian (and Orwellian), but whatever. The trouble is that Government should not be acting in its own best interest, it should be acting in our best interest, so any regulations have to pass a sort of, "Is it what the Public wants/needs?" test (at least superficially) before anyone wants to be seen championing it.

--Patrick
oh my god you're a fucking idiot if you think an armed public has any chance in hell against the US Military as it is now
 
Patr, this also intersects with my belief that the government should only do what it must do as opposed to doing what it can do. Many (you may or may not be included in this) see the second as necessary, whereas for me, the second is terrifying.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Name Calling is a bad thing. Have a point.
Thats my point exactly. Anytime there is talk about say, tightening up gun laws it becomes taking away "freedom" and "Hitler took their guns first!".

It's not extreme to want to see some basic, common sense gun laws that allow gun sales but work harder to stop them from being abused. However the NRA does a pretty damn good job of amping up the fear game whenever it's discussed.
There's a difference between
Clearly loaded weapons should not be left where toddlers can get hold of them. Ever.
and increasing gun control laws. I mean, you should never hand a toddler a sharpened knife, but that's not an argument for banning knives.[DOUBLEPOST=1367605096][/DOUBLEPOST]
oh my god you're a fucking idiot if you think an armed public has any chance in hell against the US Military as it is now
You're a fucking idiot. Full stop.

This debate has repeated hundreds of times on this board, ad nauseum. An armed populace does deter government abuse.[DOUBLEPOST=1367605180][/DOUBLEPOST]
A fair point, but right now 91% of the country is in support of background checks. Yet the NRA and their puppets in Congress talk of fascism and oppression at the mere mention of any new regulations. We're way past "Does the public want this?" Now we're just trying to answer "Why is a minority allowed to drive the discussion away from public will?"
Because simple majority rule is often wrong. Otherwise we'd still have segregation, for example. It's a republic, not a democracy.
 
Because simple majority rule is often wrong. Otherwise we'd still have segregation, for example. It's a republic, not a democracy.
But that's a separate argument. Pat's point was that Congress should always consider whether or not the public wants a law, rather than just doing what they want. I was pointing out that 91% of the country supports background checks, so that question is moot.

But to your point: majority rule is sometimes wrong. Not as often as you would like to portray it. And I don't think they're wrong on this one, either.
 
Because simple majority rule is often wrong. Otherwise we'd still have segregation, for example. It's a republic, not a democracy.
While this is very true, it doesn't make the OPPRESSIONDICTATORSHIPTYRANNY!!!11one argument any less false. As long as the latter is a major public talking point, it's worth pointing out that it's wrong.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
But that's a separate argument. Pat's point was that Congress should always consider whether or not the public wants a law, rather than just doing what they want. I was pointing out that 91% of the country supports background checks, so that question is moot.

But to your point: majority rule is sometimes wrong. Not as often as you would like to portray it. And I don't think they're wrong on this one, either.
Well, I only agree with Patr to a point, and one thing that does have to be taken into account is that the leaders need to legislate without regard to the emotional swelling of the moment. What were your thoughts when the majority of the US was (and still continues to be) in favor of repealing obamacare?

While this is very true, it doesn't make the OPPRESSIONDICTATORSHIPTYRANNY!!!11one argument any less false. As long as the latter is a major public talking point, it's worth pointing out that it's wrong.
I disagree. The 2nd amendment is the final guarantor of all the others. It is absolutely imperative that the right to keep and bear arms not be infringed.
 
Well, I only agree with Patr to a point, and one thing that does have to be taken into account is that the leaders need to legislate without regard to the emotional swelling of the moment. What were your thoughts when the majority of the US was (and still continues to be) in favor of repealing obamacare?
I'll agree that decisions should not be overly driven by emotions. As for "Obamacare," I believe that it should be repealed if that's what people want. If it has the votes in Congress then it should go. That's the whole point of Congress. As long as the laws they pass don't violate the constitution, it should be majority rule.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
I'll agree that decisions should not be overly driven by emotions. As for "Obamacare," I believe that it should be repealed if that's what people want. If it has the votes in Congress then it should go. That's the whole point of Congress. As long as the laws they pass don't violate the constitution, it should be majority rule.
Well, the polling on the issue doesn't match the votes in the senate, which has been the stumbling block. The House has repeatedly tried to repeal it, but will of the masses be damned, the democrat controlled upper house won't be moved. I'm in favor of repeal, but I also don't believe that every legislative vote must be required to go along with national polls. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this is what it means to be a republic.
 
