Won't anyone think of the poor, sensitive Lawful Gun Owner?

[keepthefaith]

3 hours ago, LA Grant said:

 

You've got it entirely backwards, again, but whining and stomping your feet does not change reality. It's very simple. As has been demonstrated repeatedly, no logically sound counter-argument exists against "there should be stronger gun control in the US." Every counter, down to the last hold of "b-b-but 2A... f-f-freedom...," is filled with contradictions or baseless fantasy, each of which can be broken down. Only one side here has been providing supporting empirical evidence, and it's not the one you've decided to choose, apparently.

 

Pardon me for jumping in late. Have only read some of this thread.  It can be argued I suppose that over a couple hundred years the peoples right to bear "arms" has been infringed.  Arms capability has evolved significantly and restrictions on what arms the people can own have been put into place.  I can't buy a bazooka or a fully automatic gun legally.  The government's weapons today have a significant destructive advantage over what the people can own.  That wasn't so much the case back in the 1700's.  We've had a lot of rules creep over time. 

 

Strict constitutionalists can likely make very good arguments against further restrictions on gun ownership. 

 

What changes to the law are you suggesting?

[LA Grant]

Just now, jmc12290 said:

That's because several posters, most notably Tasker, has stated that even if you proved "common sense" gun laws worked in reducing school shooting, it wouldn't make a difference..

 

You refuse to go down rabbit holes that you yourself don't manufacture.  Follow Tasker's.  It'll be fun.

 

Not true on either point. "Wouldn't make a difference" is not what any of the data suggests to us — the most likely outcome is reform would lead to a tangibly positive difference, by almost all metrics. In fact, your own position isn't even that "it wouldn't make a difference" because if it were, what would be the harm in trying? Why oppose if there will be no difference? As national gun restrictions have never been attempted in the US, we can state with absolute certainty that we definitely do not know that it "wouldn't make a difference." Correct me if I'm wrong but it's more likely that your actual position is "It would make a difference, but I don't believe it would lead to the desired outcome." Which then begs the question, what does lead to the desired outcome then, and how?

 

The other point is also incorrect. Count them up.  I've gone down a great number of rabbit holes from others, including previous holes from Tasker. If he has a valid point, I'm sure The Smartest Man in the Room is more than capable of articulating himself but  I am tired of Tasker asking me to go in his hole, and I don't know how else to tell him I am not interested. ?

[ExiledInIllinois]

2 hours ago, jmc12290 said:

Nope, I'm protecting you.  Every second.  Every day.  Be grateful, dopey.  I'm the mother deer and you're Bambi.

Are people really this stupid?  They know we like, fight wars and sacrifice lives for our rights, right?

Well please stop.  Don't need you, thank you.

[IDBillzFan]

7 minutes ago, jmc12290 said:

Do you remember when you asked questions about the First Amendment to make points about the Second Amendment?

 

Why can't you extend a courtesy you were already given pages ago?

 

He's  already told you why. There is no logical argument against gun control.

 

The science  is settled. There is only one truth: Global warming cooling climate change gun control must take place, and to deny it means you value product over children's lives.

[LA Grant]

49 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

 

Pardon me for jumping in late. Have only read some of this thread.  It can be argued I suppose that over a couple hundred years the peoples right to bear "arms" has been infringed.  Arms capability has evolved significantly and restrictions on what arms the people can own have been put into place.  I can't buy a bazooka or a fully automatic gun legally.  The government's weapons today have a significant destructive advantage over what the people can own.  That wasn't so much the case back in the 1700's.  We've had a lot of rules creep over time. 

 

Strict constitutionalists can likely make very good arguments against further restrictions on gun ownership. 

 

What changes to the law are you suggesting?

 

The strict constitutionalist argument would say you should be able to buy a bazooka or a fully automatic gun, with unregulated access even, as those are arms which would therefore be a guaranteed right under 2A. Right? Most of us are glad that's not the case (although you can legally buy grenade launchers or other artillery in certain places, actually; they're just highly regulated). 

 

Furthermore, 2A has been interpreted differently multiple times over the years, depending on which judges are deciding. Until recently, the common interpretation was that 2A guaranteed arms only to militia, not ordinary, non-law-enforcement citizens. But even if we interpret 2A the way the NRA prefers,  that every Joe Schmo has the right to own arms (which to be fair, is the law of the land, as of the '08 Supreme Court decision), including the Parkland shooter, then the strict constitutionalist argument against gun control is still contradicted by the restrictions on other amendments, notably 1A.

 

The Amendments have been interpreted & limited several times throughout US history, for both "left" & "right" reasons, correct? If the strict constitutionalist argument says that all interpretations are invalid without an additional amendment stating the change, that instead, the Bill of Rights should be followed to the letter of the law, then they're just as much advocating for the citizens right to own child pornography  (a necessary restriction on 1A) as you are for citizens to own infantry weapons (a theoretical restriction on 2A).  Or if the strict constitutionalist argument says we must only follow the Founders intent, then this also brings problems: there's a clear case to be made that 2A was drafted with militias in mind, as in local militias would be the only chance to oppose a strong national army. Once you get into intent, then comes the whole thing of "well maybe you should only be able to buy muskets, cannons, and 1700s arms." 

 

Bottom line, the strict constitutionalist argument is mostly bunk and provides no practical solution to the problem of modern gun violence. Our government must be contextual and current. The Bill of Rights, including 2A, are principles that we live by. The principles must be applied to the modern context, as that's a little easier than trying to force reality to fit the document, yeah? The Founders were not wizards. They could not have envisioned problems like pornography being free speech, and then child pornography obviously not being free speech. They also probably did not envision Nikolas Cruz, a kid with more red flags than a Chinese parade, legally buying an AR-15 a block from his school and then using it on his classmates. To suggest that the Founders did intend that is to suggest that they intended the United States to be chaotic and fearful, which of course they did not. It is more likely that they hoped for a citizenry that could debate & solve problems following their example. "Doing nothing" is not a solution, and there's not any compelling argument in favor of it, other than to make some dark assumptions about how we're "supposed" to be living.

 

As to what laws are being suggested — universal background tests/registration for all sales on arms going forward, aka the "common sense gun reform" that most Americans already agree about. For more, see this post from a page or two back:

 

 

Edited March 2, 2018 by LA Grant

[TakeYouToTasker]

The argument that restrictions on the right to bear arm are the same as prohibitions against child porn have already been dissected in this thread.

 

To rehash:

 

We can understand their intentions surrounding each amendment and other Constitutional provision by revisiting the supporting documents directly related to the Constitution, the various State Constitutions, and the circumstances under which the Constitution was penned.

 

The Constitution was necessitated because the men writing had just been required, due to the infringement of their rights by their government, to overthrow that government and institute a new one.  In response to this necessity, and to the British Crown exacting a form of gun control on the colonists, they specifically enumerated an absolute protection by this new government of their right to possess arms sufficient to this task.  This guarantee was built on the acknowledgement that this was a fundamental natural right of free people.

 

 

It is also easy to see the intent of the Founders in regards to the protection of speech.  As the Second Amendment was written in response to British gun control in order to make it harder for the colonists to resist their oppressors, the First Amendment was written in response to the Crown's restrictions on political speech.  The Founders, if not Puritans themselves (many of the most prominent were not) came from Puritanical times, and lived in a society of Puritanical mores and culture.  The Founders would not have considered inanimate objects with no political value depicting sexualized children to be speech.  As such, the Federal government, with no role prescribed to it in regards to pornography, would have left the issue to the individual states, where the overwhelming majority of the law US citizens were expect to follow was intended to be implemented.  And, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, I expect that by 2018 the several states all would have made child porn illegal at the insistence of their individual citizenry.

 

The argument that the protections offered by the Second Amendment are invalid because we have no way of knowing if the Founders wanted people to have pictures of adults !@#$ing children is, itself, invalid.

Edited March 2, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[keepthefaith]

40 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

The strict constitutionalist argument would say you should be able to buy a bazooka or a fully automatic gun, with unregulated access, even, as those are arms, which would therefore be a guaranteed right under 2A. Right? Most of us are glad that's not the case (although, in fact, you can legally buy grenade launchers or other artillery in certain places, they are just highly regulated). 

 

Furthermore, 2A has been interpreted differently multiple times over the years, depending on which judges are deciding. Until recently, the common interpretation was that 2A guaranteed arms only to militia, not ordinary, non-law-enforcement citizens. But even if we interpret 2A the way the NRA prefers, that every Joe Schmo has the right to own arms, the strict constitutionalist argument is also contradicted by the restrictions on other amendments, notably 1A.

 

In other words, the Amendments have been interpreted and limited several times throughout US history, for both "left" & "right" reasons. If the strict constitutionalist argument says that all interpretations are invalid, that the Bill of Rights should be followed to the letter of the law, then you're just as much advocating for the citizens right to own child pornography  (a necessary restriction on 1A) as you are for citizens to own infantry weapons (a theoretical restriction on 2A).  Or if the strict constitutionalist argument says we must only follow the Founders intent, then this also brings problems: there's a clear case to be made that 2A was drafted with militias in mind, as in local militias would be the only chance to oppose a strong national army. 