I disagree. The 2nd amendment is the final guarantor of all the others. It is absolutely imperative that the right to keep and bear arms not be infringed.
I think you misconstrued what I said. Describing the government as "oppressive" and "tyrannical" or "dictatorial" in this case is demonstrably false. The "public needs/wants" condition that Patr mentioned has been completely satisfied, whether that in and of itself is sufficient to push forward with legislation or not.
 
Well, the polling on the issue doesn't match the votes in the senate, which has been the stumbling block. The House has repeatedly tried to repeal it, but will of the masses be damned, the democrat controlled upper house won't be moved. I'm in favor of repeal, but I also don't believe that every legislative vote must be required to go along with national polls. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this is what it means to be a republic.
When I talked about majority rule, I meant votes in Congress.

I'm having two arguments here, and you keep flipping between the two. Patr's claim that Congress should be worrying first and foremost about what serves the public best, and your discussion of republic versus direct democracy. To the first, I simply pointed out that the public is in favor of background checks and therefore Congress can/should be voting on it. To the second, I don't think every decision needs to be decided by a public poll. I'm well aware of how representative government works.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
I think you misconstrued what I said. Describing the government as "oppressive" and "tyrannical" or "dictatorial" in this case is demonstrably false. The "public needs/wants" condition that Patr mentioned has been completely satisfied, whether that in and of itself is sufficient to push forward with legislation or not.
Maybe I did misconstrue, it's actually pretty hectic here at work. But my point is that, you can't wait until a government IS tyrannical to assert the right to keep and bear arms - you have to assert it to prevent that state.

When I talked about majority rule, I meant votes in Congress.

I'm having two arguments here, and you keep flipping between the two. Patr's claim that Congress should be worrying first and foremost about what serves the public best, and your discussion of republic versus direct democracy. To the first, I simply pointed out that the public is in favor of background checks and therefore Congress can/should be voting on it. To the second, I don't think every decision needs to be decided by a public poll. I'm well aware of how representative government works.
I assert that the current public interest in increasing background checks is a knee-jerk emotional reaction to recent events for which background checks would have had no preventative effect, and thus can be tactfully ignored until it cools off.
 
Maybe I did misconstrue, it's actually pretty hectic here at work. But my point is that, you can't wait until a government IS tyrannical to assert the right to keep and bear arms - you have to assert it to prevent that state.
How does asserting that right keep the US government from assuming that state, especially today? And keep in mind, I'm arguing against your "no gun control ever" stance, not for the "guns banned everywhere" stance.

Because if we're heading for a police state, the 2nd amendment has currently done nothing to stop it. And if we're not heading for a police state, there's no credible reason to suggest that it's because of the 2nd amendment.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
How does asserting that right keep the US government from assuming that state, especially today? And keep in mind, I'm arguing against your "no gun control ever" stance, not for the "guns banned everywhere" stance.

Because if we're heading for a police state, the 2nd amendment has currently done nothing to stop it. And if we're not heading for a police state, there's no credible reason to suggest that it's because of the 2nd amendment.
Well, it's not a binary, "if 1 then 0." It's a deterrent, not a perfect failsafe. It gets back to the idea that government should fear the people and not vice versa. An unarmed populace is much more trivial to oppress than an armed one.

The exact gun bill in particular everybody's so butthurt over not having been passed recently, however, would have been a curtailing of 2nd amendment rights which would not have put any measures in place that would have helped to prevent the recent tragedies that have thrust the issue back into the limelight.

But do bear in mind that there have been a lot of people chipping away at the second amendment for a long time, trying to qualify what you can and can't buy, what you can and can't own, and so on. It's a political question as to how much infringing on that which shall not be infringed we're willing to put up with, apparently. But one thing that must be avoided at all costs is a national gun registry. That's bordering on darwin's law territory there.
 
any regulations have to pass a sort of, "Is it what the Public wants/needs?" test (at least superficially) before anyone wants to be seen championing it.
To somewhat clarify this point, it is my fervent opinion that our government's job is to look out for us, aid us, and in general act (and ENact) in a manner which consistently benefits a majority* of the population. However there are those who propose legislation that "does something" without actually accomplishing anything. Creating overly burdensome bureaucratic hurdles and registration fees (in the interest of Public Safety, of course) technically do not prohibit the purchase of personal arms, but they would effectively sidestep the 2nd amendment. That's why the language of the amendment says "infringed," and not "prohibited."