 

Bottom line, the strict constitutionalist argument is mostly bunk.

 

As to what laws are being suggested — universal background tests/registration for all sales on arms going forward, aka the "common sense gun reform" that most Americans already agree about. For more, see this post from a page or two back:

 

 

 

Colonel Ralph Peters made a decent pitch recently on why the AR-15 should be banned or limited.  Apologies if this has been posted before.  Personally I wouldn't have a problem eliminating or significantly restricting the sale of these guns and I'm not opposed to a more thorough background system and some kind of additional training requirement if laws were passed.  I don't see any of these 3 changes as too limiting with the possible exception of psychological restrictions.  Where exactly do you draw the line there? 

 

I also don't see these changes saving many lives.  In the Florida example there was a succession of failures that allowed that !@#$ to do what he did.  I will say this though, had the officer on site confronted the shooter the officer would have been at a disadvantage weapons-wise.  It's truly sad that an officer was there and chose retirement over doing his job.  Schools if they want to prevent this IMO have to have well trained, experienced and armed police or others on site.  Otherwise they are a very soft target.  In the Florida case though the shooter probably knew there was an officer in the school.  That didn't stop him from doing it.  Our district has armed police officers in most of the schools.  Maybe all of them.

 

In Vegas it took too long to disarm the shooter and the target was very soft.

 

We already have laws on the books making it illegal to shoot a bunch of people or threaten to do so or run people over with a truck.  Those laws haven't stopped the attacks. Tighter gun laws likely won't prevent the bad apples from using high speed and high capacity guns.  They'll get them or build them. 

 

In this political climate I don't see much federal law change happening. 

 

Peters.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5739834858001/?#sp=show-clips

 

 

 

Edited March 2, 2018 by keepthefaith

[LA Grant]

27 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

Colonel Ralph Peters made a decent pitch recently on why the AR-15 should be banned or limited.  Apologies if this has been posted before.  Personally I wouldn't have a problem eliminating or significantly restricting the sale of these guns and I'm not opposed to a more thorough background system and some kind of additional training requirement if laws were passed.  I don't see any of these 3 changes as too limiting with the possible exception of psychological restrictions.  Where exactly do you draw the line there? 

 

I also don't see these changes saving many lives.  In the Florida example there was a succession of failures that allowed that !@#$ to do what he did.  I will say this though, had the officer on site confronted the shooter the officer would have been at a disadvantage weapons-wise.  It's truly sad that an officer was there and chose retirement over doing his job.  Schools if they want to prevent this IMO have to have well trained, experienced and armed police or others on site.  Otherwise they are a very soft target.  In the Florida case though the shooter probably knew there was an officer in the school.  That didn't stop him from doing it.  Our district has armed police officers in most of the schools.  Maybe all of them.

 

In Vegas it took too long to disarm the shooter and the target was very soft.

 

We already have laws on the books making it illegal to shoot a bunch of people or threaten to do so or run people over with a truck.  Those laws haven't stopped the attacks. Tighter gun laws likely won't prevent the bad apples from using high speed and high capacity guns.  They'll get them or build them. 

 

In this political climate I don't see much federal law change happening. 

 

No need to apologize, for one. The debate has been going for years & I'm sure we've all been through versions of this multiple times. Instead, thank you for talking specific measures and offering your position honestly. This is the conversation that's most fruitful: what can be done, how, and when? 

 

I'm not even sure that I personally am in favor of banning the AR-15, or banning anything. I have seen compelling arguments that the AR-15s prominence is because it's a versatile, quality weapon, rather than it being uniquely dangerous to other available firearms, and that banning AR-15s would not do much to curb mass shootings, but it would piss off Lawful Gun Owners. I think that Chicago's high rate of gun violence, despite local laws banning handguns, also shows that bans don't work, because guns still come in from out-of-state. A lot of the Chicago blackmarket is supplied by guns purchased legally in Indiana, as it turns out. Now as much as I concede these points to "gun bans don't work," I'll also represent the other side, which is that we don't know how much worse Chicago might be with gun violence without the ban. 

 

The current laws are not enough, and the rate of mass shootings & overall gun violence is proof. Maybe the guard could have done more, maybe not. Instead of hoping for Super Soldier Guards any place a mass shooter may want to strike, would it not make more sense to restrict access to guns? Universal background checks will not stop all gun violence, but it is incredibly likely that it could dramatically reduce it. The idea that he would have found another way anyway— maybe; we can't know. But we don't need to make it so easy, do we? If he wants to try to build a bomb, or pull that sh*t with a samurai sword, then I like the security guard's chances better, because the psycho kid isn't armed with an infantry weapon. In terms of "where do you draw the line?" or how does it work in practice? Compare it to the DMV or to applying at Wal-Mart. Buying a gun should be that difficult and that simple. For a Lawful Gun Owner who isn't going to go shoot up a school, this is a mild inconvenience. For the Parkland shooter, he wouldn't have been able to get it; his red flags would have mattered.

 

There are two bills proposed right now that include strengthening background checks. One of them actually does it, and the other only kind of does it. The one that Trump specifically mentioned is, unfortunately, the weaker proposal. This lays out the differences between the two bills: https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/26/politics/chuck-schumer-background-checks-parkland/index.html

 

Politically that means Democrats are either accepting another half-measure, or they're opposing gun legislation. It's the kind of double-bind that the Republicans have perfected, so, hooray for winning. If only the half-measure bill is passed, it may perhaps help, but it will still not be the common sense solution that most people support; instead, it will be pointed to, like Chicago, as evidence that gun control doesn't work. But maybe Chuck Schumer's bill gets another shot after the mid-terms, who knows. It's never surprising to see Democrats blow "a sure thing" for their own incompetence, although in their defense, they haven't been working as hard at gerrymandering as the other guys. This is why our politics are garbage in this country, it's nothing but games and charades to score fantasy points.

Edited March 2, 2018 by LA Grant

[LA Grant]

44 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

The argument that restrictions on the right to bear arm are the same as prohibitions against child porn have already been dissected in this thread.

 

To rehash:

 

We can understand their intentions surrounding each amendment and other Constitutional provision by revisiting the supporting documents directly related to the Constitution, the various State Constitutions, and the circumstances under which the Constitution was penned.

 

The Constitution was necessitated because the men writing had just been required, due to the infringement of their rights by their government, to overthrow that government and institute a new one.  In response to this necessity, and to the British Crown exacting a form of gun control on the colonists, they specifically enumerated an absolute protection by this new government of their right to possess arms sufficient to this task.  This guarantee was built on the acknowledgement that this was a fundamental natural right of free people.

 

 

It is also easy to see the intent of the Founders in regards to the protection of speech.  As the Second Amendment was written in response to British gun control in order to make it harder for the consists to resist their oppressors, the First Amendment was written in response to the Crown's restrictions on political speech.  The Founders, if not Puritans themselves (many of the most prominent were not) came from Puritanical times, and lived in a society of Puritanical mores and culture.  The Founders would not have considered inanimate objects with no political value depicting sexualized children to be speech.  As such, the Federal government, with no role prescribed to it in regards to pornography, would have left the issue to the individual states, where the overwhelming majority of the law US citizens were expect to follow was intended to be implemented.  And, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, I expect that by 2018 the several states all would have made child porn illegal at the insistence of their individual citizenry.

 

The argument that the protections offered by the Second Amendment are invalid because we have no way of knowing if the Founders wanted people to have pictures of adults !@#$ing children is, itself, invalid.

 

So part of why we disagree is just because you've been sneaky and dishonest, but part of it is also that we just fundamentally disagree on the role of government. Because in the alternate universe where child porn is only illegal through state law, then it's probably also legal in certain states, right? Would it also follow that you'd then also support gun restrictions as state law, just simply not on the national level? (Either way, I assume that your view of Dick's or Wal-Mart making changes to how they choose to sell guns is also acceptable, yes?) If so, then that is at least consistent. 

 

It wouldn't be the most practical solution to either problem. But it would at least be consistent.

 

[BringBackOrton]

6 hours ago, LA Grant said:

 

So part of why we disagree is just because you've been sneaky and dishonest, but part of it is also that we just fundamentally disagree on the role of government. Because in the alternate universe where child porn is only illegal through state law, then it's probably also legal in certain states, right? Would it also follow that you'd then also support gun restrictions as state law, just simply not on the national level? (Either way, I assume that your view of Dick's or Wal-Mart making changes to how they choose to sell guns is also acceptable, yes?) If so, then that is at least consistent. 

 

It wouldn't be the most practical solution to either problem. But it would at least be consistent.

 

That would actually be inconsistent with the way the US government works. The Second Amendment is specified in the Constitution. Child Pornoraphy is not. What is not specified in the Constitution is left up to the state level.

 

It's actually shocking how so few understand the US government. Now that's not all their fault but still.