--Patrick
*Note that I explicitly state A majority, not THE majority. Policy should be written to maximize the benefit, not for the benefit of the masses. It's a fine point, but an important one. And my reason for this is that policy should not merely be for the benefit of the CURRENT population, it ideally should be crafted that it also benefits future population as well.
 
But do bear in mind that there have been a lot of people chipping away at the second amendment for a long time, trying to qualify what you can and can't buy, what you can and can't own, and so on.
Which does not make the country a police state, or even heading for one. The actions of a police state, or a state heading for one, are going to reveal themselves in the suppression of free speech and free assembly, citizen disenfranchisement, the removal of due process for "undesirables", and so on and so forth long before there's any kind of forceful affirmation of the descent into tyranny. You know, things that are not magically protected by the 2nd amendment.

Or to put it another way, I'm a lot more worried about things members of Congress say we need to to change in the Constitution to protect ourselves from Muslim terrorists than a background check bill that explicitly makes a national gun registry a federal felony.
 
Which does not make the country a police state, or even heading for one. The actions of a police state, or a state heading for one, are going to reveal themselves in the suppression of free speech and free assembly, citizen disenfranchisement, the removal of due process for "undesirables", and so on and so forth long before there's any kind of forceful affirmation of the descent into tyranny. You know, things that are not magically protected by the 2nd amendment.

Or to put it another way, I'm a lot more worried about things members of Congress say we need to to change in the Constitution to protect ourselves from Muslim terrorists than a background check bill that explicitly makes a national gun registry a federal felony.
It's been a long day for me (dealing with a death in the family), but I need to make a comment on the first point you made. Look at the Boston Bomber survivor, they wanted to not read him the Miranda list, he is a naturalized US citizen. That's just a quick example of desire to remove due process. Public opinion was treat him as a combatant, not a good idea, what would be the next step of broadening the definition of combatant, it's a very slippery slope.
 
That's just a quick example of desire to remove due process.
I'm sure there was pressure from the Insurance Industry to treat them as combatants, also. After all, many insurance policies don't have to pay out if the loss is determined to be an "Act of War." Would have been a great way to weasel out of making any of those life/property payments.

--Patrick
 
The child would not have been legally allowed to use his gun in public places, nor could have obtained a concealed carry license. So as far as the car/gun comparison, they are equivalent since the child couldn't have been fined for driving a car on their property. it isn't until he takes the car on public roads that a license matters. But if you want to torture it further, more children are killed every year in automotive mishaps with legal licensed drivers than gun discharges. Pretending that licensing guns like we license cars will quell gun violence is an apples to bowling balls comparison in the first place, but even if you could strain some sense out of such a tortured analogy you would find that drivers licensing doesn't compare favorably and would hurt your gun licensing argument. Besides which, most states do have a gun licensing law regarding carrying your gun in public places. Some allow open carry without license, but most require a license for concealed carry, and some don't allow open carry at all, effectively forcing all of their armed population to be licensed in order to use their guns in public areas.

You should rest easy at night, Charlie, knowing that everyone around you in Texas who is carrying a loaded handgun is licensed by the state. Unless, of course, you still don't feel safe, in which case you must admit that licensing really means very little in how safe you actually are from gun violence.

None of which is relevant because none of the gun legislation favored by either party would have prevented this child's death.

This is an issue of bad parenting, plain and simple, and quite frankly they are likely not the ones that will suffer the most due to their choice. Chances are their son, the child who killed his own sister, will never truly recover.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Everyone around you in Texas who is carrying a loaded handgun is licensed by the state. Unless, of course, you still don't feel safe, in which case you must admit that licensing really means very little in how safe you actually are from gun violence.
Damn, I wish I'd thought of that. No open carry + concealed carry license. I keep forgetting Texas doesn't allow open carry (mostly because I think it should).
/smacks head
 
if you don't think the NRA amasses power through terrorizing the public and spreading fear, you're not paying attention
I strongly disagree with your characterization, and though I admit they use some scare-mongering tactics, that is far cry from terrorism. Pull your head out of your ass.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
C'mon, you remember that marketplace the NRA shot up? No? What about that building the NRA bombed? Or that plane they hijacked!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top