Edited March 2, 2018 by jmc12290

[LA Grant]

Just now, jmc12290 said:

That would actually be inconsistent with the way the US government works. The Second Amendment is specified in the Constitution. Child Pornoraphy is not. What is not specified in the Constitiion is left up to the state level.

 

It's actually shocking how so few understand the US government.

 

jmc, to call your comprehension skills "childlike" would be a disservice to children. Children are capable of learning eventually.

[BringBackOrton]

7 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

jmc, to call your comprehension skills "childlike" would be a disservice to children. Children are capable of learning eventually.

You don't understand the design of the US gov. That's why you came back with nothing. You've demonstrated that several times in this topic, but most clearly right now. 

 

 You lost

[LA Grant]

7 minutes ago, jmc12290 said:

You don't understand the design of the US gov. That's why you came back with nothing. You've demonstrated that several times in this topic, but most clearly right now. 

 

 You lost

 

Yeah, that's probably it.

 

Here jmc, a thought exercise:  Define what is & is not "speech."  Then define what is & is not "arms."  Before you get your crayons, you may want to go out onto the world wide web and see what others have had to say about these definitions — including real live members of the United States gubbamint! And remember to keep the crayons in your hands and not your mouth. What do we say about crayons, jmc? They're not for eating.

 

[row_33]

Why do you fight with LA Grant, after two exchanges it’s clearly going nowhere

[Warren Zevon]

the real question should be...

 

what's the true definition of a store?

[DC Tom]

16 hours ago, LA Grant said:

 

Whose rights, Sir Thomas? "All of our rights, you *@!^*!(^ idiot!"  Sorry, no, bumper sticker rhetoric isn't doing it any longer. Your BS is getting called out. 

 

My point wasn't that he was correct.  It was that you didn't even understand his post.  This is why you're impossible to discuss things with: you're !@#$ing retarded.

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

My point wasn't that he was correct.  It was that you didn't even understand his post.  This is why you're impossible to discuss things with: you're !@#$ing retarded.

Oh, I'm pretty sure he understood it quite well, Tom.  It's the reason he won't answer questions related to his position.

 

He's a neo-Marxist.  He's advocating for undoing 250 years of US history and encoding a new value system into law.  He's using this tragedy to market his value system, but he's treading very lightly in doing so because he doesn't want people to understand exactly what he's marketing.  He is, instead, bludgeoning the argument with an emotional appeal to a single narrow issue, while being intentionally dismissive of all others that are necessarily related.

 

It's why he won't answer the question related to priori, and why he has engaged in unprovoked ad homs and other various fallacious appeals in order to avoid engaging on those points.  You'll note that in his most recent response to me he make a point to take the time to call me "sneaky and dishonest", which is a bald faced lie, as he knows I've been direct and engaging; as opposed to engaging the argument itself.

Edited March 2, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[IDBillzFan]

10 hours ago, keepthefaith said:

I also don't see these changes saving many lives

 

Unfortunately, this is the flaw in your entire post. 

 

You want to make concessions, but you also admit it really won't do anything. Everyone knows this. Even the left. They don't want to restrict more guns to save lives. They want to restrict more guns because they trust the government over the individual. They must have the government in charge of everything because they are unable to take care of themselves. This is why they piss on ideas of self-accountability and self-responsibility.

 

They NEED the government to run all things.

 

Subsequently, you don't make concessions just to make them stop crying. You fight back with options that WILL make a difference. The problem, as LA Grant repeatedly states, is that they are not interested in your ideas. Only their own. As he stated, and most leftists agree, there is no argument against more gun control, so just shut up and give them the guns.

 

 

[DC Tom]

30 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

Unfortunately, this is the flaw in your entire post. 

 

You want to make concessions, but you also admit it really won't do anything. Everyone knows this. Even the left. They don't want to restrict more guns to save lives. They want to restrict more guns because they trust the government over the individual. They must have the government in charge of everything because they are unable to take care of themselves. This is why they piss on ideas of self-accountability and self-responsibility.

 

They NEED the government to run all things.

 

Subsequently, you don't make concessions just to make them stop crying. You fight back with options that WILL make a difference. The problem, as LA Grant repeatedly states, is that they are not interested in your ideas. Only their own. As he stated, and most leftists agree, there is no argument against more gun control, so just shut up and give them the guns.

 

 

 

Not all things.  They're perfectly happy to delegate the regulation of speech to Google and Facebook, for example...

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

Not all things.  They're perfectly happy to delegate the regulation of speech to Google and Facebook, for example...

They take a more active personal role on campus.